That's a pretty crazy stat, especially considering the skewed distribution of those high-income households towards high-COL urban areas. It points toward entire areas of the US sliding into...
That's a pretty crazy stat, especially considering the skewed distribution of those high-income households towards high-COL urban areas. It points toward entire areas of the US sliding into economic irrelevance.
The data disagrees somewhat with the Bloomberg article, although that one does indicate that their number is a rough estimate; I assume the methodology is different between the two data sets. Regardless, I think it paints a pretty clear picture of wealth centralizing in certain locations. The distribution of these market-driving households is unequal now and I would not assume based on current trends that the centralizing effect will reverse anytime soon.
It does paint an interesting picture of a dual economic reality, one where things in certain states are looking more or less fine, while other states are missing out on the bulk of consumer spending. Of note, of the 19 states that voted blue in 2024, 14 of those are the top 14 in that state income ranking. The lower ranks of that list are similarly biased heavily towards red states. Given that conservative populism is focusing strongly on a message of economic dissatisfaction, I think the issue is salient to a number of concerns beyond simple economics.
There are two ways to look at it. The more popular view amongst economists is that cities are way more economically productive, so they've had faster growth ever since industrialization. Basically...
entire areas of the US sliding into economic irrelevance.
There are two ways to look at it. The more popular view amongst economists is that cities are way more economically productive, so they've had faster growth ever since industrialization. Basically every country in the world has continued urbanizing because it makes economic sense for most people. It's much easier to transfer people and goods around one metro area than an entire country's land area.
Some rurals will say they're not getting enough economic investment, but that has never been true. Rural, Republican areas are absolute welfare queens that take far more in federal funding than they pay in taxes (opposite of cities). If more housing was built in cities, we'd likely see even more people move to major metro areas. In countries that build enough housing and have significantly cheaper cities, we see even higher percentages of the population moving to cities.
While the economic anxiety explanation does have correlations with the data, I'm far more convinced that racial and cultural animus explains why these areas broke for Trump. He says the quiet part out loud all the time, and many rurals love him for it. I don't know how things will change, but all the data since Obama's election paints a pretty clear picture of racism.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
― Lyndon B. Johnson
Buy them off? Among liberals there’s this push back against explicitly helping white and/or male Americans. Sorry but politics requires building coalitions. You might need to appease more than...
I don't know how things will change, but all the data since Obama's election paints a pretty clear picture of racism.
Buy them off? Among liberals there’s this push back against explicitly helping white and/or male Americans. Sorry but politics requires building coalitions. You might need to appease more than your ideological core to win.
I see this argument all the time, but its the opposite of what the republicans are doing and they’re winning. They’re appeasing only their ideological base and no one else, and thats what wins...
I see this argument all the time, but its the opposite of what the republicans are doing and they’re winning.
They’re appeasing only their ideological base and no one else, and thats what wins them elections.
What I think might be the issue here is that the democratic party is attempting to cover literally everyone else, and thats way too many ideologies to run a successful campaign.
The GOP might be, but Trump isn’t. He’s notably good at extending his reach beyond the base. Yes, he has his core red hats, but there are millions out there who didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020...
The GOP might be, but Trump isn’t. He’s notably good at extending his reach beyond the base. Yes, he has his core red hats, but there are millions out there who didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020 who did in 2024.
You have to have a core for the primaries, but ultimately you need to reach out further for the general elections. Going back to the GP, white men comprise about a third of the population. Even if you can never win them outright, eating into the margin is immensely helpful given their presence in every state, and can help flip downballot races.
His core isn’t just white men, it includes everyone thats trying to uphold the current social hierarchy which has white men at the top. The democratic stance is just disruption of that social...
His core isn’t just white men, it includes everyone thats trying to uphold the current social hierarchy which has white men at the top.
The democratic stance is just disruption of that social hierarchy, no one can even agree on what that disruption looks like. Its a weak stance on the issue and to begin to understand it you’d have to first acknowledge that there even is a social hierarchy and most people Ive found cannot see that far outside of themselves.
In addition to buying them off, because reducing financial insecurity is always going to help, reduce the rest of their insecurities too: In the form of not going out of the way to make them feel...
In addition to buying them off, because reducing financial insecurity is always going to help, reduce the rest of their insecurities too: In the form of not going out of the way to make them feel insecure.
And no doubt someone will reply that we shouldn't have to cater to fragile white male egos. White females too, looking at the metrics. I agree in principle but honestly all we need to do is stop actively attacking them.
Marginalized rights don't need to be in opposition to white privilege. We don't have to fix the latter before we can work on the former. And so if the messaging isn't working, stop using it.
People say this, but then inevitably advocate for doing so by abandoning policies that are vital for marginalized people's rights. Things like "not making it illegal to legally change your gender"...
Marginalized rights don't need to be in opposition to white privilege. We don't have to fix the latter before we can work on the former. And so if the messaging isn't working, stop using it.
People say this, but then inevitably advocate for doing so by abandoning policies that are vital for marginalized people's rights. Things like "not making it illegal to legally change your gender" are more than just messaging, for instance.
So essentially you've decided what I "inevitably" mean based on context and words that aren't in my post? It doesn't seem like you've even attempted a good faith based reading before leaping into...
So essentially you've decided what I "inevitably" mean based on context and words that aren't in my post?
It doesn't seem like you've even attempted a good faith based reading before leaping into hyperbole.
If I wasn't already sold on being woke since before it was a thing, if instead I was a flyover state white person coming from a different culture without any understanding of the nuance and humanity present in the conversation... this is exactly the sort of response that would help convince me to walk away and never look back.
I said "people" specifically because I've heard this over and over from others, not to specifically accuse you of doing so. I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked by that, but I was attempting...
I said "people" specifically because I've heard this over and over from others, not to specifically accuse you of doing so. I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked by that, but I was attempting a neutral description of something I have experienced many times in the past. Good faith readings go both ways.
I'll give you that if you squint it's possible to read your post generally rather in response to my post. In that reading: "when other people say what you said they mean (something vile that's...
I'll give you that if you squint it's possible to read your post generally rather in response to my post.
In that reading: "when other people say what you said they mean (something vile that's very different from what you said)" is kind of hard to go anywhere with.
In any case, I'm genuinely sorry those people exist.
Your example points directly at a huge part of the problem: progressives have decided that certain rights exist and are keen to expand and enforce them ASAP instead of working to build a broad...
Your example points directly at a huge part of the problem: progressives have decided that certain rights exist and are keen to expand and enforce them ASAP instead of working to build a broad social consensus that agrees with them.
I don't think vote buying is a great long-term strategy. Building more diverse coalitions that everyone sees themselves in is a good idea. It has been a mistake to make direct, targeted appeals to...
I don't think vote buying is a great long-term strategy.
Building more diverse coalitions that everyone sees themselves in is a good idea. It has been a mistake to make direct, targeted appeals to almost every group except the majority of the American population.
There's some areas of the nation that are grossly out of proportion with the rest. Those people keeping lavish New York boutique shops in business will vastly out spend on one trip what a family's...
There's some areas of the nation that are grossly out of proportion with the rest. Those people keeping lavish New York boutique shops in business will vastly out spend on one trip what a family's worth of shopping would spend in a month. The real question is how much the US would suffer without those businesses catering only to the rich. Yes they bring in some wealth to the craftsmen involved, but generally the businesses are the wealthy serving the wealthy. Those entire industries could crash and I doubt the majority of Americans would even notice. So those wealthy serving industries may produce a bulk of American spending but that doesn't mean they actually fuel America.
But of course. What I say will hold for pretty much any area with remotely sane housing prices (under $700,000). So basically outside of NYC or Southern California. These are the households which...
But of course. What I say will hold for pretty much any area with remotely sane housing prices (under $700,000). So basically outside of NYC or Southern California.
These are the households which pay people to mow their lawns, plant their shrubs,and wash their cars. The idea of not owning the latest phone is a foreign concept.
They have more disposable income to spend on babysitters and restaurants. What might be a monthly or semimonthly thing for some still fairly well off households becomes a weekly affair.
I now know several households in that $300k to $400k annually range now in my social periphery. They go to Disneyworld multiple times a year. That's incidentally my threshold for 'you have too much money.' Many fly to family elsewhere in the country once a month. A few take international trips 2 times a year.
They are the ones benefiting from the 'au pair' tax breaks. From tax breaks on capital gains. They're past the cap on social security taxes, so they can snowball wealth even faster.
So, in short, this is why I'm 100% behind 70% tax brackets over $300k, and 99.9% tax brackets over $900k. Nobody should have that much income.
Laughs in Massachusetts. My fiancee and I just bought a house a solid 45-60 minutes outside of Boston (I don't even think we're considered part of the "greater Boston area" any more). 3 bed, 2.5...
What I say will hold for pretty much any area with remotely sane housing prices (under $700,000). So basically outside of NYC or Southern California.
Laughs in Massachusetts. My fiancee and I just bought a house a solid 45-60 minutes outside of Boston (I don't even think we're considered part of the "greater Boston area" any more). 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 2800 sq ft total - $750k. Closer to the city is usually < $1M, often 1.5 or more, certainly for the kind of house we were looking for.
Our combined household income is $310k... I have no idea how anyone in this sort of CoL area could afford these trips you're talking about. Maybe it's because we got our house while interest rates are high (6.625%), but we're tightening our belts just to save a reasonable amount every month.
While I generally agree that those making obscene amounts of money should be taxed more, I'm not sure the thresholds you proposed are quite right.
It’s honestly absurd how far a dollar goes outside a major city. I think it makes more sense to evaluate incomes as being above median home price as your actual income because the rest is an...
It’s honestly absurd how far a dollar goes outside a major city. I think it makes more sense to evaluate incomes as being above median home price as your actual income because the rest is an unavoidable expense.
This is basically what your taxable income is anyway since you get a mortgage deduction, though renters are screwed.
Yes, income disparity between urban and rural areas is a major problem there. If the bottom were much higher and the top were lower, it would help even out these problems. Raise minimum wage to...
Yes, income disparity between urban and rural areas is a major problem there.
If the bottom were much higher and the top were lower, it would help even out these problems.
Raise minimum wage to $30/hr and a maximum wage to $100/hr and after a decade of adjustment things would normalize in a way which would eliminate some of these problems.
That makes a lot of sense. Subtract median yearly cost of mortgage or rent for the county in which you live from your taxable yearly income, then subtract student loan debt, real out-of-pocket...
I think it makes more sense to evaluate incomes as being above median home price as your actual income...
This is basically what your taxable income is anyway since you get a mortgage deduction, though renters are screwed.
That makes a lot of sense. Subtract median yearly cost of mortgage or rent for the county in which you live from your taxable yearly income, then subtract student loan debt, real out-of-pocket cost of healthcare, and cost of child-rearing for the first 3-4 kids, and call that your AGI.
If only we lived in a sane world where something like this could actually happen.
I would say the breakpoint that holds pretty well regardless of housing/CoL variations in the US is probably around $500k. Regardless of the area, any person or couple shouldn’t be having too much...
I would say the breakpoint that holds pretty well regardless of housing/CoL variations in the US is probably around $500k. Regardless of the area, any person or couple shouldn’t be having too much trouble affording a “normal” house while bringing in that kind of money.
2800 sqft is also quite a lot. In my neck of the woods, an hour outside of Philadelphia in NJ, that same home would cost on the order of $1 million. The median home cost in the surrounding area is...
2800 sqft is also quite a lot. In my neck of the woods, an hour outside of Philadelphia in NJ, that same home would cost on the order of $1 million.
The median home cost in the surrounding area is closer to 400k, and the square footage is much closer to 1800sqft.
My home is a 3BR, 2BA, with 2000sqft valued around 400k, but it also doesn't have a basement like most other homes do. Basements rarely count against square footage, especially unfinished. That means all my systems like water heater and HVAC have to live in the main living space too, as well as lacking the storage most other people use that 'free' square footage for.
People with these higher incomes had also bought many of the gigantic homes when they were valued closer to $400k a few years ago.
Our 2800 sq ft also includes a finished basement, which inflates the total square footage. The main two living levels are about 1800. I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though our...
Our 2800 sq ft also includes a finished basement, which inflates the total square footage. The main two living levels are about 1800.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though our combined income is significantly higher than the average across the country, and I recognize that we had the luxury of being able to afford a house in today's market, we don't feel "rich," certainly not compared to the filthy rich suburbs 30 minutes east of us. So household income thresholds based on the averages across the country aren't the solution, since the disparity between the highest and lowest CoL areas is so large.
2800sqft is definitely on the larger side, but still comfortably within normal bounds here. Depending on which town, condition of the home, and plot size, u/bitwyze probably actually got a decent...
2800sqft is definitely on the larger side, but still comfortably within normal bounds here.
Depending on which town, condition of the home, and plot size, u/bitwyze probably actually got a decent deal - though it might not feel that way. This might not mean much for you in PA, but it’s particularly true if they’re inside of 95/128. Prices are still that high even in some towns well outside of 495 though. The median home price in MA is north of $600k, for reference.
We're a bit west of 495, just off of 290. We definitely got a good deal on the house, particularly compared to property around the I-95 ring around the city - though the interest rates make it...
We're a bit west of 495, just off of 290. We definitely got a good deal on the house, particularly compared to property around the I-95 ring around the city - though the interest rates make it feel less so. We're just holding out for the interest rates to hopefully drop so we can refinance!
For perspective, I’m in Australia so those numbers don’t match 1:1 with what my expectation would be, but the biggest thing that drew my eye to your comment is the idea that (with some belt...
Our combined household income is $310k... I have no idea how anyone in this sort of CoL area could afford these trips you're talking about. Maybe it's because we got our house while interest rates are high (6.625%), but we're tightening our belts just to save a reasonable amount every month.
For perspective, I’m in Australia so those numbers don’t match 1:1 with what my expectation would be, but the biggest thing that drew my eye to your comment is the idea that (with some belt tightening) you’re able to afford a mortgage and also save “a reasonable amount every month” — I don’t know what you consider reasonable, and I know Australia (especially Melbourne and Sydney) is famous for bonkers house prices, but I’m drooling at the mouth for those kinds of yearly-household-income to price-of-house ratios
I think if my partner and I both find what I’d call “pretty good” jobs in the next few years, our combined household income might reach AUD$250k but also a house near me in a kind of industrial area recently sold for $1.1m about 40 minutes drive from the city (well over an hour during peak hour, but I don’t drive peak hour if I can help it. Usually commute by train) so despite my career taking a turn for the better in recent years, I’m still not sure I’ll ever be able to own instead of rent
My bank’s savings account rate is currently 5.25% so I’m not sure how a mortgage might compare to that
We agreed that we would only buy the house if we could continue to save money for the things that we need in the future: Work done around the house (I've read you should try to save 1-4% of your...
We agreed that we would only buy the house if we could continue to save money for the things that we need in the future:
Work done around the house (I've read you should try to save 1-4% of your home's value every year)
We want to get a dog next year, so having some sort of fund ready for emergency vet visits, etc.
We are planning on starting a family in the next 5 years or so, so we're going to need some money to be ready for that - hospital bills for the delivery, for example
Being able to save for future vacations (not anything extravagant, maybe a long weekend away a couple states over once a year or something)
That's just a few examples. When we were renting, almost all of our savings were going into the down payment for the house. Our mortgage is higher than our rent was, but we did the math and figured we'd be able to save a sufficient amount to cover these things we need to save for. The heating bills have been a bit higher than expected so the last month has been a bit tight...
I had reason recently to look at houses in that general area. A shockingly high number of houses on the market at that point were owned by a trust or a divorcing couple. And it seems like every...
I had reason recently to look at houses in that general area. A shockingly high number of houses on the market at that point were owned by a trust or a divorcing couple.
And it seems like every city in MA has at least two separate online portals you need to check for permitting records, etc. which is kind of annoying.
The wealthiest 10% of American households—those making more than $250,000 a year, roughly—are now responsible for half of all US consumer spending and at least a third of the country’s gross domestic product.
I don’t have a great way to judge the mood of the country. I see how people vote and what people say online. Based on this, it seems the country is very unhappy and that we are on the road to...
I don’t have a great way to judge the mood of the country. I see how people vote and what people say online. Based on this, it seems the country is very unhappy and that we are on the road to serious unrest. If the economy is not working for most people there will be more people with nothing to lose and they will do desperate things.
This transfer of wealth to the rich has been happening for a long time and people have noticed, but not understood exactly where to place the blame. Seeing the richest oligarchs in prominent seats at the inauguration should have been very obvious sign that trump had no intention to do anything but hasten the wealth transfer. Big bold moves and tariffs will focus the blame on Trump’s admin, despite all of the propaganda churning in the media.
When trump got elected again I assumed he would do a lot of negative things that harmed the country, then there would be mass protests, and a big crackdown by him which would make things worse. The protests have been modest so far but as the weather gets warmer and the economy goes into recession I think this will come true. The only hope is that it results in something positive. It’s clear that the project 2025 people are trying to make the next election irrelevant by installing loyalists at all levels. Hopefully enough people will get shocked out of complacency before they completely succeed
also important to ask: if the rich with all their options and resources prop up your economy, what happens when a large portion of these people move away from your country?
Letting so many of the country’s economic resources accrue to so few people, Zandi says, risks a lot more than just the economy
also important to ask: if the rich with all their options and resources prop up your economy, what happens when a large portion of these people move away from your country?
Given how much of that wealth is just paper value that relies on the land value of their homes, that’s also a lot of room for the economy to contract in ways that completely collapse. I can...
Given how much of that wealth is just paper value that relies on the land value of their homes, that’s also a lot of room for the economy to contract in ways that completely collapse. I can imagine a pretty calamitous scenario where we end up in a feedback loop where low demand leads to people losing jobs, leads to housing values dropping, leads to further demand contraction as people lose their nest eggs, and on and on.
I sort of agree with you in the abstract about the calamitous feedback look, even though this article is specifically talking about folks with 250k/year income, not paper value. Which makes this...
I sort of agree with you in the abstract about the calamitous feedback look, even though this article is specifically talking about folks with 250k/year income, not paper value.
The wealthiest 10% of American households—those making more than $250,000 a year, roughly—are now responsible for half of all US consumer spending and at least a third of the country’s gross domestic product.
Which makes this group of high earning top spenders even more mobile to leave or take their spending elsewhere in the world.
If that 10% up and moved away in one go, then we'd have negative employment and wages would rise. Might be a challenge with highly skilled brain drain, (specifically doctors), but since they would...
If that 10% up and moved away in one go, then we'd have negative employment and wages would rise.
Might be a challenge with highly skilled brain drain, (specifically doctors), but since they would still be paying taxes without consuming 1/3 of the resources, there may well be more to go around.
Well, for one thing, housing would be a lot more affordable, as it is in rust belt cities. But it doesn’t seem too likely? Geographic mobility is declining within the US, and moving to another...
Well, for one thing, housing would be a lot more affordable, as it is in rust belt cities.
But it doesn’t seem too likely? Geographic mobility is declining within the US, and moving to another country is harder.
Also, real estate is local. People moving within the US can be pretty bad for the regions that lose population. That seems unlikely for places where housing is consistently in high demand, though? As some people leave, others are moving in.
assuming they don't sell to rent farms that collude to keep rent high, or renting it out themselves. Off shore land owners is kind of a "thing" for hundreds of years. But you're right, people keep...
housing would be a lot more affordable
assuming they don't sell to rent farms that collude to keep rent high, or renting it out themselves. Off shore land owners is kind of a "thing" for hundreds of years.
But you're right, people keep wanting to move into cities so at least housing prices in those places will keep being propped up okay. If high spenders leave and are replaced by the bottom 90% though, local businesses might have the same number of clients, but perhaps each will spend less money.
Luckily, if the landowners are all offshore we have mechanisms to fix that. I call it the 'you have to live there to own it' housing rights. For commercial/industrial, the land is owned by the...
Luckily, if the landowners are all offshore we have mechanisms to fix that.
I call it the 'you have to live there to own it' housing rights. For commercial/industrial, the land is owned by the government and all businesses pay rent.
I'm sure that's a terribly healthy position for an economy to be in.
That's a pretty crazy stat, especially considering the skewed distribution of those high-income households towards high-COL urban areas. It points toward entire areas of the US sliding into economic irrelevance.
I found this page which lists the percentage of each state that exceeds the article's top-10% threshold: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/percentage-of-households-making-over-250k
The data disagrees somewhat with the Bloomberg article, although that one does indicate that their number is a rough estimate; I assume the methodology is different between the two data sets. Regardless, I think it paints a pretty clear picture of wealth centralizing in certain locations. The distribution of these market-driving households is unequal now and I would not assume based on current trends that the centralizing effect will reverse anytime soon.
It does paint an interesting picture of a dual economic reality, one where things in certain states are looking more or less fine, while other states are missing out on the bulk of consumer spending. Of note, of the 19 states that voted blue in 2024, 14 of those are the top 14 in that state income ranking. The lower ranks of that list are similarly biased heavily towards red states. Given that conservative populism is focusing strongly on a message of economic dissatisfaction, I think the issue is salient to a number of concerns beyond simple economics.
There are two ways to look at it. The more popular view amongst economists is that cities are way more economically productive, so they've had faster growth ever since industrialization. Basically every country in the world has continued urbanizing because it makes economic sense for most people. It's much easier to transfer people and goods around one metro area than an entire country's land area.
Some rurals will say they're not getting enough economic investment, but that has never been true. Rural, Republican areas are absolute welfare queens that take far more in federal funding than they pay in taxes (opposite of cities). If more housing was built in cities, we'd likely see even more people move to major metro areas. In countries that build enough housing and have significantly cheaper cities, we see even higher percentages of the population moving to cities.
While the economic anxiety explanation does have correlations with the data, I'm far more convinced that racial and cultural animus explains why these areas broke for Trump. He says the quiet part out loud all the time, and many rurals love him for it. I don't know how things will change, but all the data since Obama's election paints a pretty clear picture of racism.
Buy them off? Among liberals there’s this push back against explicitly helping white and/or male Americans. Sorry but politics requires building coalitions. You might need to appease more than your ideological core to win.
I see this argument all the time, but its the opposite of what the republicans are doing and they’re winning.
They’re appeasing only their ideological base and no one else, and thats what wins them elections.
What I think might be the issue here is that the democratic party is attempting to cover literally everyone else, and thats way too many ideologies to run a successful campaign.
The GOP might be, but Trump isn’t. He’s notably good at extending his reach beyond the base. Yes, he has his core red hats, but there are millions out there who didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020 who did in 2024.
You have to have a core for the primaries, but ultimately you need to reach out further for the general elections. Going back to the GP, white men comprise about a third of the population. Even if you can never win them outright, eating into the margin is immensely helpful given their presence in every state, and can help flip downballot races.
His core isn’t just white men, it includes everyone thats trying to uphold the current social hierarchy which has white men at the top.
The democratic stance is just disruption of that social hierarchy, no one can even agree on what that disruption looks like. Its a weak stance on the issue and to begin to understand it you’d have to first acknowledge that there even is a social hierarchy and most people Ive found cannot see that far outside of themselves.
Perhaps being a selfish asshole puts you in the plurality?
Kinda, its more that he’s a populist than that he’s an asshole. Being a populist has always been a hack in a democratic system.
I mean his base are selfish assholes
No argument there lol
In addition to buying them off, because reducing financial insecurity is always going to help, reduce the rest of their insecurities too: In the form of not going out of the way to make them feel insecure.
And no doubt someone will reply that we shouldn't have to cater to fragile white male egos. White females too, looking at the metrics. I agree in principle but honestly all we need to do is stop actively attacking them.
Marginalized rights don't need to be in opposition to white privilege. We don't have to fix the latter before we can work on the former. And so if the messaging isn't working, stop using it.
People say this, but then inevitably advocate for doing so by abandoning policies that are vital for marginalized people's rights. Things like "not making it illegal to legally change your gender" are more than just messaging, for instance.
So essentially you've decided what I "inevitably" mean based on context and words that aren't in my post?
It doesn't seem like you've even attempted a good faith based reading before leaping into hyperbole.
If I wasn't already sold on being woke since before it was a thing, if instead I was a flyover state white person coming from a different culture without any understanding of the nuance and humanity present in the conversation... this is exactly the sort of response that would help convince me to walk away and never look back.
I said "people" specifically because I've heard this over and over from others, not to specifically accuse you of doing so. I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked by that, but I was attempting a neutral description of something I have experienced many times in the past. Good faith readings go both ways.
I'll give you that if you squint it's possible to read your post generally rather in response to my post.
In that reading: "when other people say what you said they mean (something vile that's very different from what you said)" is kind of hard to go anywhere with.
In any case, I'm genuinely sorry those people exist.
Your example points directly at a huge part of the problem: progressives have decided that certain rights exist and are keen to expand and enforce them ASAP instead of working to build a broad social consensus that agrees with them.
I don't think vote buying is a great long-term strategy.
Building more diverse coalitions that everyone sees themselves in is a good idea. It has been a mistake to make direct, targeted appeals to almost every group except the majority of the American population.
There's some areas of the nation that are grossly out of proportion with the rest. Those people keeping lavish New York boutique shops in business will vastly out spend on one trip what a family's worth of shopping would spend in a month. The real question is how much the US would suffer without those businesses catering only to the rich. Yes they bring in some wealth to the craftsmen involved, but generally the businesses are the wealthy serving the wealthy. Those entire industries could crash and I doubt the majority of Americans would even notice. So those wealthy serving industries may produce a bulk of American spending but that doesn't mean they actually fuel America.
But of course. What I say will hold for pretty much any area with remotely sane housing prices (under $700,000). So basically outside of NYC or Southern California.
These are the households which pay people to mow their lawns, plant their shrubs,and wash their cars. The idea of not owning the latest phone is a foreign concept.
They have more disposable income to spend on babysitters and restaurants. What might be a monthly or semimonthly thing for some still fairly well off households becomes a weekly affair.
I now know several households in that $300k to $400k annually range now in my social periphery. They go to Disneyworld multiple times a year. That's incidentally my threshold for 'you have too much money.' Many fly to family elsewhere in the country once a month. A few take international trips 2 times a year.
They are the ones benefiting from the 'au pair' tax breaks. From tax breaks on capital gains. They're past the cap on social security taxes, so they can snowball wealth even faster.
So, in short, this is why I'm 100% behind 70% tax brackets over $300k, and 99.9% tax brackets over $900k. Nobody should have that much income.
Laughs in Massachusetts. My fiancee and I just bought a house a solid 45-60 minutes outside of Boston (I don't even think we're considered part of the "greater Boston area" any more). 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 2800 sq ft total - $750k. Closer to the city is usually < $1M, often 1.5 or more, certainly for the kind of house we were looking for.
Our combined household income is $310k... I have no idea how anyone in this sort of CoL area could afford these trips you're talking about. Maybe it's because we got our house while interest rates are high (6.625%), but we're tightening our belts just to save a reasonable amount every month.
While I generally agree that those making obscene amounts of money should be taxed more, I'm not sure the thresholds you proposed are quite right.
It’s honestly absurd how far a dollar goes outside a major city. I think it makes more sense to evaluate incomes as being above median home price as your actual income because the rest is an unavoidable expense.
This is basically what your taxable income is anyway since you get a mortgage deduction, though renters are screwed.
Yes, income disparity between urban and rural areas is a major problem there.
If the bottom were much higher and the top were lower, it would help even out these problems.
Raise minimum wage to $30/hr and a maximum wage to $100/hr and after a decade of adjustment things would normalize in a way which would eliminate some of these problems.
That makes a lot of sense. Subtract median yearly cost of mortgage or rent for the county in which you live from your taxable yearly income, then subtract student loan debt, real out-of-pocket cost of healthcare, and cost of child-rearing for the first 3-4 kids, and call that your AGI.
If only we lived in a sane world where something like this could actually happen.
I would say the breakpoint that holds pretty well regardless of housing/CoL variations in the US is probably around $500k. Regardless of the area, any person or couple shouldn’t be having too much trouble affording a “normal” house while bringing in that kind of money.
$500k is a small one bedroom apartment here. It’s not usually adequate to comfortably raise a family in.
They were talking about an household income of $500k/year being more than sufficient anywhere in the US, not a home price of $500k.
2800 sqft is also quite a lot. In my neck of the woods, an hour outside of Philadelphia in NJ, that same home would cost on the order of $1 million.
The median home cost in the surrounding area is closer to 400k, and the square footage is much closer to 1800sqft.
My home is a 3BR, 2BA, with 2000sqft valued around 400k, but it also doesn't have a basement like most other homes do. Basements rarely count against square footage, especially unfinished. That means all my systems like water heater and HVAC have to live in the main living space too, as well as lacking the storage most other people use that 'free' square footage for.
People with these higher incomes had also bought many of the gigantic homes when they were valued closer to $400k a few years ago.
Our 2800 sq ft also includes a finished basement, which inflates the total square footage. The main two living levels are about 1800.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though our combined income is significantly higher than the average across the country, and I recognize that we had the luxury of being able to afford a house in today's market, we don't feel "rich," certainly not compared to the filthy rich suburbs 30 minutes east of us. So household income thresholds based on the averages across the country aren't the solution, since the disparity between the highest and lowest CoL areas is so large.
2800sqft is definitely on the larger side, but still comfortably within normal bounds here.
Depending on which town, condition of the home, and plot size, u/bitwyze probably actually got a decent deal - though it might not feel that way. This might not mean much for you in PA, but it’s particularly true if they’re inside of 95/128. Prices are still that high even in some towns well outside of 495 though. The median home price in MA is north of $600k, for reference.
We're a bit west of 495, just off of 290. We definitely got a good deal on the house, particularly compared to property around the I-95 ring around the city - though the interest rates make it feel less so. We're just holding out for the interest rates to hopefully drop so we can refinance!
For perspective, I’m in Australia so those numbers don’t match 1:1 with what my expectation would be, but the biggest thing that drew my eye to your comment is the idea that (with some belt tightening) you’re able to afford a mortgage and also save “a reasonable amount every month” — I don’t know what you consider reasonable, and I know Australia (especially Melbourne and Sydney) is famous for bonkers house prices, but I’m drooling at the mouth for those kinds of yearly-household-income to price-of-house ratios
I think if my partner and I both find what I’d call “pretty good” jobs in the next few years, our combined household income might reach AUD$250k but also a house near me in a kind of industrial area recently sold for $1.1m about 40 minutes drive from the city (well over an hour during peak hour, but I don’t drive peak hour if I can help it. Usually commute by train) so despite my career taking a turn for the better in recent years, I’m still not sure I’ll ever be able to own instead of rent
My bank’s savings account rate is currently 5.25% so I’m not sure how a mortgage might compare to that
We agreed that we would only buy the house if we could continue to save money for the things that we need in the future:
That's just a few examples. When we were renting, almost all of our savings were going into the down payment for the house. Our mortgage is higher than our rent was, but we did the math and figured we'd be able to save a sufficient amount to cover these things we need to save for. The heating bills have been a bit higher than expected so the last month has been a bit tight...
I had reason recently to look at houses in that general area. A shockingly high number of houses on the market at that point were owned by a trust or a divorcing couple.
And it seems like every city in MA has at least two separate online portals you need to check for permitting records, etc. which is kind of annoying.
From the article:
archive for faster loading etc https://archive.ph/SKXOI
I don’t have a great way to judge the mood of the country. I see how people vote and what people say online. Based on this, it seems the country is very unhappy and that we are on the road to serious unrest. If the economy is not working for most people there will be more people with nothing to lose and they will do desperate things.
This transfer of wealth to the rich has been happening for a long time and people have noticed, but not understood exactly where to place the blame. Seeing the richest oligarchs in prominent seats at the inauguration should have been very obvious sign that trump had no intention to do anything but hasten the wealth transfer. Big bold moves and tariffs will focus the blame on Trump’s admin, despite all of the propaganda churning in the media.
When trump got elected again I assumed he would do a lot of negative things that harmed the country, then there would be mass protests, and a big crackdown by him which would make things worse. The protests have been modest so far but as the weather gets warmer and the economy goes into recession I think this will come true. The only hope is that it results in something positive. It’s clear that the project 2025 people are trying to make the next election irrelevant by installing loyalists at all levels. Hopefully enough people will get shocked out of complacency before they completely succeed
also important to ask: if the rich with all their options and resources prop up your economy, what happens when a large portion of these people move away from your country?
Given how much of that wealth is just paper value that relies on the land value of their homes, that’s also a lot of room for the economy to contract in ways that completely collapse. I can imagine a pretty calamitous scenario where we end up in a feedback loop where low demand leads to people losing jobs, leads to housing values dropping, leads to further demand contraction as people lose their nest eggs, and on and on.
I sort of agree with you in the abstract about the calamitous feedback look, even though this article is specifically talking about folks with 250k/year income, not paper value.
Which makes this group of high earning top spenders even more mobile to leave or take their spending elsewhere in the world.
If that 10% up and moved away in one go, then we'd have negative employment and wages would rise.
Might be a challenge with highly skilled brain drain, (specifically doctors), but since they would still be paying taxes without consuming 1/3 of the resources, there may well be more to go around.
Well, for one thing, housing would be a lot more affordable, as it is in rust belt cities.
But it doesn’t seem too likely? Geographic mobility is declining within the US, and moving to another country is harder.
Also, real estate is local. People moving within the US can be pretty bad for the regions that lose population. That seems unlikely for places where housing is consistently in high demand, though? As some people leave, others are moving in.
assuming they don't sell to rent farms that collude to keep rent high, or renting it out themselves. Off shore land owners is kind of a "thing" for hundreds of years.
But you're right, people keep wanting to move into cities so at least housing prices in those places will keep being propped up okay. If high spenders leave and are replaced by the bottom 90% though, local businesses might have the same number of clients, but perhaps each will spend less money.
Luckily, if the landowners are all offshore we have mechanisms to fix that.
I call it the 'you have to live there to own it' housing rights. For commercial/industrial, the land is owned by the government and all businesses pay rent.