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.
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.
I grew up in the country side working on farms. Post covid I can’t even afford a house there because boomers priced me out. My expectations have been meager my whole life. It took me six months to land a shitty 60s falling down 2 bedroom place during our housing crises. In Australia many people get evicted after 12 months and lose their savings to moving costs. You Americans need to stop telling people from other countries what to do.
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.
The only way expansion works I’m Australia is if we build new cities like what they have in Europe and US. Commuting 3 hours to work is not feasible for anyone.