The top 10% of earners—households making about $250,000 a year or more—are splurging on everything from vacations to designer handbags, buoyed by big gains in stocks, real estate and other assets.
Those consumers now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%.
The top-level post uses a gift link. When it runs out, there is an archived copy of the article.
Right. Anything to avoid admitting you have some control over your situation.
deleted by creator
I’m definitely not a libertarian.
We have a lot of room though and should spread out. Supply and demand. It won’t be glamorous at first, but we should be investing in making more places livable.
Think about it like this. There are already people who live in those areas that “aren’t good enough” for you. Why should you get more before they do? Doesn’t it make more sense to improve those areas which will increase the supply of livable places?
The fact we never discuss these things shows how far removed we are from wanting actual solutions to our actual problems. It’s why things are the way they are, to be honest.
deleted by creator
That’s fine. Instead of arguing against building and improving housing outside of major cities to increase the supply, you could be arguing in favor of it?
That way, there’s more supply to meet the demand. This should (in theory) reduce prices because there’s more to go around for the people who want to buy it.
deleted by creator
Slow and steady. Major cities don’t pop up overnight anywhere.
You need to be willing to appreciate a more modest lifestyle and perhaps make less money overall in the process, though. I don’t expect you to give up your entitlement to luxuries and you’ll look for any argument to justify why you deserve more while others have less.