I have watched a good portion of this linked video.
I think it is fair for us to discuss "Sex and the City" in terms of the non-sexual elements because that's a newer angle compared to the thread I found from the past, which focuses more on sex/dating/relationships. Also, the linked video is more about these financial and non-sexual elements of the show.
@MatureDJ mentions financial responsibilities and the ability to cook as non-sexual elements.
It is true that all of the female lead characters are financially irresponsible for a lot of reasons. Each character has their own flaws. This depiction didn't set a good example for women, but it had some basis in reality for urban women of 1998-2004.
Let's start with income.
Carrie doesn't earn a lot of money as a journalist for a smaller publication. She has the most financial issues out of all of the characters. She overspends on non-essentials, such as clothing and other fashion accessories. She would have needed a sugar daddy to maintain her lifestyle. Her rent was depicted as artificially low. The only way that is possible it is realistic is if she got into a rent controlled building many years before 1998. She moved to New York in the 1980s and was paying 1980s prices.
Charlotte's art dealer salary was likely good because she owned the gallery. Her parents were also wealthy so she could have received support from her parents.
Miranda (lawyer) and Samantha (PR firm owner/executive) have solid incomes and were examples of what's been called the 'Girl Boss' in recent years. Miranda and Samantha were harder core careerist women and didn't value cooking or cleaning. Miranda ordered a lot of Chinese takeout food, which isn't the healthiest food choice and more expensive than cooking. Samantha was not well known as a home chef either.
Although Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha all had good incomes, they all spent way too much money. They all likely incurred a lot of credit card debt. That's not good in any way for women in the real world.