Nah, didn’t miss it. We are just talking past each other as happens online, nbd. $1.7k is surely not enough to live on. Yet, it can make a huge difference to a low income person.
I do not know your circumstances, poverty is a unique experience that people who grew up with even just a tiny bit more security seem to not truly understand. We have sayings like ‘grinding poverty’ for a reason. IYKYK.
It won’t change Jizzedina Davenport Vance’s mind. It will embolden others to do the same and eventually maybe he gets a proper crowd-sourced spa treatment.
That’s why I am a Wobbly. I was raised to be a white pro-labor racist by religious weirdos. Yet the best, kindest, most understanding friends I ever made on the playground were non-white.
I am grateful that I cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance and have distanced myself from racism and kept my pro-labor stances.
It’s a long multi-generational fight, but what else can a person who strives to be decent do?
He’s upset that Forbes did not do actual journalism. Anyone who looked into Theranos would have known that it was smelly from the beginning.
It was initially difficult to claim outright fraud, but the lack of peer reviewed research coming out of that company or that the diagnostics were even based on would have triggered anyone who was marginally competent in medical testing or even just biochemistry.
So Forbes sucks, and they printed what they were told.
If you have ever been low income, $1700 is enough to get your attention. You know where that money comes from and when you are low income, a sudden in flow of essentially an extra month and a half of salary for a rural person?
Well, you’re paying attention to that. So maybe have some perspective about what that kind of money means to a person who has a shitty truck and a barely adequate house and spends months in it through a long winter.
The only achievement me or my extended family feel any pride in bragging about is an uncle who got a picture of a severe psoriasis outbreak on his ass in a medical textbook. Several members of the family have a copy of that textbook on their bookshelves and these people can barely read.
Economists are also mostly employed to serve the interests of the rich. They are a primary source of the useless metrics we hear on the news that truly reflect only the experience and interest of those who have enough money to respond to that info.
There are many other methods developed by non-shill economists that we never hear about unless one goes digging into more obscure academic literature.
The Gini coefficient is one example. It is a perfectly valid way of framing and interpreting economic data, but one almost never sees it in popular media. Why?
The people that buy economists and media don’t even want to have the conversation about income inequality.
So, yes, economics is a valid area of study that has some valid methods.
Also, most economists are intellectually dishonest and compromised shills for entrenched wealth.
Economics is a valid area of study, after all everyone loves money and needs some. Things work better for everyone when it is moving around optimally.
But money also buys opinions from feckless nerds. Thus the entire ‘science’ of economics as the public sees it is much more akin to a company paying a consultant to come in to deliver bad news about needed layoffs. It is pure theatre to deflect ire away from the real reasons.
Training can be reinforced by opining on said media at work, with friends and online. Feedback from these other models in the form of their own wrong opinions about the media reinforces one’s own model to always be right.
porksnort @ porksnort @slrpnk.net Posts 1Comments 43Joined 1 wk. ago
True, but such a shame.