That's your first mistake, perhaps. Underestimating the complexity. Already at the level of just great-great grandparents, most people come from as many as 8 villages (fewer if there was tremendous inbreeding, like in your case [sorry, is what it is]). Perhaps each and every one was destroyed, and all of their parents' village records in as many as 16 more villages, were ALL destroyed, too; or you're so inbred there were far fewer villages containing records about y'all. Doubtful, though, that you are that inbred. Whatever you find document-wise will be immensely more illuminating than the DNA tests, no matter how scant.

edit: perhaps supplement your research with what use you can make of others' research on FamilySearch.org . That website helps folks compare notes on family trees. Some people log in to find out most of their tree has already been fleshed out by others who share many of the same branches.

DNA tests are a scam. Do documentary genealogy if you want to know anything valid.

I don't understand what your comment has to do with the quote. Disposable income is across the board lower in communities with lower costs of living. People who live in higher cost of living communities have more disposible income overall, whether or not it is more or less income relative to cost of living.

Going to Disneyland or buying a Peloton is essentially cheaper for an average New Yorker (where even restaurant servers may earn $75/k per year) than Cincinattian.

I grew up in low wage middle America. As long as we lived, worked and played in our low cost community, we were well off. But take our puny wage into the global market and we were very poor.

Therefore, I think you and the author misunderstand the point about "growth" this coasty elite is making.