安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語(日文)
한국어(韓文)
ไทย(泰文)
Български(保加利亞文)
Čeština(捷克文)
Dansk(丹麥文)
Deutsch(德文)
English(英文)
Español - España(西班牙文 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希臘文)
Français(法文)
Italiano(義大利文)
Bahasa Indonesia(印尼語)
Magyar(匈牙利文)
Nederlands(荷蘭文)
Norsk(挪威文)
Polski(波蘭文)
Português(葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙)
Português - Brasil(葡萄牙文 - 巴西)
Română(羅馬尼亞文)
Русский(俄文)
Suomi(芬蘭文)
Svenska(瑞典文)
Türkçe(土耳其文)
tiếng Việt(越南文)
Українська(烏克蘭文)
回報翻譯問題
but there's also significantly fewer positions that can provide even a marginal income.
Now imagine how it is for median earner in those areas.
I can't; in order for those two groups to exist concurrently there must be such irregularities in the market that housing becomes a roll of the dice even when you have wealth.
New York has similarly dysfunctional property valuation, although it's a little bit harder to see.
Easier said than done, friend, especially when you don't know everyone's living situation. Not everyone's rich or is living good, don't forget about the other people.
Then it isn't about property valuation at all, and they are simply choosing to be homeless.
Incomes are not worth much anymore, in many places it is very possible it was better to earn $50k in year 2000 and than $100k in 2024.
On other hand the cheaper states seems to have other issues like look at life expectency of like the southern states, looks rather bad.
But location location location means much more than you think, so all urban areas are different tbh.
200k as a family income seems about right for middleclass in such an area. But you can do with as little as 120k family wise and still live well in many urban areas and without any needs.
The real struggle is for people making between 70-90k as a family.