I saw it, and it said that a household of eight living on an income of $200k would be “low income”.

First, “low income” is not poor, either legally or in the informal definition of the word. Even according to the chart you’re referencing, $200k is far above the poverty line. It’s more than twice the cutoff for “extremely low income”.

Second, this is also based on an absurd qualifier: It’s only “low” if you’re trying to support seven dependents.

By this logic, $300k a year is poor too (if you’re supporting a household of 12), and a million a year is also poor (if you’re supporting a household of 40 in San Francisco).

This is silly. If your monthly income is $16k you aren’t poor.

You can still be broke. You can be in debt. But no: you are not poor.

I’m not saying that you can’t run out of money if you make $200k. I’m saying that it’s not poor.

If earning well above average in an area with a high concentration of high earners can be poor, the word means nothing.

$200k is not poor in San Francisco.

It’s still significantly above average, even in San Francisco.

I mean no offense, but I don’t think this is true.

I don’t think anyone who makes $200,000 a year is considered poor under legal definitions or under the casual common use of the term.

You could make $200k and be in debt. You could make $200k and be in a precarious situation. But I don’t think you can make $200k and qualify as in poverty, either legally or in the court of public opinion.

Okay, but that’s not what poor means.

No?

This question makes no sense.

I mean, the inputs into his decisions are simple, but also such a jumbled mess that it’s hard to be sure. But my hopeful guess is that he is finally looking for an overdue exit strategy, and his goal now is to agree to as many of Iran’s terms of ceasefire while obscuring the defeat as best as possible.

I’m hopeful this is a blustery move to look tough as the US forces capitulate and leave.

This story is wonderfully written.

Wait I’m not up to date on the Bratz lore: do they hunt demons?

While this may be true, never forget that what he says has no connection to the truth and are purely reflective of whatever words will produce the outcome he wants at a given moment.

I get the logic. But it’s still really dumb.

This is truly an April Fools-level move.

The US is closing the Strait? The generals couldn’t open it, so Hegseth said, ‘Okay! I’ve got it! We declare that WE’RE closing it, NOT THEM!’

How … is this better?

First, I’ve been to Astoria Oregon, and I assure you that people live there. It’s not Vancouver, but it’s a legit town.

But I get your question. I think the answers are complex and technical, but my understanding is that people migrate and settle, and then population centers often grow based on a mix of natural features and where human-made resources like centers of education are constructed. So it’s really more of a question of why were the locations of Portland and Seattle better.

I’m not a geographer, so I don’t know the precise features, but my guess is that Portland and Seattle were located in areas that offered most of the benefits of this coastal region in terms of access to the ocean but had greater benefits and fewer downsides. I’m just speculating here, but my first guess would be that the weather inland is less intense. It might also provide better access to freshwater and arable land.

But people do live there. And if you live in Newport or Lincoln City you’re two hours from an international airport. That’s not exactly undeveloped wilderness. People just chose to settle a bit more inland along bays, which considering how rough the weather in the coastal Pacific northwest can be, seems sensible.

Wow that’s… kinda fire. Ngl.

I’m not a big fan of the IRGC, but that’s a banger of a diss track.

It’s pay walled.

This is a really interesting question that people aren’t taking seriously.

It’s a huge mix. Because one of the key features of wealth and privilege is freedom: these people get to do more or less whatever they want.

For some, that’s whatever their parents do. Maybe they just want to make money and have martini lunches. But for a lot of them, they may just want to be a gaming YouTuber or a marine biologist, or a even run a social-justice focused non-profit.

As much as most of us resent unearned privilege, there’s no rule that says people who lucked into life are all stupid, mean, or incompetent. Many will become successful academics or devote themselves to politically righteous causes. The main problem is not what they do, but all the human potential among the unprivileged that is denied and squandered.

Many may also move between careers; etsy store one year, writer another. It’s very fluid.

It’s pay walled for me

Wow, I’ll admit my guess was wrong: that’s a pretty clear endorsement of terrorism. I still don’t think she should be arrested.

Also I think it’s terrible journalism that they didn’t say specifically what she posted. That’s necessarily context. Thanks for sharing it.

I wouldn’t call him “die-hard”. He’s a neoliberal, but I think he’s clearly pretty conflicted.

He seems like a closet Berniecrat. He hasn’t said it, but I think he is probably a Warren voter.

I wish he was more socialist, but it’s clear that he hates Jefferies and Schumer, and has a sinking suspicion that Democrats are just the Washington Generals, but is still in the denial phase.

I listen to his podcast, and it’s mostly good. He’s still a lib, but he’s clearly working on it. It especially comes out when he’s taking with his producers, who he clearly hired to help him see his blind spots.

I like him.

This whole thing is Orwellian, but nothing more so imo than when stories like this report that someone was arrested for speech but doesn’t actually tell us what the offending speech was.

I think it’s pretty obvious that they know that they’ll get in trouble with the same people if they share the message. It’s quite sad.