CBC/BBC/Al Jazeera, checking the Economist for my minute by minute bellweather county level fun.

If they keep making movies that respect our intelligence or hit our nerd youth while not being a four quadrant flick, I’ll keep going!

Ach, totally fair.

I use Connect and tag users rather than block them. That way, I can still see stuff that’s posted but I have a hint as to whether or not they are someone with whom I want to interact.

If I get a scammer while I’m working from home, I always feel like every minute I can keep them on the phone is another they aren’t stealing from the elderly. Plus, when you get them swearing at the end it feels like a badge of achievement.

I mean, it probably would’ve been ideal then but as usual, America was recovering from/embroiled in the last Conservative disasters (financial crisis, Afghanistan/Iraq.) And Obama had just burned a lot of political capital giving people healthcare.

All of a sudden or suddenly. Leaning back on old camp counsellor story telling, I think all of a sudden would be better for building tension whereas a quick, staccato **suddenly! **acts like a verbal bang or jump start, if that makes any sense.

Ha, I had the same reaction but the opposite way: the sudden?

Going as Mr Clean. Seems simple and fun. Although, with Halloween parties being what they are, we’ll see how long those pristine whites last.

That movie scared the hell out of me as a kid, does it sort of hold up a quarter century later?

“Even if the chances are one in a million” damn. Just think about that the other way! “Even if 999,999 families have to lose a loved one, that seems fair enough to me.”

Again, there are people whose salary is $1 but they are multi millionaires/billionaires.

So, your measure would “show” people trying to live on $1 a year as that is their full time wage. But surely we both understand this would be a poor measure of what you’re hoping to achieve?

Amd to answer OP’s question, I’ve given a bunch of examples of people where measuring their full time wage would be a poor measure of their situation and equally, a poor measure of the economy.

Can you explain why you think the lowest, which is going to be full of outliers and silliness would be more meaningful than say, the median for the bottom 15 or 20%?

To me, any measure that could count Larry Ellison, Elon Musk or Meg Whitman, all of whom have at one point received $1 annual salary, as grievously poor seems silly and pretty poor indicator of the economy but maybe you understand something I don’t?

The more useful framing might be someone like Ford.

I’d be hard pressed to argue Musk hasn’t had some sort of a hand in a couple significant technological movements (Tesla, SpaceX) but that doesn’t make his political positions worthy of respect.

Similarly, for all his flaws, Ford revolutionized the factory. That didn’t make his Brazilian city work, his shitty anti semetic views right or his “meh” attitudes on ww2 correct.

Musk’s successes don’t particularly quality him on everything.

Hey just wanted to say thanks for the answer, I took the plunge and watched Terrifier, your comparison is incredibly appropriate.

My buddy wants to watch the third so I told him we’re good to go thanks to random internet advice!

First, full time wages isn’t how median income is calculated. It’s simply taxable income, could be from capital gains, inheritance, working part time etc.

If we switch to full time employee, are we ignoring shiftwork? Counting it as full time if they have enough hours? (Which really starts to skew when you think about the service industry where a bartender or server walks out with a few hundred for a few hours hard work.)

But let’s just ignore all that, pretend everyone is on a 40 hour a week job. Even so, again at the low end you still run into oddities that really warp the statistics. When I was 16 - 21 I had a full time job as a camp counsellor but a large part of my wages were what’s called “in kind” wherein they covered my food and board. When I was in school, I worked security and made minimum wage but with the understanding I could do my schoolwork (in essence, another type of in-kind pay) so I took that over a better paying job. Similarly, you might have apprentice or entry wages. Or as above, a program that gets special needs folks a job eith a willing employer where some of the wage is shared by the government or goes to paying the costs associated with employing that person. (Consider these programs from the employer’s perspective, if the employer was paying the same wage regardless, why would they hire someone with challenges etc when they could hire someone who wouldn’t require accomodations.) Again, all of this stuff happens at the very bottom and really isn’t a good indicator of the economy.

If you did large bottom swathes, bottom 10/20 % you’d still have some of these issues but they’d get smoothed out a little bit.

The lowest are likely to have serious issues and not be particularly helpful (how well the paperboy, special needs cashier etc is not particularly representative or useful.)

We also have measures that capture most of what you’re looking for there in the poverty rate.

What might be helpful is stuff like the interquartile ranges (think medians but more of them) or specific medians e.g., what’s the median for the bottom twenty, bottom forty etc.

Measures at the extremes are rarely very helpful except for arguing in ignorance or bad faith.

Did anyone else dig the first one? I don’t have a copy but based on my memories it seemed fairly accurate and I was impressed by the action sequences.

Thanks, that makes total sense.

And yeah, that first Sadness scene set the tone appropriately/ridiculously hard.

I had no idea there was a dance, thanks for sharing! Gonna have to practice my booty shakin’!