Anyone who has one of those has a disproportionate amount of wealth obtained almost certainly at the expense of others.
The reality is that anyone earning over 70k a year is earning more than thier fair share of society's production.
We only produce a fixed amount of GDP, which when divided by population makes for a fairly small number even excluding children.
Yachts are hella expensive, with even the cheapest used sail boats costing more than a new car and an "ok" used one being 200k+
That not middle class shit, that's rich people shit. People earning 65 k a year and raising 2 kids can Never afford that, unless they are neglectful, go bankrupt to do it etc.
People need to stop using Elon level wealth as the metric for rich.... That's not rich, that's Obscene. Rich is anyone earning over 100k a year. That's Extreme privilege having nearly 2 shares of GDP while how many have to have less than a fair share to get you there? Yea....
I'm kind of with you on the yacht thing especially with the pricier ones (not sure you've looked hard enough for bargains, tired-looking but seaworthy 22-26 footers can be had for less than 10 grand, or so ive been told by someone who lives on one) but you lost me at the 70k number.
Not because it's too high or too low but because it's just so arbitrary. 70k in Glasgow is a very comfortable income, 70k in Tacoma Washington is just about enough to get by. In San Francisco there are indigents living (primarily) on the street whose income and benefits technically sum higher than 70k. And if any not-yet-indigent tried to move to San Francisco on that income they would soon join them.
I've always felt a scaling factor proportional to the extremes of individual difference makes the most sense here. Ideally the highest earning income possible in an economy should be somewhat proportional to the scale of capability in any given individual within it. I could acknowledge that people exist who might be five, possibly even 10 times as productive as I am when all of their merits are considered.
But there's no way in hell someone is 100 times, or 1,000 times or 10,000 times more productive or valuable and contributor to the world as me (or anyone), at least on the scale of individual capability. Without , that is, the benefit of some amplification apparatus that they happen to have at their disposal.
But it's pretty hopeless to get upset about these things. As a species we've hit some sort of ceiling long ago on efficiently allocating resources and rewards to ability. For example we'd much rather pay 30 bucks a week to give ourselves permission to dream about becoming millionaires, and as a reward watch yet another schlub (who like all that have come before him will do nothing of any consequence with the windfall) collect a two billion dollar paycheck - of our money - instead.
Implicit in my statement is that I'm speaking to averages but there is the simple fact that the only reason costs are higher is because markets raise prices to the result of supply and demand not because of some force outside our control
It's only because the average incomes are higher that costs are higher. Drop those wages to a normalized value and suddenly the market corrects as it reaches price equilibrium through bilateral supply and demand.
