Soraya Nadia McDonald @sorayanadiamcdonald.com · Apr 26 To be a member of the 1 percent in any state in the union, a person needs to clear more than $400,000k annually, minimum. So why does your story conflate 1 percentership with making a minimum of $100,000? The whole premise of your argument is ludicrously dishonest. www.cnbc.com/2025/07/30/i...
135 likes 14 replies
Replies
Some kids coming out of college start at 100k
Just like the "Bernie Sanders is a millionaire" argument, they're not making the point they think they are. So he has more to lose and still believes in wealth redistribution? That's actually called ideological consistency and it's how you're supposed to think!
Ok also the list of “cushy” industries includes healthcare (!!!!!!!), public sector, and “white collar” jobs. That uhhh a pretty large net.
Are successful people not allowed to advocate for democratic socialism. This logic has always baffled me.
Anyone thinking seriously about the cost of living in the US should spend some time on this site- livingwage.mit.edu . Most people debating wealth and poverty have no idea what it costs most families to keep their heads above water every month.
There's nothing hypocritical about a Democratic socialist making a good salary. I'd anything it proves this movement is not caused by economic Animus and isn't a collection of aggrieved poor people.
***taps sign***
Lol, it's like how many friggin billionaires are there running around?
You don’t have to be broke to fight for equality. It’s like, “oh the people who are advocating for basic human equality are also able to pay their bills and eat, shouldn’t we be mad at them”. The fuck
I'm not sure what the gotcha is here. Democratic Socialism advocates for a baseline standard of living that honors human dignity and condemns exploitation, and yet NYP loves to run these LOOK AT THESE HYPOCRITES HOW DARE THEY HAVE ANYTHING NICE as of the DSA demands everyone be monks
Not only that but . . . do you have to be poor to be a socialist? Do you have to be suffering under the current system to think there should be a better one? So dumb.
Wait are they saying that making 100k/yr means you're rich or bourgeois? Bc my husband and I combined make that much and we struggle to pay our mortgage, bills, and other living costs because of the constantly rising cost of living. In today's economy making 100k annually is just getting by
“Close to a third of them make more than $100K” is also just, on its face, a wild way to frame “72% of them make less than $100K”.
$100k is below area median income where I live!