4 ms·
Perhaps, but I think that the definition of bourgeois lifestyle has expanded to include those who simply have 2 children, rent a sfh and perhaps retire at some
by jfghi 3y ago
Perhaps, but I think that the definition of bourgeois lifestyle has expanded to include those who simply have 2 children, rent a sfh and perhaps retire at some point.
- Kamq 3y agoIt has only expanded to mean that in the couple of most expensive cities to live in in the world. And, really, having a single family home in, say, the middle of new york city IS a marker of wealth. You're displacing however many people could live there if there were apartments.
- georgyo 3y agoA single family home can be an apartment. It's a _home_ not necessarily a house. Just like a 600 sqft studio in Manhattan can be a "mansion" because it is over a million dollars. Many people living in New York rent, with no ability to afford a down payment to own. The maker of wealth is not them.
- Kamq 3y agoGenerally speaking, at least with in realty, a single family home is a term used to mean a specific thing. Specifically, a single-family home has no shared property but is built on its own parcel of land. Additionally it can have no common-walls. So townhomes and apartments do not count. This is also called a detached-home in some places. And based on the context from the earlier post, I'm pretty sure what they meant, but if jfghi comes back and clarifies, I'll withdraw my statement. I don't think anyone thinks renting an apartment is bourgeoisie. However, renting a detached-home in the middle of Manhattan would definitely qualify. Edit, including a source from realtor.com about their definition: https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/what-is-a-single-family-home/ https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/what-is-a-single-family-h...