2 ms·
> considers themselves 'middle class' They don't consider themselves middle class, statistically they are middle class based on (income, wealth, purchasing pow
by wolverine876 3y ago
> considers themselves 'middle class'
They don't consider themselves middle class, statistically they are middle class based on (income, wealth, purchasing power, etc.). They aren't out of touch - nobody asked them - they just live where there's a higher cost of living. But it pays off, or they would move someplace less expensive, and housing would cost the same nationwide.
- briHass 3y agoThey are not middle class by any metric. They may feel overextended, but that can happen at any income level, and (as in this case) is often due to the spending side of the equation.
- wolverine876 3y agoThey are by the metric in the article, and in the scope of their locale. I get your point, that they have lots of money. But at the same time it's not relevant: Just moving doesn't solve any problems, because they'd be much less productive in their new destination and have much less money. They are gathered around and investing in - very successfully and productively - the high-productivity resources of NYC, which produce higher income, which produce a higher standard of living. The average US locality's economy produces more wealth and requires more expense to live in than the average locality in a low-income country. You can't just move the Americans to the low-income country; they wouldn't be nearly as productive, and thus have less income. NYC's economy is more productive than almost any place in the world. We could widen the scope to all of human history, and then we're all unimaginably wealthy compared to hunter-gatherers we were until 10K years ago. But does that mean we're just as wealthy here and now?