5 ms·

The comment is dismissive, but the point stands. The grandparent comment comes off awfully entitled considering all of life’s basic needs seem to be covered and

The comment is dismissive, but the point stands. The grandparent comment comes off awfully entitled considering all of life’s basic needs seem to be covered and they outright own multiple vehicles in perhaps the highest cost of living area in the United States. Not to mention, the higher proportion of income going toward housing is likely the consequence of protectionist measures to keep the riff raff out and maintain as much status for their children as their income possibly allows. Move to a worse school district and you’re likely to see your housing cost go down by a factor of 50%. Not to mention, the grandparent freely admits to putting money away for the kids, I assume this means college savings of some sort. I’m making a great deal of assumptions but not being able to go to Disney land at the drop of a hat seems awfully trite.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nilkn 7y ago
I think you really are missing the point, though. You may have found the comment entitled, but I don’t think there was anything fundamentally offensive about it, and your reaction reflects more about your discomfort with the existence of the upper middle class than it does about the actual topic under consideration. No one is asking you to feel sorry for them — they’re just illustrating a point about where money gets spent in the US economy. Dual income families are — and for decades have been — spending their extra second income on housing rather than the rest of the economy. The comment you’re referring to is therefore very relevant because it shows that trend in action. Housing — and other opportunities in life it enables, like access to schools, (real life) social networks, safety, etc. — supersedes everything else in importance for many families, so second incomes are just spent on what is ultimately a bidding war over housing.
- jdbernard 7y ago
  And I would like to emphasize your point and add that the dismissive observation really isn't helpful because the main point is especially true for those who really do struggle. If the highest-earners of the middle-class have their discretionary income locked up in housing costs, how much more difficult is it for those who don't have the same level of income. Housing then eats into non-discretionary expenses.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nilkn 7y ago

I think you really are missing the point, though. You may have found the comment entitled, but I don’t think there was anything fundamentally offensive about it, and your reaction reflects more about your discomfort with the existence of the upper middle class than it does about the actual topic under consideration. No one is asking you to feel sorry for them — they’re just illustrating a point about where money gets spent in the US economy. Dual income families are — and for decades have been — spending their extra second income on housing rather than the rest of the economy. The comment you’re referring to is therefore very relevant because it shows that trend in action. Housing — and other opportunities in life it enables, like access to schools, (real life) social networks, safety, etc. — supersedes everything else in importance for many families, so second incomes are just spent on what is ultimately a bidding war over housing.

jdbernard 7y ago
And I would like to emphasize your point and add that the dismissive observation really isn't helpful because the main point is especially true for those who really do struggle. If the highest-earners of the middle-class have their discretionary income locked up in housing costs, how much more difficult is it for those who don't have the same level of income. Housing then eats into non-discretionary expenses.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]