The News Thread

[The Ozzman]

Yep, I'd hit that

 

[Dak]

Face is scary.

In other news:

http://qz.com/583254/actually-you-can-make-250000-and-be-middle-class-in-america/

A single year’s earnings don’t tell you much about where a person really sits on the wealth spectrum because income varies during most people’s lifetimes. Sociologists Thomas Hirschel and Mark Rank estimate that about 36% of Americans will take home a top 5% income at some point in their lives. Few people maintain high income for long: only 8% of American workers earn in the top 5% for five or more consecutive years; only 3% earn in the top 5% for 10 consecutive years. This is because most people don’t earn high incomes until well into middle age. High earners are also subject to bigger swings in income because many are self-employed or paid commissions or bonuses. They might earn $250,000 one year and $80,000 the next. When you average income over several years, many of these people aren’t as wealthy as you’d expect, possibly falling within a range you’d consider middle class.

And higher earners do really have more expenses, sometimes due to where they live. As a result, employers often offer greater compensation in areas with higher costs of living. Data from the Survey of Consumer Finances reveals that median income is 30% higher in urban areas than relatively cheaper non-urban. In the Northeast, median income is 40% higher compared to the low-cost South.

And because they tend to be older, they are also more likely to have families to support. The figure below compares some statistics between average earners (between $40k and $60k a year) to the 5% ($240-260k a year) from the Federal Reserve’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finance.

Geography and family are often greater factors in determining functional wealth at the non-billionaire strata the majority of us inhabit. It shouldn't be surprising that many YSUs (young socialist urbanites) don't support anyone, haven't progressed past early career stages if even in a career, and live in super expensive places. This creates an extremely limited perspective on what large earnings are in terms of lifestyle affordability, and how fleeting good incomes can be be.

 

[Dak]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...h-science-journalism-2015-reality-kevin-folta

My piece covered, among other things, some questionable choices Folta had made as part of this scientific outreach. These included undisclosed ties to the biotech giant Monsanto, which were uncovered by a controversial FoI act request instigated by the anti-GMO group US Right to Know.

Relevant, too, is the fact that Folta published a pseudonymous podcast, a platform he used to interview his peers – even going as far as covertly interviewing himself – about science, including GMOs.

The reaction to the piece was swift and intense. I expected it; I’ve covered genetic engineering for a few years now and I’m familiar with the fights, which get nasty. But I found one trend particularly worrying.

A vocal but small group of pro-biotech researchers and science writers told me that I was ruining their cause and silencing scientists by discouraging scientificoutreach. Others called me anti-science.

A few weeks after the story published, when Folta announced that he was taking a break from his outreach – specifically his blog, his podcast and his Twitter account, endeavors separate from his scientific research – I got angry messages demanding a response about my role in his departure.

To me, this showed a twisted view of science journalism. Should political journalists stick to positive profiles of politicians? Should business writers only consider the positives from a company’s actions? Should those who write about literature ignore the intent of the pieces they cover?

Of course not. And the same goes for science.

Damn conspiracy theorists.

 

[rms]

Face is scary.

In other news:

http://qz.com/583254/actually-you-can-make-250000-and-be-middle-class-in-america/



Geography and family are often greater factors in determining functional wealth at the non-billionaire strata the majority of us inhabit. It shouldn't be surprising that many YSUs (young socialist urbanites) don't support anyone, haven't progressed past early career stages if even in a career, and live in super expensive places. This creates an extremely limited perspective on what large earnings are in terms of lifestyle affordability, and how fleeting good incomes can be be.

I really don't know what the bigger point this article is getting at, but I enjoy how it's seen as a "struggle" to go from 250k-80k in one year. Everyone knows urban areas are more expensive and the North pays higher wages as well as has higher taxes.

 

[The Ozzman]

Face is scary.

Doggy style, bruh
Reverse cowgirl, bruh

 

[Dak]

I really don't know what the bigger point this article is getting at, but I enjoy how it's seen as a "struggle" to go from 250k-80k in one year. Everyone knows urban areas are more expensive and the North pays higher wages as well as has higher taxes.

Well - it often is a struggle for people because they think things will be the same or better - and over extend themselves. Kind of like when people win the lottery.

 

[Matt]

.Kind of like when people when the lottery.

I've never whened the lottery, but I do know someone who went from making 100k in Chicago to 175k in NY and is basically broke there.

 

[rms]

Don't feel bad for the poor who mismanage their assets but feel bad for those who try and keep up with the Jones'. I don't get it.

My Dad is apparently a Trump supporter and thinks using the word "negro (PC UM!)" is being unPC.

#TrumpforLife

 

[Dak]

Don't feel bad for the poor who mismanage their assets but feel bad for those who try and keep up with the Jones'. I don't get it.

My Dad is apparently a Trump supporter and thinks using the word "broz" is being unPC.

#TrumpforLife

1. The welfare users driving Escalades (see it aplenty down here) are still trying to keep up with the Jones'.
2. It's even more dumb to try and keep up with the relative Jones' when you can't eat without assistance.

Poor Trump supporters.

I've never whened the lottery, but I do know someone who went from making 100k in Chicago to 175k in NY and is basically broke there.

Makes sense, unless you want to spend 2-3 hours riding transit. And of course why wouldn't you live in NYC without paying for the slick urban nightlife?

 

[CiG]

If I earned 175k a year I'd live under a fucking bridge.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[The Ozzman]

If I earned 175k a year I'd live under a fucking bridge.

And by 'under a bridge' you mean 'in a nice house'

 

[CiG]

And by 'under a bridge' you mean 'in a nice house'

No I mean under a fucking bridge! Land taxes can suck my cock.

 

[rms]

 

[King Richard]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...uinnipiac-poll-sanders-surges-to-lead-in-iowa

It's happening!

Quinnipiac poll: Sanders surges to retake lead in Iowa

Sen. Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton in a major Iowa poll for the first time since September, the latest sign the Democratic primary race is tightening between the two candidates.

The Vermont senator wins 49 percent of likely caucusgoers in the Quinnipiac University pollreleased Tuesday, compared to Clinton's 44 percent. It's a significant drop for Clinton from last month's Quinnipiac poll, which had her up by 11 percent.
Sanders is boosted by his 30-point lead among men, a significantly higher favorability rating, and more favorable views of his character traits and values. He's seen as a better steward of the economy and climate change, while Clinton wins on foreign policy, terrorism and healthcare.

Iowa Democrats still believe Clinton has a better shot at the White House, with 85 percent saying Clinton would have a good shot at winning compared to 68 percent who think Sanders can win.

Sanders's lead is just outside the poll's margin of error of 4.4 percent.

As Sanders continues to poll well in New Hampshire, Clinton had remained in much better shape in Iowa, where she regularly posted double-digit margins as recently as December. But the caucus state's polling has narrowed in January, with this week's NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll showing her up buy just 3 percent.

A win in both states would be a major victory for the Sanders campaign as he seeks to push back against the narrative that his support doesn't translate into electability. But even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he's polling significantly worse in most other states, including South Carolina and Nevada, the next two Democratic primary contests.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley won just 4 percent of the vote in the new Quinnipiac poll, which could have a significant impact on whether he makes this weekend's Democratic debate. He needs to average above 4.5 percent in the five most recent qualifying polls, but now stands at 4.4 percent when factoring in the new poll.

--This report was updated at 12:30 p.m.

 

[CiG]

 

[Dak]

Trump vs Sanders: Battle for the Captain of the Titanic.

 

[King Richard]

Sanders would slay Trump. Fact.

 

[Dak]

Sanders would slay Trump. Fact.

I would love to see the fight. I think Sanders is a greater problem for Trump than Hillary would be. I also think Trump has a greater chance of winning the presidency than the nomination so we will see what happens.

 

[Dak]

Is Dr Dawkins on the way to shitlord status?