I like this article but this is actually a good point. "The rich" is mostly used in a negative way.
I'd argue this is because most attempts to reduce large groups of people to an idea like "the rich" or "the poor" are done in bad faith.
A support of this would be, within academic sociology or economics these terms will be used in a non slur way and it's because they actually have a reason to be thinking in terms of these groups instead of throwing them out as stawmen for some argument
The entire top level point of the article, the part that is literally the focus of the title, is a recommendation not to call groups by names they don't like.
Did you read the article? Or did you read the first two paragaphs and decide it was wrong thought and go to yell to the internet?
You are just encouraging fake news. Please don't ask people to substantiate anecdotes. It's better to just accept the narrative if it fits the consensus.
This obsession with "proof" and "data" is anti scientific.
Imagine being simple enough to buy this narrative wholesale.
There's one objectively correct version of understanding the world and the important idea is to camp people into binary groups of "believes correct news" or "believes fake news"
Realtors And especially real estate brokers, have ripped apart our society with cartel like tactics so they can grab a few percent on each bit of the destruction.
I hope the book is thrown at them as harshly as possible.
Claw back those earnings and put it into funds to clean up the mess that has been made
You seem to think people are going to cower in fear at giving the socially unacceptable(to a specific kind of person) answer here.
Yes obviously people should not buy things they can't afford. If that means you can't have a pet or a 90k pickup truck, or the shoes you want or whatever then so be it.
Totally bizarre that you see this as some sort of gotcha to phrase it this way
Absolutely f**ing rubbish. No. This is dead wrong. You are speaking authoratively but you don't know what you are talking about.
There is nothing inherently superior about debt/gdp. It is one good metric for tracking debt but is in no way the one true metric or intrinsically superior to other debt metrics and importantly it cannot give you a reasonably complete picture of the fiscal situation of a country because it is lacking the key component of incorporating rates and flows.
Japan has more than double our debt to GDP but this is able to not catastrophically blow up in the short term because their interest rates and therefore interest expense is low.
Again, really sad , but not rrally surprising to see low quality drivel stated authoratively as the top answer
I used to love epsilon theory and was a paid subscriber at one point. But I increasingly find his writing style to be obnoxious to the point of being intolerable.
He likes hearing himself sounding poetic, which mostly just sounds trite, more than he likes talking about markets which he is actually pretty good at
I'm referencing the 2M+ short term rentals in the US. Obviously not all of them are but let's just say more than half. That's a lot of inventory sucked off the market. More than double the total number for sale right now.
The US does not have a shortage of single family homes. It has a shortage of single family homes that are being used as single family homes.
The data in this video is unambiguous. Sales down 40-50% in cities where there are 4x more Airbnbs than homes for sale. Some of those houses WILL be entering the market as operators cannot handle the negative cashflow. These will be either hard or soft forced sales but let's be clear, many sellers will have no say in the matter.
Fail to understand this dynamic at your own peril. Housing is not nearly secure as many people are suggesting at the moment.