>That's "Low Cost Of Living", right? That's not a synonym for "poor"

It is.

>so I'm not certain such situations actually exist in those metro areas?

Huh?

I don't live there, but I've been to the places we're talking about. They don't have grocery stores, and the few stores that sell food cost a lot more than the stores I'm used to, for food that isn't so nutritious. The people there don't make exorbitant amounts of money, but they'd be better off if they had better access to affordable products. They are poor because the areas they inhabit have high costs of living.

How is it that people don't know this?

They are poor because they don't make enough money. And they can't arbitrarily move, because they can't find jobs just like that, or afford another place, just like that.

They're not some middle class people who because poor because their only store is a Dean and Deluca.

I never suggested that they move; that would have been presumptuous. It's still a fact that their income would go farther if they had access to the wide range of shopping options to which many other Americans have access. To which I and my neighbors have access, and many of them have very low incomes. Nobody here would ever consider any zip code in NYC to have a low cost of living.

I guess I'll just be confused as to why we're so eager ITT to follow the lead of someone who admits to working for these landlords and continue to blur the distinction between "this area has a low cost of living" and "poor people live here". The words we use when discussing such issues matter, and this Overton window should go no further in this direction.