We should only be banning things that promote intolerance because there will never be an end to the bannings, there will always be some witch to hunt somewhere.
To answer your question, yes it is the saying the same thing, that is why banning books is so stupid. A book, movie, TV show, meme, or news report isn’t necessarily going to change my mind but it might make me think about something from a perspective I didn’t consider before.
A frustratingly empty article. Why are they struggling to “make ends meet”? What ends? If it’s housing, this is a housing story. If it’s high auto loan debt, that’s a mother matter. If it’s not housing and it’s accrued consumer debt, that’s a different matter.
They never say, so there isn’t much to conclude from this piece.
They’re extrapolating trends from just over ONE year of data. The survey was started in 2023, which means statements like this ring very hollow:
Second, the year-over-year change in worry for this population is large and significant. In April 2023, 20.7 percent of those who could currently pay all of their bills were worried about the next six months; one year later, 26.2 percent reported worries, with nearly every demographic group showing large and significant increases as well. We did not observe such a year-over-year increase in our previous report (comparing January 2023 with January 2024).
And from that we get Matt Egan’s overarching conclusion that “wealthy Americans are struggling to make ends meet”, which conflicts with the findings that only 6.9% of people earning more than $150k/yr are reporting that they can’t currently make ends meet (6% of those making more than $100k/yr). Or, in other words, 93.1% of people earning more than $150k/yr can currently make ends meet. (someone tell Egan!) But the surveyors go on to claim that it’s a significant uptick from 3.4% a year ago, which is true (yay!). You know what it’s not a significant uptick from? The very next survey (i.e. July), which tallied a 6% rate of not being able to make ends meet. That number then fell to 3.0% in October before jumping again in January, then again in April.
Those numbers go up significantly when forecasting out 0-6 months, and then 7-12 months. The numbers for high earners go up to 32.5% and 33%, respectively. You know what’s happening in just under 6 months? A pretty significant election! And to what do these high earners attribute their inability to make ends meet? Job insecurity? Medical expenses? Global instability? Inflation?
Who the fuck knows?! The survey is decidedly silent on that front. But that didn’t stop Matt Egan from scrapping together the most fear-inducing, clickbait headline he could muster for our next dose of doom-fuel.
Regurgitation pieces require no formal journalistic training, can be produced with almost no research time, can be cranked out en masse, and can be subjectively framed to grab eyeballs because there’s no entity able to claim libel if it’s misrepresented. It’s yellow journalism, plain and simple, and gullible rubes lap that shit up without a second’s hesitation because it tells them something saucy that makes them feel vindicated.
Yeah people tend to spend what they make. Larger incomes are spent on bigger houses and nicer cars. But larger incomes have more wiggle room to cut back and afford the basics if they have to.
A similar thing happens at the company I just joined. It has a “move fast” culture. I push for new roles that are genuinely needed now. My boss “approves”, but finance puts the brakes on for review. HR doesn’t want me yelling at them, so they post the job to “get a jump on collecting resumes”.
If I lose the battle with finance, the job evaporates. If I win, we scoop up the resumes, and hire someone within a week.
My mother works in HR, she told me a story I didn’t retain too much of, long story short someone she’s interviewing thought the job was for a higher salary because they saw a freebooted job post.
I think some recruiting firm (that probably shares an office with IRS scammers) posted my mother’s job post with a higher salary so they could offer that candidate to my mother.
True, if the justice system retains any of its authority under the next administration. Our laws and the institutions that uphold them are just constructs that can be influenced, dissolved, or repurposed.
I’m in the income bracket described here (certainly not “wealthy”) and while I wouldn’t say i am struggling, I have had to cut down on some extraneous spending. Nothing like what most people are facing though.
Wait until that first surprise medical event. In that bracket. Employed full time w/health “insurance”. Eating instant ramen and had to get roommates. Lifestyle medication woo
They can’t make you pay medical debt. But the pharmacy doesn’t refill your meds without payment up front. And you make too much for financial assistance and the fact your employer provides insurance actually eliminates counter discounts (uninsured discounts) and other benefits.
Plus people on the internet will accuse you of being bad at money because “nobody making over $100k is poor”
Sorry, I absolutely did not mean to minimize the struggles of anyone else. So much of our situations are dependent on factors that just can’t broadly apply across such a broadly defined demographic.
Does she get to keep the money? I know it’s evidence, but they still gave it to her. She owns it, right? When the trial is done, why shouldn’t she get it?
People don’t generally get to keep the benefits from a crime, and in this case the money is both evidence and also money she never would have been able to legally receive.
Since it comes from the ceiminals it would be neat to let her keep it as a reward for reporting it, but she probably won’t get to.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.