[dovel]

I would not really call it a issue of economics, since you are assuming someone elses economic situation it becomes a social issue.

You are matching your perception of someone with your pre-existing notions of them - typifying them in a sense. There are so many things to consider, really.

If you see someone in a Lamborghini, you might assume they are rich. But they may in fact be massively in debt. Therefore the analysis becomes a social one - about there access to funds or cars and not necessarily related to their economic status.

If you see a mother with a phone you think she couldn't / shouldn't be able to afford (I realise they used this example as a past belief but may as well use it). The phone could have been a gift, it could have been won - there are so many factors that you are reducing to one.

[Dylan16807]

If you see one, it might have been a gift or won. If you see 10 out of 20 with them, it becomes reasonable to assume it was a purchase.

The point of identifying a trend is to reduce the factors. If there isn't in fact a trend, that's when you look very closely at the individual person, or that's the point where you embarrassedly drop the subject because you made a false correlation.

Side note: I consider you rich if you can make payments on expensive-enough things, even if your debt is greater than your assets.