5 ms·
Bollocks. Half of the families in London sitting on hundreds of thousands in net worth earned around median in their primes. The same is likely true in SF and
by esotericn 7y ago
Bollocks.
Half of the families in London sitting on hundreds of thousands in net worth earned around median in their primes.
The same is likely true in SF and elsewhere.
- human20190310 7y agoLondon and San Francisco are not typical cases though. Most people earning median income, but living elsewhere, did not participate in a housing market with such dramatic price increases. (As a side note, it's now impossible for people earning median income to participate in those markets, due to the expense). EDIT: That said, I do think that income is over-emphasized in categorizing people as rich or not. A person who lucked into a house that went up in value might not feel rich, but they definitely are richer than the person that has to borrow a million more dollars to live in the house next door.
- harryh 7y agoAnd even for people who have most of their net worth tied up in appreciated housing have high incomes when you count imputed rent. Which, if you are not counting, you are just being silly.
- harryh 7y agoAnd those people now have high incomes due to the return on capital they can get from their net worth.
- esotericn 7y agoAddressed in my OP. The man on the clapham omnibus will not tell you that a person who owns a house and works in the supermarket has a high income. They might say that they're rich though. Because wealth is the thing that makes you rich.