Not only that, but it’s clearly using accumulation of dollars and not taking into account the effectiveness of that dollar in different markets. $1 in Omaha is worth $0.50 in SF money. This seems like a weird “coastal elites” angle for some reason, but HCOL areas need to pay people more money, so they technically do have more money, but it’s worth less in that same market vs a LCOL area.
Example: $1m dollars in NYC can’t even get you a condo, but in Kentucky you could buy an estate.
But this data is about dollar amounts accumulated by population without spending power. All it’s showing is that HCOL population has more accumulated wealth. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not like people from the coasts are gathering cash and moving to the Midwest.
just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Not only that, but it’s clearly using accumulation of dollars and not taking into account the effectiveness of that dollar in different markets. $1 in Omaha is worth $0.50 in SF money. This seems like a weird “coastal elites” angle for some reason, but HCOL areas need to pay people more money, so they technically do have more money, but it’s worth less in that same market vs a LCOL area.
Example: $1m dollars in NYC can’t even get you a condo, but in Kentucky you could buy an estate.
mind@lemmy.world 1 year ago
just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 year ago
But this data is about dollar amounts accumulated by population without spending power. All it’s showing is that HCOL population has more accumulated wealth. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not like people from the coasts are gathering cash and moving to the Midwest.