this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
167 points (81.0% liked)

Canada

7204 readers
336 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (21 children)

Re: the title... Yeah no, owners of an expensive property are not only not in the "rich" class, they're likely working class as much as gig drivers and cashiers. Unless they liquidate this asset and actually go live somewhere LCOL where they can live off of the labour of others, they're still working class.

[–] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org -3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

That doesn't make any sense. If you have a million dollar house, you can borrow against it or sell it like any other asset. Yes you're rich.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

On the "sell it like any other asset", you still have to live somewhere, those places cost money. On the "borrow against it", now you've got debt (that costs money to have), I guess your saying anyone with that much money should be able to make more money off it via leverage than they use?

When i think rich, i think doesn't have to work, but maybe that's independently wealthy.

[–] rothaine@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Right? How is it "any other asset" when you need it to live?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)