> seems to imply It doesn't. It's crucial to understand how the socioeconomic landscape was shaped in context. Policies and historical movements are relevant t

> seems to imply It doesn't. It's crucial to understand how the socioeconomic landscape was shaped in context. Policies and historical movements are relevant to the analysis. Social factors such as racism/sexism are considered in "socioeconomic" analysis. > Is that what you believe No, I don't follow your reasoning. From an analysis perspective, you claimed that society would benefit from ignoring racism/sexism (social factors) in evaluating "amenities" associated with socioeconomic status. I think this provides lower resolution into issues plaguing society, not higher resolution.