• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    29 days ago

    We’re not talking just “wealthy”, we’re talking the top 1% of all income.

    Most Americans would probably say people making $100k/yr are “wealthy”. That’s because the average income is less than $40k. There’s a difference between just “wealthy” and the top 1% for most people.

    • Bob Robertson IX
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      28 days ago

      Even then, that depends a lot on where you live. $100k/year in California is a lot different than $100k/year in Mississippi.

      • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        28 days ago

        That’s edging toward muddying the point. You could also bring heritage (aka “race”) into the argument, or age, or disability, et al, and risk doing the same. No one’s debating granular data per geophysical location, etc., as this is a median national income bifurcation topic.

    • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      They might also use that term because they confuse it with “rich”, and that’s a whole other issue: intentionally sub-par (mis)education to maintain the socioeconomic divide.