Prices in America have genuinely lost the plot.
$18 for a basic burger and fries at a sit-down chain
$4.41 a gallon for gas, national average right now
$90+ for a single driving lesson
$2.99 for a 20oz bottle of Dr Pepper, grocery store price, closer to $3.50 at a gas station
$25-30 for a basic takeout meal for one
$30+ for a short Uber ride across town
$180+ a week for groceries, just for one person
$190+ a night for what gets marketed as a "budget" hotel room
Rent climbing in every direction at once
Everything keeps going up and wages just quietly sit there, year after year, pretending to keep pace.
At some point this stops being inflation and starts just being extraction.
$18 for a basic burger and fries at a sit-down chain
$4.41 a gallon for gas, national average right now
$90+ for a single driving lesson
$2.99 for a 20oz bottle of Dr Pepper, grocery store price, closer to $3.50 at a gas station
$25-30 for a basic takeout meal for one
$30+ for a short Uber ride across town
$180+ a week for groceries, just for one person
$190+ a night for what gets marketed as a "budget" hotel room
Rent climbing in every direction at once
Everything keeps going up and wages just quietly sit there, year after year, pretending to keep pace.
At some point this stops being inflation and starts just being extraction.
1
2
11
115
Owen retweeted
MY BROTHER'S RECRUITER GOT ACTUALLY MAD AT HIM FOR STATING HIS CURRENT SALARY.
My brother isn't job searching right now, but he was about six months ago, so his resume is still up on a few job sites. He keeps it there just to get alerts and see what's out there in his field.
Right now he's a gig worker. He bounces from job to job, but he's in a union. Averages between $90-120K a year. Through his union, as long as he's working steadily, he gets 100% paid health insurance, a 401k, and a pension plan. He's genuinely happy with what he does, the only downside being the uncertainty of hopping jobs, so he stays open to something more stable and corporate in his field.
A recruiter reached out through one of the job sites he's a member of. A 9-5 office role lined up with his skills. She emailed saying she was very interested and wanted to interview him. After some back and forth (and him making sure it wasn't a scam), the role sounded worth at least an interview.
Before going further, he asked about the pay scale.
She hit him with the classic: "Well, what is your expected salary for this role?"
One of his biggest pet peeves. Either a way to lowball someone who doesn't know their worth, or to pressure someone who does into taking less anyway.
Since he didn't need the job, he told her bluntly: "Right now I make around $100K a year with a 401k and pension plan. My insurance premiums are also 100% covered at no cost to me. So you'd need to offer something better for me to have any interest in interviewing."
Her response was snippy, to put it mildly. Paraphrasing the gist: "That's way out of budget for this role and frankly an unreasonable expectation. We're no longer interested in you as a candidate given demands like these. Going forward, I'd recommend making yourself more appealing to employers by adjusting your standards to match your skill level. You won't find work with this attitude."
He just told her what he's currently making. That's not a demand. That's a fact she asked for.
If it's not in your budget, fine, say that. Don't turn around and tell someone what they are and aren't worth.
My brother isn't job searching right now, but he was about six months ago, so his resume is still up on a few job sites. He keeps it there just to get alerts and see what's out there in his field.
Right now he's a gig worker. He bounces from job to job, but he's in a union. Averages between $90-120K a year. Through his union, as long as he's working steadily, he gets 100% paid health insurance, a 401k, and a pension plan. He's genuinely happy with what he does, the only downside being the uncertainty of hopping jobs, so he stays open to something more stable and corporate in his field.
A recruiter reached out through one of the job sites he's a member of. A 9-5 office role lined up with his skills. She emailed saying she was very interested and wanted to interview him. After some back and forth (and him making sure it wasn't a scam), the role sounded worth at least an interview.
Before going further, he asked about the pay scale.
She hit him with the classic: "Well, what is your expected salary for this role?"
One of his biggest pet peeves. Either a way to lowball someone who doesn't know their worth, or to pressure someone who does into taking less anyway.
Since he didn't need the job, he told her bluntly: "Right now I make around $100K a year with a 401k and pension plan. My insurance premiums are also 100% covered at no cost to me. So you'd need to offer something better for me to have any interest in interviewing."
Her response was snippy, to put it mildly. Paraphrasing the gist: "That's way out of budget for this role and frankly an unreasonable expectation. We're no longer interested in you as a candidate given demands like these. Going forward, I'd recommend making yourself more appealing to employers by adjusting your standards to match your skill level. You won't find work with this attitude."
He just told her what he's currently making. That's not a demand. That's a fact she asked for.
If it's not in your budget, fine, say that. Don't turn around and tell someone what they are and aren't worth.
14
4
49
1,720
MY BROTHER'S RECRUITER GOT ACTUALLY MAD AT HIM FOR STATING HIS CURRENT SALARY.
My brother isn't job searching right now, but he was about six months ago, so his resume is still up on a few job sites. He keeps it there just to get alerts and see what's out there in his field.
Right now he's a gig worker. He bounces from job to job, but he's in a union. Averages between $90-120K a year. Through his union, as long as he's working steadily, he gets 100% paid health insurance, a 401k, and a pension plan. He's genuinely happy with what he does, the only downside being the uncertainty of hopping jobs, so he stays open to something more stable and corporate in his field.
A recruiter reached out through one of the job sites he's a member of. A 9-5 office role lined up with his skills. She emailed saying she was very interested and wanted to interview him. After some back and forth (and him making sure it wasn't a scam), the role sounded worth at least an interview.
Before going further, he asked about the pay scale.
She hit him with the classic: "Well, what is your expected salary for this role?"
One of his biggest pet peeves. Either a way to lowball someone who doesn't know their worth, or to pressure someone who does into taking less anyway.
Since he didn't need the job, he told her bluntly: "Right now I make around $100K a year with a 401k and pension plan. My insurance premiums are also 100% covered at no cost to me. So you'd need to offer something better for me to have any interest in interviewing."
Her response was snippy, to put it mildly. Paraphrasing the gist: "That's way out of budget for this role and frankly an unreasonable expectation. We're no longer interested in you as a candidate given demands like these. Going forward, I'd recommend making yourself more appealing to employers by adjusting your standards to match your skill level. You won't find work with this attitude."
He just told her what he's currently making. That's not a demand. That's a fact she asked for.
If it's not in your budget, fine, say that. Don't turn around and tell someone what they are and aren't worth.
My brother isn't job searching right now, but he was about six months ago, so his resume is still up on a few job sites. He keeps it there just to get alerts and see what's out there in his field.
Right now he's a gig worker. He bounces from job to job, but he's in a union. Averages between $90-120K a year. Through his union, as long as he's working steadily, he gets 100% paid health insurance, a 401k, and a pension plan. He's genuinely happy with what he does, the only downside being the uncertainty of hopping jobs, so he stays open to something more stable and corporate in his field.
A recruiter reached out through one of the job sites he's a member of. A 9-5 office role lined up with his skills. She emailed saying she was very interested and wanted to interview him. After some back and forth (and him making sure it wasn't a scam), the role sounded worth at least an interview.
Before going further, he asked about the pay scale.
She hit him with the classic: "Well, what is your expected salary for this role?"
One of his biggest pet peeves. Either a way to lowball someone who doesn't know their worth, or to pressure someone who does into taking less anyway.
Since he didn't need the job, he told her bluntly: "Right now I make around $100K a year with a 401k and pension plan. My insurance premiums are also 100% covered at no cost to me. So you'd need to offer something better for me to have any interest in interviewing."
Her response was snippy, to put it mildly. Paraphrasing the gist: "That's way out of budget for this role and frankly an unreasonable expectation. We're no longer interested in you as a candidate given demands like these. Going forward, I'd recommend making yourself more appealing to employers by adjusting your standards to match your skill level. You won't find work with this attitude."
He just told her what he's currently making. That's not a demand. That's a fact she asked for.
If it's not in your budget, fine, say that. Don't turn around and tell someone what they are and aren't worth.
14
4
49
1,720
Owen retweeted
THE BERKELEY BOOMER WHO BLOCKED NEW HOUSING BECAUSE IT WOULD SHADE HER ZUCCHINI GARDEN.
Berkeley, California. A developer proposed a new housing project on an empty lot, the kind of project that would have added badly-needed units in a city where young renters routinely get nearby homeowner, a boomer with a backyard garden plot, showed up to the public hearing and formally objected.
Her stated reason: the new building would cast a shadow over her zucchini garden.
Not a safety concern. Not traffic. Not infrastructure. A shadow, over vegetables, was treated as a legitimate planning objection, and it became part of the public record in a housing fight that dragged on.
This isn't a one-off. Researchers studying generational housing conflict have found a consistent pattern across American cities: boomer homeowners, who bought in decades ago when prices were a fraction of today's, organizing through neighborhood associations specifically to block new apartment construction near them. Not because they need the space. Because higher density, renters, and younger neighbors threaten the exact kind of low-supply scarcity that's been inflating their own home values this whole time.
Researcher Randy Shaw wrote an entire book about this pattern, documenting how boomer-led opposition to "density" has been one of the most effective engines of unaffordability in major American cities, not accidentally, but as the direct, intended outcome of decades of these same objections.
The math is brutally simple. Every unit that doesn't get built because somebody's garden might get less sun is one less home available to a generation already locked out of buying anything at all.
She got to keep her zucchinis in full sun.
Somebody else just didn't get a place to live.
Berkeley, California. A developer proposed a new housing project on an empty lot, the kind of project that would have added badly-needed units in a city where young renters routinely get nearby homeowner, a boomer with a backyard garden plot, showed up to the public hearing and formally objected.
Her stated reason: the new building would cast a shadow over her zucchini garden.
Not a safety concern. Not traffic. Not infrastructure. A shadow, over vegetables, was treated as a legitimate planning objection, and it became part of the public record in a housing fight that dragged on.
This isn't a one-off. Researchers studying generational housing conflict have found a consistent pattern across American cities: boomer homeowners, who bought in decades ago when prices were a fraction of today's, organizing through neighborhood associations specifically to block new apartment construction near them. Not because they need the space. Because higher density, renters, and younger neighbors threaten the exact kind of low-supply scarcity that's been inflating their own home values this whole time.
Researcher Randy Shaw wrote an entire book about this pattern, documenting how boomer-led opposition to "density" has been one of the most effective engines of unaffordability in major American cities, not accidentally, but as the direct, intended outcome of decades of these same objections.
The math is brutally simple. Every unit that doesn't get built because somebody's garden might get less sun is one less home available to a generation already locked out of buying anything at all.
She got to keep her zucchinis in full sun.
Somebody else just didn't get a place to live.
5
4
33
1,723
THE BERKELEY BOOMER WHO BLOCKED NEW HOUSING BECAUSE IT WOULD SHADE HER ZUCCHINI GARDEN.
Berkeley, California. A developer proposed a new housing project on an empty lot, the kind of project that would have added badly-needed units in a city where young renters routinely get nearby homeowner, a boomer with a backyard garden plot, showed up to the public hearing and formally objected.
Her stated reason: the new building would cast a shadow over her zucchini garden.
Not a safety concern. Not traffic. Not infrastructure. A shadow, over vegetables, was treated as a legitimate planning objection, and it became part of the public record in a housing fight that dragged on.
This isn't a one-off. Researchers studying generational housing conflict have found a consistent pattern across American cities: boomer homeowners, who bought in decades ago when prices were a fraction of today's, organizing through neighborhood associations specifically to block new apartment construction near them. Not because they need the space. Because higher density, renters, and younger neighbors threaten the exact kind of low-supply scarcity that's been inflating their own home values this whole time.
Researcher Randy Shaw wrote an entire book about this pattern, documenting how boomer-led opposition to "density" has been one of the most effective engines of unaffordability in major American cities, not accidentally, but as the direct, intended outcome of decades of these same objections.
The math is brutally simple. Every unit that doesn't get built because somebody's garden might get less sun is one less home available to a generation already locked out of buying anything at all.
She got to keep her zucchinis in full sun.
Somebody else just didn't get a place to live.
Berkeley, California. A developer proposed a new housing project on an empty lot, the kind of project that would have added badly-needed units in a city where young renters routinely get nearby homeowner, a boomer with a backyard garden plot, showed up to the public hearing and formally objected.
Her stated reason: the new building would cast a shadow over her zucchini garden.
Not a safety concern. Not traffic. Not infrastructure. A shadow, over vegetables, was treated as a legitimate planning objection, and it became part of the public record in a housing fight that dragged on.
This isn't a one-off. Researchers studying generational housing conflict have found a consistent pattern across American cities: boomer homeowners, who bought in decades ago when prices were a fraction of today's, organizing through neighborhood associations specifically to block new apartment construction near them. Not because they need the space. Because higher density, renters, and younger neighbors threaten the exact kind of low-supply scarcity that's been inflating their own home values this whole time.
Researcher Randy Shaw wrote an entire book about this pattern, documenting how boomer-led opposition to "density" has been one of the most effective engines of unaffordability in major American cities, not accidentally, but as the direct, intended outcome of decades of these same objections.
The math is brutally simple. Every unit that doesn't get built because somebody's garden might get less sun is one less home available to a generation already locked out of buying anything at all.
She got to keep her zucchinis in full sun.
Somebody else just didn't get a place to live.
5
4
33
1,723
Owen retweeted
Can I ask a serious question, because I genuinely cannot wrap my head around this one?
It's been months and I'm still trying to figure out why AI data centers need fresh water. Not greywater. Not recycled water. Fresh, drinkable water, pulled straight from the same supply as everyone's tap.
A single large data center can use up to 5 million gallons of water a day. That's enough water, every single day, to supply a town of 50,000 people.
And it's not like that water comes back. Roughly 80% of the water used in cooling these things is lost straight into the atmosphere as vapor. Gone. Not treated, not recycled, not returning to the local supply.
About two-thirds of all data centers built since 2022 have been sited in water-stressed regions, places already dealing with drought or strained supply, because that's where land and power were cheap, not because anyone checked whether the water could actually handle it.
Arizona had to step in and cap new data center water use back in March, because the state was watching its own supply get drained while residents were under their own restrictions.
So genuinely, ask your neighbor whether they're allowed to water their lawn this summer, then ask them if they know their tap water is competing with a server farm down the road for the exact same source.
It's been months and I'm still trying to figure out why AI data centers need fresh water. Not greywater. Not recycled water. Fresh, drinkable water, pulled straight from the same supply as everyone's tap.
A single large data center can use up to 5 million gallons of water a day. That's enough water, every single day, to supply a town of 50,000 people.
And it's not like that water comes back. Roughly 80% of the water used in cooling these things is lost straight into the atmosphere as vapor. Gone. Not treated, not recycled, not returning to the local supply.
About two-thirds of all data centers built since 2022 have been sited in water-stressed regions, places already dealing with drought or strained supply, because that's where land and power were cheap, not because anyone checked whether the water could actually handle it.
Arizona had to step in and cap new data center water use back in March, because the state was watching its own supply get drained while residents were under their own restrictions.
So genuinely, ask your neighbor whether they're allowed to water their lawn this summer, then ask them if they know their tap water is competing with a server farm down the road for the exact same source.
16
11
56
3,265
Can I ask a serious question, because I genuinely cannot wrap my head around this one?
It's been months and I'm still trying to figure out why AI data centers need fresh water. Not greywater. Not recycled water. Fresh, drinkable water, pulled straight from the same supply as everyone's tap.
A single large data center can use up to 5 million gallons of water a day. That's enough water, every single day, to supply a town of 50,000 people.
And it's not like that water comes back. Roughly 80% of the water used in cooling these things is lost straight into the atmosphere as vapor. Gone. Not treated, not recycled, not returning to the local supply.
About two-thirds of all data centers built since 2022 have been sited in water-stressed regions, places already dealing with drought or strained supply, because that's where land and power were cheap, not because anyone checked whether the water could actually handle it.
Arizona had to step in and cap new data center water use back in March, because the state was watching its own supply get drained while residents were under their own restrictions.
So genuinely, ask your neighbor whether they're allowed to water their lawn this summer, then ask them if they know their tap water is competing with a server farm down the road for the exact same source.
It's been months and I'm still trying to figure out why AI data centers need fresh water. Not greywater. Not recycled water. Fresh, drinkable water, pulled straight from the same supply as everyone's tap.
A single large data center can use up to 5 million gallons of water a day. That's enough water, every single day, to supply a town of 50,000 people.
And it's not like that water comes back. Roughly 80% of the water used in cooling these things is lost straight into the atmosphere as vapor. Gone. Not treated, not recycled, not returning to the local supply.
About two-thirds of all data centers built since 2022 have been sited in water-stressed regions, places already dealing with drought or strained supply, because that's where land and power were cheap, not because anyone checked whether the water could actually handle it.
Arizona had to step in and cap new data center water use back in March, because the state was watching its own supply get drained while residents were under their own restrictions.
So genuinely, ask your neighbor whether they're allowed to water their lawn this summer, then ask them if they know their tap water is competing with a server farm down the road for the exact same source.
16
11
56
3,265
Owen retweeted
APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE TO ANY LANDLORDS READING THIS, BUT I'M NOT STAYING QUIET.
I just sent $1,750 in rent for a place I've lived in for four years. Never late. Never trashed it. Never once missed a payment.
Then the renewal email landed: rent's going up another $275 a month.
NO.
You've pulled almost $84,000 out of me over four years. That money paid your mortgage down, built your equity, funded your portfolio. And my reward for being the reliable tenant you never had to chase for rent is a bigger bill, simply because the market lets you charge one.
I'm the one writing the check every month, and at the end of all of it, I own nothing. Not a square foot of it.
If I'm covering your mortgage payment and then some, every single month, there should be a version of this where some of that money eventually becomes mine.
Stop treating good tenants like a subscription service you get to raise the price on whenever you feel like it.
I just sent $1,750 in rent for a place I've lived in for four years. Never late. Never trashed it. Never once missed a payment.
Then the renewal email landed: rent's going up another $275 a month.
NO.
You've pulled almost $84,000 out of me over four years. That money paid your mortgage down, built your equity, funded your portfolio. And my reward for being the reliable tenant you never had to chase for rent is a bigger bill, simply because the market lets you charge one.
I'm the one writing the check every month, and at the end of all of it, I own nothing. Not a square foot of it.
If I'm covering your mortgage payment and then some, every single month, there should be a version of this where some of that money eventually becomes mine.
Stop treating good tenants like a subscription service you get to raise the price on whenever you feel like it.
724
34
376
895,747
APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE TO ANY LANDLORDS READING THIS, BUT I'M NOT STAYING QUIET.
I just sent $1,750 in rent for a place I've lived in for four years. Never late. Never trashed it. Never once missed a payment.
Then the renewal email landed: rent's going up another $275 a month.
NO.
You've pulled almost $84,000 out of me over four years. That money paid your mortgage down, built your equity, funded your portfolio. And my reward for being the reliable tenant you never had to chase for rent is a bigger bill, simply because the market lets you charge one.
I'm the one writing the check every month, and at the end of all of it, I own nothing. Not a square foot of it.
If I'm covering your mortgage payment and then some, every single month, there should be a version of this where some of that money eventually becomes mine.
Stop treating good tenants like a subscription service you get to raise the price on whenever you feel like it.
I just sent $1,750 in rent for a place I've lived in for four years. Never late. Never trashed it. Never once missed a payment.
Then the renewal email landed: rent's going up another $275 a month.
NO.
You've pulled almost $84,000 out of me over four years. That money paid your mortgage down, built your equity, funded your portfolio. And my reward for being the reliable tenant you never had to chase for rent is a bigger bill, simply because the market lets you charge one.
I'm the one writing the check every month, and at the end of all of it, I own nothing. Not a square foot of it.
If I'm covering your mortgage payment and then some, every single month, there should be a version of this where some of that money eventually becomes mine.
Stop treating good tenants like a subscription service you get to raise the price on whenever you feel like it.
724
34
376
895,747
Owen retweeted
Six years. That's how long my cousin has been putting $700 into a house fund every single month, without missing one.
No vacations. She drove her car to 140,000 miles instead of upgrading. Cooked at home more nights than not.
Last month the account crossed $58,000, and she called me practically shaking with excitement, already scheduling showings for that weekend.
Then the realtor sent over the actual numbers.
Median home price in her area: $540,000. Twenty percent down, the amount needed to skip PMI entirely, comes out to $108,000.
She's $50,000 short. After six years of doing every single thing right.
She's 32. No kids. Stable job, 780 credit score, zero red flags anywhere on paper.
And she asked me, genuinely, what she did wrong.
Nothing. She did everything right. The target just kept moving faster than she could run.
No vacations. She drove her car to 140,000 miles instead of upgrading. Cooked at home more nights than not.
Last month the account crossed $58,000, and she called me practically shaking with excitement, already scheduling showings for that weekend.
Then the realtor sent over the actual numbers.
Median home price in her area: $540,000. Twenty percent down, the amount needed to skip PMI entirely, comes out to $108,000.
She's $50,000 short. After six years of doing every single thing right.
She's 32. No kids. Stable job, 780 credit score, zero red flags anywhere on paper.
And she asked me, genuinely, what she did wrong.
Nothing. She did everything right. The target just kept moving faster than she could run.
18
7
61
2,672
Six years. That's how long my cousin has been putting $700 into a house fund every single month, without missing one.
No vacations. She drove her car to 140,000 miles instead of upgrading. Cooked at home more nights than not.
Last month the account crossed $58,000, and she called me practically shaking with excitement, already scheduling showings for that weekend.
Then the realtor sent over the actual numbers.
Median home price in her area: $540,000. Twenty percent down, the amount needed to skip PMI entirely, comes out to $108,000.
She's $50,000 short. After six years of doing every single thing right.
She's 32. No kids. Stable job, 780 credit score, zero red flags anywhere on paper.
And she asked me, genuinely, what she did wrong.
Nothing. She did everything right. The target just kept moving faster than she could run.
No vacations. She drove her car to 140,000 miles instead of upgrading. Cooked at home more nights than not.
Last month the account crossed $58,000, and she called me practically shaking with excitement, already scheduling showings for that weekend.
Then the realtor sent over the actual numbers.
Median home price in her area: $540,000. Twenty percent down, the amount needed to skip PMI entirely, comes out to $108,000.
She's $50,000 short. After six years of doing every single thing right.
She's 32. No kids. Stable job, 780 credit score, zero red flags anywhere on paper.
And she asked me, genuinely, what she did wrong.
Nothing. She did everything right. The target just kept moving faster than she could run.
18
7
61
2,672
Owen retweeted
HOURS A WEEK NEEDED ON MINIMUM WAGE TO ESCAPE POVERTY, BY COUNTRY:
1. TÜRKIYE - 9 hours
2. UNITED KINGDOM - 14 hours
3. JAPAN, BELGIUM, GREECE - 16 hours
4. GERMANY - 21 hours
5. CANADA - 21 hours
6. AUSTRALIA - 21 hours
7. CZECHIA - 28 hours
8. NEW ZEALAND - 27 hours
9. DENMARK - 27 hours
10. SLOVENIA - 35 hours
11. UNITED STATES - 61 hours
SIXTY-ONE HOURS. According to OECD data, a single adult on the US federal minimum wage needs to work 61 hours a week, not 40, just to cross the poverty line.
That's not overtime. That's not ambition. That's the baseline just to not be classified as poor.
1. TÜRKIYE - 9 hours
2. UNITED KINGDOM - 14 hours
3. JAPAN, BELGIUM, GREECE - 16 hours
4. GERMANY - 21 hours
5. CANADA - 21 hours
6. AUSTRALIA - 21 hours
7. CZECHIA - 28 hours
8. NEW ZEALAND - 27 hours
9. DENMARK - 27 hours
10. SLOVENIA - 35 hours
11. UNITED STATES - 61 hours
SIXTY-ONE HOURS. According to OECD data, a single adult on the US federal minimum wage needs to work 61 hours a week, not 40, just to cross the poverty line.
That's not overtime. That's not ambition. That's the baseline just to not be classified as poor.
89
147
368
10,427
HOURS A WEEK NEEDED ON MINIMUM WAGE TO ESCAPE POVERTY, BY COUNTRY:
1. TÜRKIYE - 9 hours
2. UNITED KINGDOM - 14 hours
3. JAPAN, BELGIUM, GREECE - 16 hours
4. GERMANY - 21 hours
5. CANADA - 21 hours
6. AUSTRALIA - 21 hours
7. CZECHIA - 28 hours
8. NEW ZEALAND - 27 hours
9. DENMARK - 27 hours
10. SLOVENIA - 35 hours
11. UNITED STATES - 61 hours
SIXTY-ONE HOURS. According to OECD data, a single adult on the US federal minimum wage needs to work 61 hours a week, not 40, just to cross the poverty line.
That's not overtime. That's not ambition. That's the baseline just to not be classified as poor.
1. TÜRKIYE - 9 hours
2. UNITED KINGDOM - 14 hours
3. JAPAN, BELGIUM, GREECE - 16 hours
4. GERMANY - 21 hours
5. CANADA - 21 hours
6. AUSTRALIA - 21 hours
7. CZECHIA - 28 hours
8. NEW ZEALAND - 27 hours
9. DENMARK - 27 hours
10. SLOVENIA - 35 hours
11. UNITED STATES - 61 hours
SIXTY-ONE HOURS. According to OECD data, a single adult on the US federal minimum wage needs to work 61 hours a week, not 40, just to cross the poverty line.
That's not overtime. That's not ambition. That's the baseline just to not be classified as poor.
89
147
368
10,427
Owen retweeted
MINNESOTA IS STILL A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW BROKEN THIS GOVERNMENT IS.
100,000 Somalis allegedly brought into the country, and nobody in government thought to ask questions.
Billions in public assistance programs, including SNAP and welfare, yet nobody seems accountable.
Fake daycare centers allegedly receiving public funds without proper verification.
Questions surrounding $30 million and Ilhan Omar, with demands for an investigation.
Claims of no-go zones emerging on American soil while officials do nothing.
Yet this same government struggles to pass the SAVE Act to protect our elections.
Politicians trade stocks, accumulate wealth while in office, and face no term limits.
But ordinary Americans are expected to keep paying the bills and trust the system.
Fck your white neighborhoods.
Fck your voter ID laws.
Fck your tax dollars.
Fck your security.
F*ck your safety.
There was a time when a single income could buy a house, afford two cars, and raise three children while one parent stayed home.
That was the American dream.
Now families struggle to afford housing, groceries, and basic necessities while watching their tax dollars disappear into a system that seems to answer to everyone except them.
They took that dream away from ordinary Americans and left millions wondering how they’ll ever get it back.
The government has failed the people who fund it.
And the people responsible keep getting richer while everyone else pays the price.
So here’s the question nobody in Washington seems willing to answer:
WHO THE F*CK IS THIS GOVERNMENT WORKING FOR?
100,000 Somalis allegedly brought into the country, and nobody in government thought to ask questions.
Billions in public assistance programs, including SNAP and welfare, yet nobody seems accountable.
Fake daycare centers allegedly receiving public funds without proper verification.
Questions surrounding $30 million and Ilhan Omar, with demands for an investigation.
Claims of no-go zones emerging on American soil while officials do nothing.
Yet this same government struggles to pass the SAVE Act to protect our elections.
Politicians trade stocks, accumulate wealth while in office, and face no term limits.
But ordinary Americans are expected to keep paying the bills and trust the system.
Fck your white neighborhoods.
Fck your voter ID laws.
Fck your tax dollars.
Fck your security.
F*ck your safety.
There was a time when a single income could buy a house, afford two cars, and raise three children while one parent stayed home.
That was the American dream.
Now families struggle to afford housing, groceries, and basic necessities while watching their tax dollars disappear into a system that seems to answer to everyone except them.
They took that dream away from ordinary Americans and left millions wondering how they’ll ever get it back.
The government has failed the people who fund it.
And the people responsible keep getting richer while everyone else pays the price.
So here’s the question nobody in Washington seems willing to answer:
WHO THE F*CK IS THIS GOVERNMENT WORKING FOR?
15
8
73
1,541
MINNESOTA IS STILL A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW BROKEN THIS GOVERNMENT IS.
100,000 Somalis allegedly brought into the country, and nobody in government thought to ask questions.
Billions in public assistance programs, including SNAP and welfare, yet nobody seems accountable.
Fake daycare centers allegedly receiving public funds without proper verification.
Questions surrounding $30 million and Ilhan Omar, with demands for an investigation.
Claims of no-go zones emerging on American soil while officials do nothing.
Yet this same government struggles to pass the SAVE Act to protect our elections.
Politicians trade stocks, accumulate wealth while in office, and face no term limits.
But ordinary Americans are expected to keep paying the bills and trust the system.
Fck your white neighborhoods.
Fck your voter ID laws.
Fck your tax dollars.
Fck your security.
F*ck your safety.
There was a time when a single income could buy a house, afford two cars, and raise three children while one parent stayed home.
That was the American dream.
Now families struggle to afford housing, groceries, and basic necessities while watching their tax dollars disappear into a system that seems to answer to everyone except them.
They took that dream away from ordinary Americans and left millions wondering how they’ll ever get it back.
The government has failed the people who fund it.
And the people responsible keep getting richer while everyone else pays the price.
So here’s the question nobody in Washington seems willing to answer:
WHO THE F*CK IS THIS GOVERNMENT WORKING FOR?
100,000 Somalis allegedly brought into the country, and nobody in government thought to ask questions.
Billions in public assistance programs, including SNAP and welfare, yet nobody seems accountable.
Fake daycare centers allegedly receiving public funds without proper verification.
Questions surrounding $30 million and Ilhan Omar, with demands for an investigation.
Claims of no-go zones emerging on American soil while officials do nothing.
Yet this same government struggles to pass the SAVE Act to protect our elections.
Politicians trade stocks, accumulate wealth while in office, and face no term limits.
But ordinary Americans are expected to keep paying the bills and trust the system.
Fck your white neighborhoods.
Fck your voter ID laws.
Fck your tax dollars.
Fck your security.
F*ck your safety.
There was a time when a single income could buy a house, afford two cars, and raise three children while one parent stayed home.
That was the American dream.
Now families struggle to afford housing, groceries, and basic necessities while watching their tax dollars disappear into a system that seems to answer to everyone except them.
They took that dream away from ordinary Americans and left millions wondering how they’ll ever get it back.
The government has failed the people who fund it.
And the people responsible keep getting richer while everyone else pays the price.
So here’s the question nobody in Washington seems willing to answer:
WHO THE F*CK IS THIS GOVERNMENT WORKING FOR?
15
8
73
1,541
Owen retweeted
"FLORIDA IS CHEAPER THAN NEW YORK"
Rent
Manhattan: $4,200
Tampa: $1,950
Minimum wage
Manhattan: $16.50/hr
Tampa: $13.00/hr
Hours worked for rent
Manhattan: 4200 ÷ 16.50 = 254
Tampa: 1950 ÷ 13.00 = 150
Wait, that actually favors Tampa. Let me redo this with the real comparison people are making:
"TEXAS IS CHEAPER THAN CALIFORNIA"
Rent
San Francisco: $3,100
Houston: $1,450
Minimum wage
San Francisco: $18.67/hr
Texas: $7.25/hr
Hours worked for rent
San Francisco: 3100 ÷ 18.67 = 166
Houston: 1450 ÷ 7.25 = 200
You have to work roughly 20% more hours just to cover rent in the "cheaper" state. That's an extra four to five days of labor every single month, just to end up with a smaller number on the sticker price.
Cheaper isn't the same as affordable when the wage attached to it is a third of what the "expensive" state pays.
Let that actually sink in.
Rent
Manhattan: $4,200
Tampa: $1,950
Minimum wage
Manhattan: $16.50/hr
Tampa: $13.00/hr
Hours worked for rent
Manhattan: 4200 ÷ 16.50 = 254
Tampa: 1950 ÷ 13.00 = 150
Wait, that actually favors Tampa. Let me redo this with the real comparison people are making:
"TEXAS IS CHEAPER THAN CALIFORNIA"
Rent
San Francisco: $3,100
Houston: $1,450
Minimum wage
San Francisco: $18.67/hr
Texas: $7.25/hr
Hours worked for rent
San Francisco: 3100 ÷ 18.67 = 166
Houston: 1450 ÷ 7.25 = 200
You have to work roughly 20% more hours just to cover rent in the "cheaper" state. That's an extra four to five days of labor every single month, just to end up with a smaller number on the sticker price.
Cheaper isn't the same as affordable when the wage attached to it is a third of what the "expensive" state pays.
Let that actually sink in.
429
9
115
46,112
"FLORIDA IS CHEAPER THAN NEW YORK"
Rent
Manhattan: $4,200
Tampa: $1,950
Minimum wage
Manhattan: $16.50/hr
Tampa: $13.00/hr
Hours worked for rent
Manhattan: 4200 ÷ 16.50 = 254
Tampa: 1950 ÷ 13.00 = 150
Wait, that actually favors Tampa. Let me redo this with the real comparison people are making:
"TEXAS IS CHEAPER THAN CALIFORNIA"
Rent
San Francisco: $3,100
Houston: $1,450
Minimum wage
San Francisco: $18.67/hr
Texas: $7.25/hr
Hours worked for rent
San Francisco: 3100 ÷ 18.67 = 166
Houston: 1450 ÷ 7.25 = 200
You have to work roughly 20% more hours just to cover rent in the "cheaper" state. That's an extra four to five days of labor every single month, just to end up with a smaller number on the sticker price.
Cheaper isn't the same as affordable when the wage attached to it is a third of what the "expensive" state pays.
Let that actually sink in.
Rent
Manhattan: $4,200
Tampa: $1,950
Minimum wage
Manhattan: $16.50/hr
Tampa: $13.00/hr
Hours worked for rent
Manhattan: 4200 ÷ 16.50 = 254
Tampa: 1950 ÷ 13.00 = 150
Wait, that actually favors Tampa. Let me redo this with the real comparison people are making:
"TEXAS IS CHEAPER THAN CALIFORNIA"
Rent
San Francisco: $3,100
Houston: $1,450
Minimum wage
San Francisco: $18.67/hr
Texas: $7.25/hr
Hours worked for rent
San Francisco: 3100 ÷ 18.67 = 166
Houston: 1450 ÷ 7.25 = 200
You have to work roughly 20% more hours just to cover rent in the "cheaper" state. That's an extra four to five days of labor every single month, just to end up with a smaller number on the sticker price.
Cheaper isn't the same as affordable when the wage attached to it is a third of what the "expensive" state pays.
Let that actually sink in.
429
9
115
46,112
Owen retweeted
WALL STREET IS QUIETLY PUTTING THE AI BUBBLE INSIDE YOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT.
A new report from Americans for Financial Reform says it plainly: speculative data center debt is being repackaged and sold off to pension funds, retirement accounts, and university endowments, in a f compares to the subprime mortgage bubble.
Read that again. The actual financial reform watchdogs are the ones drawing the subprime comparison. Not a random account on this app. Them.
Here's the mechanism, and it's the same playbook as 2008. Data center developers are loaded with debt to fund AI buildouts that aren't close to profitable yet. That debt gets sliced, bundled, and sold off as investment-grade bonds to buyers who assume the rating means safety. The people buying it, pension funds, endowments, aren't the ones who originated the risk. They're just the ones left holding it if it goes bad.
AI-linked corporate borrowing has already hit record levels this year. Credit default swap pricing on the companies behind this buildout is sitting at all-time highs, which is the market quietly pricing in the possibility of default.
So who actually eats the loss if a few of these data center bets don't pay off? Not the executives who greenlit the spending. Not the banks who packaged and sold the debt and already collected their fees.
A retired teacher. A retired firefighter. Someone who never bought a single AI stock, who has no idea their retirement account is sitting on a stack of data center bonds right now.
Same structure. Same incentives. Same ending, probably. Just a different acronym for the toxic asset this time.
A new report from Americans for Financial Reform says it plainly: speculative data center debt is being repackaged and sold off to pension funds, retirement accounts, and university endowments, in a f compares to the subprime mortgage bubble.
Read that again. The actual financial reform watchdogs are the ones drawing the subprime comparison. Not a random account on this app. Them.
Here's the mechanism, and it's the same playbook as 2008. Data center developers are loaded with debt to fund AI buildouts that aren't close to profitable yet. That debt gets sliced, bundled, and sold off as investment-grade bonds to buyers who assume the rating means safety. The people buying it, pension funds, endowments, aren't the ones who originated the risk. They're just the ones left holding it if it goes bad.
AI-linked corporate borrowing has already hit record levels this year. Credit default swap pricing on the companies behind this buildout is sitting at all-time highs, which is the market quietly pricing in the possibility of default.
So who actually eats the loss if a few of these data center bets don't pay off? Not the executives who greenlit the spending. Not the banks who packaged and sold the debt and already collected their fees.
A retired teacher. A retired firefighter. Someone who never bought a single AI stock, who has no idea their retirement account is sitting on a stack of data center bonds right now.
Same structure. Same incentives. Same ending, probably. Just a different acronym for the toxic asset this time.
7
11
49
1,658
WALL STREET IS QUIETLY PUTTING THE AI BUBBLE INSIDE YOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT.
A new report from Americans for Financial Reform says it plainly: speculative data center debt is being repackaged and sold off to pension funds, retirement accounts, and university endowments, in a f compares to the subprime mortgage bubble.
Read that again. The actual financial reform watchdogs are the ones drawing the subprime comparison. Not a random account on this app. Them.
Here's the mechanism, and it's the same playbook as 2008. Data center developers are loaded with debt to fund AI buildouts that aren't close to profitable yet. That debt gets sliced, bundled, and sold off as investment-grade bonds to buyers who assume the rating means safety. The people buying it, pension funds, endowments, aren't the ones who originated the risk. They're just the ones left holding it if it goes bad.
AI-linked corporate borrowing has already hit record levels this year. Credit default swap pricing on the companies behind this buildout is sitting at all-time highs, which is the market quietly pricing in the possibility of default.
So who actually eats the loss if a few of these data center bets don't pay off? Not the executives who greenlit the spending. Not the banks who packaged and sold the debt and already collected their fees.
A retired teacher. A retired firefighter. Someone who never bought a single AI stock, who has no idea their retirement account is sitting on a stack of data center bonds right now.
Same structure. Same incentives. Same ending, probably. Just a different acronym for the toxic asset this time.
A new report from Americans for Financial Reform says it plainly: speculative data center debt is being repackaged and sold off to pension funds, retirement accounts, and university endowments, in a f compares to the subprime mortgage bubble.
Read that again. The actual financial reform watchdogs are the ones drawing the subprime comparison. Not a random account on this app. Them.
Here's the mechanism, and it's the same playbook as 2008. Data center developers are loaded with debt to fund AI buildouts that aren't close to profitable yet. That debt gets sliced, bundled, and sold off as investment-grade bonds to buyers who assume the rating means safety. The people buying it, pension funds, endowments, aren't the ones who originated the risk. They're just the ones left holding it if it goes bad.
AI-linked corporate borrowing has already hit record levels this year. Credit default swap pricing on the companies behind this buildout is sitting at all-time highs, which is the market quietly pricing in the possibility of default.
So who actually eats the loss if a few of these data center bets don't pay off? Not the executives who greenlit the spending. Not the banks who packaged and sold the debt and already collected their fees.
A retired teacher. A retired firefighter. Someone who never bought a single AI stock, who has no idea their retirement account is sitting on a stack of data center bonds right now.
Same structure. Same incentives. Same ending, probably. Just a different acronym for the toxic asset this time.
7
11
49
1,658
Owen retweeted
The reality of being a millennial:
- Graduated straight into the 2008 financial crisis
- Every "entry-level" listing wanted 2-3 years of experience nobody would give you a chance to get
- Watched pensions disappear and get replaced by a 401k you're on your own to manage
- Got promoted and realized it meant a 3% raise and double the workload
- Finally felt stable, then a global pandemic hit
- Inflation spiked to a 40-year high and wiped out every raise you'd gotten
- Home prices jumped so fast you went from "saving for a down payment" to "just renting forever"
- Childcare now runs close to a full mortgage payment a month
- Stuck in the middle: aging parents on one side, young kids on the other, burned out at work, and the cost of simply existing climbing every year
- Now AI-driven layoffs are hitting right during what should be peak earning years
- Graduated straight into the 2008 financial crisis
- Every "entry-level" listing wanted 2-3 years of experience nobody would give you a chance to get
- Watched pensions disappear and get replaced by a 401k you're on your own to manage
- Got promoted and realized it meant a 3% raise and double the workload
- Finally felt stable, then a global pandemic hit
- Inflation spiked to a 40-year high and wiped out every raise you'd gotten
- Home prices jumped so fast you went from "saving for a down payment" to "just renting forever"
- Childcare now runs close to a full mortgage payment a month
- Stuck in the middle: aging parents on one side, young kids on the other, burned out at work, and the cost of simply existing climbing every year
- Now AI-driven layoffs are hitting right during what should be peak earning years
121
260
1,894
59,463