The distribution of wealth doesn't matter. What matters is the buying power at each level of distribution.
In other words, it doesn't matter if the top 1% owns 15% of all the current wealth or 30% of all the current wealth. What matters is what the average person can accomplish with their earnings.
And we choose Iowa where you could buy a 3 story house for 80k?
Nothing against the message of the article but let's choose somewhere with a little more weight.
Just because you don't consider a specific example of this phenomena important or of "sufficient weight" doesn't mean it isn't important, bruh. Sorry that The Atlantic isn't publishing just shit about California.
You can see these trends across the country due to the strong economy and the demand for workers.
Why didn't we choose one of those? Why did we center on a place with the lowest cost of living in the country? No reason, I'm sure.
Don't talk about buying power if you're not going to talk about places where that matters.
Because the people there got shafted by the recession, sometimes more than other people. Leftists like to brush away "flyover country" but it's the part of the country where people were hit the hardest. This is only phenomenally amazing news, and it's indicative of a trend that is happening across the country as the economy keeps heating up and as labor markets tighten.
We'll see, which is the only thing I've been saying in here.
Idk why you have to bring lefitest into this for some reason when it's irrelevant to our discussion but if you're really so deep in identity politics that anyone who disagrees with you is a leftist then here's one who's happy about the message of the article, as I've already stated in this topic. Fucking joke of a user. ---
Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X