“Housing has become so financially burdensome in America that some families can no longer afford other essentials,” Redfin’s economics research lead said.
Poster offered up evidence. You’ve just attacked them. It’s clear who has more faith in their position. It’s clear who arguing with their reason and which is arguing with their emotions.
While I agree that people in social media users have biases and ignore even a reputable evidence, but with economics though, it’s complicated. One economic metric alone is sometimes not enough, has limitations and therefore doesn’t give the full picture. I don’t know much about purchasing power parity to comment on it, but the best example I can give is on GDP or gross domestic product. A country that has high GDP in let’s say, $100 billion, shows that the country is rich. That implies that the population in that country are also also wealthy enough, right? Not really. If the GDP per capita/person is in $1,000 in that country, as opposed to US’s of over $60,000, then the people in that country are not affluent enough.
Immense wealth is nothing if they’re not distributed equitably. The higher purchasing power of Americans is taken on average but does not take into account that certain areas do not have higher purchasing power. California would have higher purchasing power as opposed to rural folks in the Rust Belt. And the latter are Trump supporters for a reason.
I agree with your point, but don’t see how it makes sense here. The article doesn’t just throw out a single metric that would be misleading due to wealth inequity. There’s a whole section about real wages over the income distribution. It’s much more granular.
True. And the least trustworthy source is some random in the comments section making baseless claims. Treasury.gov is at least a thousand times more reliable than that. Probably safe to say a million times. Hell, if you can’t believe treasury.gov, what would you trust?
Poster offered up evidence. You’ve just attacked them. It’s clear who has more faith in their position. It’s clear who arguing with their reason and which is arguing with their emotions.
While I agree that people in social media users have biases and ignore even a reputable evidence, but with economics though, it’s complicated. One economic metric alone is sometimes not enough, has limitations and therefore doesn’t give the full picture. I don’t know much about purchasing power parity to comment on it, but the best example I can give is on GDP or gross domestic product. A country that has high GDP in let’s say, $100 billion, shows that the country is rich. That implies that the population in that country are also also wealthy enough, right? Not really. If the GDP per capita/person is in $1,000 in that country, as opposed to US’s of over $60,000, then the people in that country are not affluent enough.
Immense wealth is nothing if they’re not distributed equitably. The higher purchasing power of Americans is taken on average but does not take into account that certain areas do not have higher purchasing power. California would have higher purchasing power as opposed to rural folks in the Rust Belt. And the latter are Trump supporters for a reason.
I agree with your point, but don’t see how it makes sense here. The article doesn’t just throw out a single metric that would be misleading due to wealth inequity. There’s a whole section about real wages over the income distribution. It’s much more granular.
You shouldn’t believe every source on the internet
True. And the least trustworthy source is some random in the comments section making baseless claims. Treasury.gov is at least a thousand times more reliable than that. Probably safe to say a million times. Hell, if you can’t believe treasury.gov, what would you trust?