I can’t think of worse debate performance. Nixon profusely sweating? Pretty bad, but at least he was coherent.

Mondale not being able to counter Regan’s age deflecting quip? Damn. That’s so tough one when the crowds turned.

The Gore eye roll? Well damn that sucks.

But this was a debate long fugue state. At best, some Trump previous incoherent ramblings are close, but still not as bad.

This was seriously bad. And everyone failing to see that and trying to minimize it is attempting and failing to gaslight everyone else.

There maybe no replacement available, but at least call a spade a spade.

I’m talking about the date and time of it being changed. You wrote:

dropped the fact checking that afternoon

But from what I can tell, the rules had been set for a couple of months.

I can’t find anything to corroberate #4. Do you have a reference?

Sometimes we find inspiration where we least expect it.

Income based repayments such as SAVE calculate your payments as a percentage of your disposable income. This means it can be as low as $0 per month if you happen to be unemployed for even a short time. Interest still accrues, but doesn’t capitalize with SAVE. This can result in a “significant” balance.

Listening to some Captain Beefheart, huh… I’ll grab my shiny rocks!

That movie quote went right over your head.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You didn’t use “Palestinian” or “civilian” in that sentence. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

The Trump

Fun science fact. Crabs are always shit talking and making “yo mama” jokes.

I ran out of money.

Coffee

Coffee

Coffee
Coffee
Coffee
Coffee
Coffee

Coffee Coffee Coffee Coffee Coffee
Makes you high, makes you hide
Makes you really want to go

Coffee
Coffee
Coffee
Stop

Can’t wait for the Thursday night primetime release of Dr. Dog: Miracle Worker on ABC. It’d be tragic if they didn’t cast Snoop as the doc.

This is exactly what Lewis Carroll was saying..

I feel really bad for this person.

I didn’t realize that you were linking to the same paper I had found independently and is the source of the parent comment. The way they are calculating household income isn’t the same as the IRS.

Household income refers to total income received by all members of household, divided by the square root of the household.

It’s a wonky calculation.

Read the original paper.

At the household level, intergenerational improvements in income are even clearer at all age ranges, including young adulthood. This is consistent with individuals increasingly living with and relying on their parents well into their 20s, although improvements from relying on parental resources do not reflect the same type of financial progress as improvements from one’s own income.

Here’s the source for that chart. And the paper for that chart.

The chart is for household income. With each generation, there’s an increase in the percentage of the generation living at home. This is noted in the paper, but not in The Economist article. We’ll see if Gen Z makes the switch like Millennials were during their 30s.

A couple of asides. The Economist graph isn’t very easily matched with one from the paper. There are several graphs that share similar contours, but The Economist has changed the aspect ratio enough that it’s hard to identify with visual inspection. Most curious, though, is The Economist’s choice of starting the x-axis at 15 years old. All the graphs in the paper start at 20myesrs old.

The conclusion in The Economist piece is as follows:

What does this wealth mean? It can seem as if millennials grew up thinking a job was a privilege, and acted accordingly. They are deferential to bosses and eager to please. Zoomers, by contrast, have grown up believing that a job is basically a right, meaning they have a different attitude to work. Last year Gen Z-ers boasted about “quiet quitting”, where they put in just enough effort not to be fired. Others talk of “bare minimum Monday”. The “girlboss” archetype, who seeks to wrestle corporate control away from domineering men, appeals to millennial women. Gen Z ones are more likely to discuss the idea of being “snail girls”, who take things slowly and prioritise self-care.

It is clear that The Economist has an agenda of dividing Millennials and Gen Z. The paper makes no claims about Gen Z and their economic outlook. The data is simply not there. Rather, The Economist is recapitulating tired themes of “the youth these days” and “kids don’t want to work”.

People work when they have something to work towards, with and for people they care about. People work hard because it fills us with meaning purpose. When we are young, we do and should be creating relationships and learning about ourselves, the world, who we wish to be in the world, and who we wish to journey with.

I forever will call bullshit on the anti-youth themes of our culture. It dimishes it and serves only the most well established and crumudgenly amongst us. Articles like these have all too obvious subtext of “shut up, work hard, and grow up”.

Fuck that noise.

In the far future, “Our time scientists discovered debates about worm sizes. The basic unit for worm measurement was a rhino.” … “What is 'a rhino’s?” … “We are unsure still. But they didn’t have many.”