Does anyone else have trouble getting invested in articles on income inequality or demographic economics when there are lines like this: "For each of the two y

Does anyone else have trouble getting invested in articles on income inequality or demographic economics when there are lines like this: "For each of the two years he was on Kimmel, Allison earned about $208,000, which in Los Angeles, the second-most-expensive city in the U.S., represents a middle-class lifestyle" That amount of money would put you in the top 10% for Los Angeles for household income - which means if you had no dependents (or a spouse that at least made some money) you'd easily be top 5%. In no way is that middle class. There are similar articles like this: https://www.laweekly.com/news/it-takes-nearly-100-000-a-year-in-income-to-rent-an-average-la-house-5289964 https://www.laweekly.com/news/it-takes-nearly-100-000-a-year... which seem to use stretch metrics to make a point. It says you need 100,000 to rent the median house. First, it doesn't say how much you need to rent any house. Second, the city of Los Angeles is mostly apartments for those without children so you would need far less than 100,000. The only reason you would need a house is if you were a couple - but in the case getting close to 100,000 in combined income is much more achievable than doing it solo. I know neither of these points speak to the larger point of the article - but it becomes harder to take the rest of the article seriously when they stretch the economic truth so much. As a resident of Los Angeles I can attest people get by with many magnitudes less than 200,000.