285
Redditor explains that reddit's moderators can't understand how rich people's wealth operates because it is too complicated for poor people (old.reddit.com)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/antiwork@lemmy.ml
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Cost of living is not the same as the cost of one's specific lifestyle.

"Cost of living data includes the expenses incurred for food, shelter, transportation, energy, clothing, education, healthcare, childcare, and entertainment. A cost of living index tracks how much basic expenses rise over time and among different regions."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    I get the concept. But realistically that would mean three things:

    In a region where people make 250k a year for them to live paycheck to paycheck the cost of living would need to be somewhere around 4-5x higher than in an area where people would make 50k a year.

    That would further mean that in the areas where people make 250k a year noone would exist that could afford anything less than that. So the grocery store cashier and the gas station clerk and the postman would all need to make the same money as google software engineers. That is clearly not the case.

    And thirdly that means that either the people who make that much money living paycheck to paycheck are economically illiterate and dont grasp such simple concepts... Or which is far more likely, the quality of life in high cost of living areas is in fact so much better, that it is worth paying the extra.

    Either way someone who can make 250k a year is choosing to life paycheck to paycheck by choosing to pay such expenses. They definetely have the means to work somewhere where the difference between cost of living and paycheck allows for saving signficant amounts of money over time. Claiming those people would be victims of the system who were forced to live paycheck to paycheck is simply not true. It is still very much their own choice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    People who work in grocery stores/gas stations in affluent areas typically commute from less affluent areas.

    I've heard from actual coworkers who live in San Francisco, that even high paying engineering jobs have trouble making rent without roommates or dual incomes. Do they choose to live there? Yes. Can they move further away? Also yes. Do they want to commute 2 hours each way every day? Probably not. Add in taking your kids to school, and suddenly, the choice you think they had is really no choice at all.

    Technically, we all have the option to quit our jobs, find a track of land in the middle of nowhere, and live off-grid, but do we? No. Choices aren't as simple as "find somewhere else to live".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But then why is it an acceptable choice for the commuting grocery store worker, but not for the engineer? There is a quality of living involved here that the engineer chooses to pay for, which the grocery store worker doesn't have.

    Thats what i mean with unrealised luxuries. They claim to live paycheck to paycheck because their understanding of what a "normal" standard of living ist, is very different, from what "normal" people actually have as a standard of living.

    This is not to say, that theses conditions are a good society or dont need changing. But who can get such an engineering job definetely chooses to have a quality of life that he pays all his paycheck for. If it wouldn't be a choice the grocery store workers wouldn't exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Everyone has their own definition of what an acceptable choice is.

    My point is that cost of living is not a choice. It is the actual cost that it takes to live in a specific area. Sure, where and how i live are my choice. But that has nothing to do with the actual cost of living in a given neighbourhood. And when you average it out, it balances out those who are frugal and savvy with their money with those who live beyond their means.

    To say that everyone who makes 250k/yr and is living paycheck to paycheck is fat on avocado toast, and 15$ lattes is oversimplifying it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago*

    Unless you are forced to life in that area you are making a choice. And you are not forced to life there. It comes with trade offs. The trade offs are traded in the housing market. People fled the cities in the 80s to move into suburbs. Now people want to life in the city again.

    And cost of living of course includes the coffee and toast. You see that in areas that are gentrified, forcing people who dont make the 100k a year to move away. Where before the coffee was 3$ it now is 15$. And someone is paying for that, otherwise the business would not work. So again people are making that choice. And the people with 100k make the choice actually forcing the hand of people who only make 30k and are literally forced out of their neighbourhood.

    Of course then there is all the more compulsion to claim, that they had no choice but to gentrify and had no choice but to drive people out of their neighbourhoods. Because if the people with 100k weren't forced to do so, then they would need to take responsibility for their role in that market. Of course the main responsibility remains with the landlords who are happy to drive rents up and people out. But then again i doubt there to be many six figure engineers who are devout to left parties (in case of the US, the Democrats are not a left party by any outside standard.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Have you ever looked at the cost of housing in London, Manhattan, Seattle, or San Francisco? The people that you mentioned, the clerks and such, don't live there. They commute into the city from surrounding areas. A few years ago $180k per year in SF was listed by the government as poverty level. It's probably higher now. You're seeing the situation without realizing the problem. And no, the people making those high salaries usually can't just go live somewhere else. Their industries are region constrained, and if you are lucky enough to work remotely and move to a more affordable area, they often dock your pay. Just two comments up was someone saying their friend's pay was docked from $8000 per month to $4500 per month when they moved to a cheaper area, even though they had the exact same job at the exact same company. It is entirely possible to make $200k a year and not have a lot of money after your cost of living expenses, especially if you just started making that much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Working certain high earning jobs means that you are required to live within a certain proximity to the workplace and have a car for mobility reasons.

    A 200k job could easily meen 4500 into condo mortgage monthly, plus a presentable car lease at another 1k. No time to cook would be 100$ daily for food. Incidentals, clothing, cosmetic healthcare, 10-30k yearly.

    120k debt from schooling at 10%, means a payment of 12k a year pays interest, 36k a year would pay off the debt in a reasonable time frame.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent