[NickC25]

>* a single person can live independently in an apartment, and eat out every single night of the week if they choose.*

And that's a good thing, because you're increasing the spending power someone who will keep the money velocity high has, which by definition helps the local economy. They are spending that money, which will move about and cause growth.

[int_19h]

Spending all that money also increases demand on goods, raising prices for everybody else eventually. The people who serve the direct needs of those who get the first dibs on the money are likely still better off, but the further away in that chain, the less favorable the balance. At some point, it may well become negative. So I don't think there's a universal answer here that applies to all such situations in general - one has to crunch the numbers to make any meaningful conclusions on the overall economic effect.

[true_religion]

There is some inelasticity to some classes of goods, so you don’t immediately have to worry about upturning an entire nations company because a foreign company decided to pay middle class wages to a few dozen people.

Now for instance, the class of goods we were talking about is restaurant food. This may be a pure substitute for home cooked food, leading to no increase in food demand and money simply being spread to the service workers. Or it could be that they eat different food (e.g chicken imports rather than local fish), which also wouldn’t affect the balance of demand/supply for the poorest and neediest.

[int_19h]

I would be more concerned about housing.