3 ms·
I would imagine that an editor chooses headlines based on their readership, would they not? My judgement may be off here, but is a WSJ reader more likely to be
by consumer451 4y ago
I would imagine that an editor chooses headlines based on their readership, would they not?
My judgement may be off here, but is a WSJ reader more likely to be a landlord or a tenant?
- tomrod 4y agoGoes both ways I reckon. A lot of folks rent.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoIt's a bit surprising for the WSJ to include obviously clickbait words in their headlines.
- paxys 4y agoDefinitely landlord. WSJ has also been pushing the "no one wants to work anymore", "quiet quitting", "WFH workers are unproductive/cheating" etc. narrative pretty hard. They (and their readership) have been center-right for a long time now.
- bin_bash 4y agoI bet the paying ones are landlords. WSJ costs hundreds per year and they're stingy with discounts. Apple News is one way to get it cheap, but you've gotta use that reader.
- autoexec 4y agoI just wait for the good articles to show up on HN and hit the archive link. No wonder they aren't tailoring headlines to my interests.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y agoLots of wall street people rent. Renting is actually a good experience if you're rich and nothing is for sale in Manhattan anyway so there's not much of a choice.
- bin_bash 4y agoI think Barron's is probably more targeted to people that actually work on Wall Street. I suspect Manhattan finance people make up <1% of the people that subscribe to WSJ.
- em500 4y agoYup. The main attraction of buying/owning vs renting is reduction of risk/uncertainty. If you're rich (>double-digit million net worth) and not stupid (hold your entire net worth in crypto coins), you don't have to care about uncertainly. With 10M net worth, you can get a few 10k from just interests or dividends, so you can rent something pretty nice anywhere in the world on a whim.
- goodpoint 4y agoAlso because of tax reasons I guess. But that demographic does not care very much about lowering rents.