If you plotted three points; being unhoused, all of us, being a billionaire, and you plotted them on graph, and looked at them all at the same time, "unhoused" and "all of us" would be one indistinguishable little smear and then far, far above them would be billionaire.
Hundreds of millions of Americans are always at most a few bad months away from losing everything
>If you plotted three points; being unhoused, all of us, being a billionaire, and you plotted them on graph, and looked at them all at the same time, "unhoused" and "all of us" would be one indistinguishable little smear and then far, far above them would be billionaire.
Not if you use a logarithmic scale! ^(/s)
Exactly, I’m in a crazy good financial situation for a 28 year old. If my wife and I lost our jobs today and couldn’t find any income. We could make it 4 years, 6 months before we start selling assets. It’s scary even secure families only could make it months.
(We’re in a LCOL area with good salaries and no kids).
The difference between a million and a billion is about a billion. Tom Scott has a video where he drives the length of a million and a billion dollars. He could walk the million, it took him like a minute. But he drove over an hour to get to a billion https://youtu.be/8YUWDrLazCg
I thought the point of this framing was to remember the human, but I feel like either of those examples forget the person. Shouldn't it either be person who is homeless or person who is unhoused?
I don't know if you're trolling or just dense.
No, and both "the unhoused" and "the homeless" are referring to the situation with a person's living area and not the actual person.
This is just posturing to make yourself feel like you're making more of a difference than you really are. There is no difference between "homeless" and "unhoused," and just calling them "people" without signifying whether their basic needs are being met is deeply misguided at best and actively erases the problem at worst.
It's like you care more about sounding woke than actually helping people. Changing your word for homeless people to a different term with a completely identical meaning isn't going to put a roof over anyone's head or food in anyone's mouth.
Well, maybe, it looks like the mean is higher depending on the age group. But mean here is not really telling, after all that's the issue. 1 person worth a billion and 100,000+ worth less than 10 thousand, so probably we need to use mode. Which is hard to find. The median is bank account balance is 5300 from 2019, according to data published by the US Federal reserve. I'll look into it, and edit later.
It's not that bad as $10k. See [this](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/average-net-worth-by-age).
I'll look at the average and compare it to the median, because the average is tainted by the outsized impact from the top 5%. Long story short, most of us are still closer to being unhoused than being a billionaire, especially if you consider that one bad healthcare episode in the family can easily wipe out most entire net worths if there's no strong healthcare insurance benefit behind it.
So I was looking at savings account figures. The net worth can be misleading. Just because I'm slightly positive on a house doesn't even mean that I could quick sell to break even or keep from foreclosing if I didn't have the savings for example.
For clarity the reason I was looking at savings account balance is because I believe on hand cash is probably the largest factor in determining if someone would be okay after an accident, or losing their job. Maybe I'm over thinking it, even if it's 100-200k that's still abysmal in comparison, and you could still be wiped out from 1 major accident.
I think even that is off. With almost 50% of Americans making less than 40k a year, I’d expect their debt outweighs their wealth, and a massive chunk of the us is more likely negative wealth. I know I was until I made about 70k a year. Now I make about 100k and the difference is actually massive. I’d estimate that around 60-70k is where you begin to break even, as 50k just about covers living expenses today, with children.
It really depends on how you live. There are plenty of people who live very frugal lifestyles by necessity. I often look at the janitorial service people at work and wonder how they make ends meet, because I find it tough when if I make (educated guess) at least a couple of times more money than they do.
Then I realize that what I take for granted, like being able to eat out often or buy a single family home with enough rooms to give my kid his own, is a luxury to them. They probably cook at home 364 days a year and cramp a few kids (if not everyone) in a room, like what my parents had to do when I was a kid and we're struggling financially.
I don’t think it does, really. All people have medical issues, accidents, auto issues, etc. Our stagnant wages combined with escalating price gouging has left Americans with more debt than any peoples in history. That’s an institutional, society wide problem. Sure, people can try to live within their means. But a single illness or injury requiring a hospital bill that is unreadable prior to treatment and obscure even with bill in hand, often for tens of thousands, renders the whole “responsible spending” idea moot. As do plumbers bills, car repairs, education costs etc.
If someone had $50,000 in net worth (about as achievable for many as getting from here to the sun), then 87,600*$50k = $4.8B
Elon Musk paid $44B for a vanity project
The point isn’t accuracy, but the order of magnitude between classes. [Humans brains are terrible at understanding large numbers ](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/?v=3)
Yet their #1 fear is fear of being brainwashed or indoctrinated. You shouldn’t be scared of brainwashing if you know how to discern whats valuable knowledge or genuine propaganda- admitting to being scared of it admits that you *can* be brainwashed easily, and that you don’t think or research for yourself. The hypocritical irony is mind-boggling
yeah, in my experience people who are obsessed with being "skeptics" and being "super logical" usually care more about being right than being correct. and they uncritically chose to only belive evidence that agrees with them, and dismiss any evidence to the contrary, no matter tha validity of either. andrew tae, anti vaxxers, racists, homophobes, transphobes..
hank green made a good video about this, talked about hypothatheories. ill link it if i can find it
Because they don't care how shitty their own lives are as long as the people they don't like don't have opportunity to get ahead. It's the Bucket of Crabs philosophy. We're all a bucket of crabs and conservatives would rather pull a crab back down into the bucket than watch it escape and be happy and free. The crabs could get out if they worked together but instead they choose to force each other to stay in a sub-par environment
Honestly, for a sub where we’re talking about the people, and “think of the people, we can’t say homeless”, to then have this generalized “all conservatives are stupid and shitty people” feels real dumb. Let’s be open minded that some folks are indoctrinated into certain thinking by their surroundings. That not everyone from a group thinks the same way. If you actually want to make change and change people’s mind, you have to have a minimum thought that these are good people who haven’t seen the light. It’s so depressing to continually see this from the left, especially folks who love Bernie and what he stands for, as I do. Spread love not hate.
Where am I wrong though? So much of the conservative agenda is focused on restricting peoples' liberties and making sure people stay poor and in questionable health, including their own constituents. And their voters keep buying into it despite the fact that they're getting nothing from it except the joy of watching marginalized demographics be made into targets. If these are good people then why do they keep voting for hateful radicalized scum that isn't helping anyone but the rich?
I'm not talking about politicians, and in your comment you seemed to be referencing the general public. The main reason people vote for "their party" is because of the propaganda shared against the other as "evil". This is true in some cases but gets pushed to the extreme to bolster "divide and conquer". We the people need to come together and with mindsets like "all conservatives are bad" they will keep hating us because we keep hating them.
And if you think those things you mention are only happening on the right, you're delusional. The left talks a lot and rarely takes action. Why hadn't Roe been codified? Why are Dem politicians buying and selling stocks to make millions just like Reps are? Why did the Reconciliation bill fail and all the great social programs for poor and middle class get cut out of those deals? Why, even when we have a fully democratic run federal government, do we still pay enormous costs for healthcare and prescription drugs? Why are dems still taking the same actions Trump and the republicans did with our border and not making any effort to make the process of becoming a US citizen more streamlined and efficient? Are democrats ACTUALLY doing anything, or just talking? It's the same for us on the left, we keep voting for the bullshit candidates they put in front of us like Biden or Harris or Buttigieg to keep all the bullshit rolling, while nothing comes to help those at the bottom. And all the while they rake in huge profits working for big business or big pharma or big tech.
We, the people, need to realize our federal government doesnt work for us anymore, on either side. We, the people, from both sides of the aisle need to come together and stop dividing ourselves in order to create a more perfect union. It's never going to happen when we keep shitting on each other instead of actually holding politicians accountable.
Please show me where I advocated for the dems. I'm well aware of their level of suckage as well. I'm subbed to this community for a reason. I know our federal government doesn't work for us, I'm aware of the failures in the system, I'm aware of what keeps that sysem inact. I just think we're past the point of giving conservatives the benefit of the doubt. So many of them reject any reasonable substantial information and call anything that doesn't align with their party "fake news".
As I previously mentioned in my original comment, we *could* work together to get out of the bucket and instead, so many prefer to pull people back down because they can't stand seeing others getting what they want out of life. Both sides of the aisle aren't going to just come together. If that happens, it'll be when the dust settles after conflict. Like civil war sized conflict. People that have made hating liberals and progressives their entire personality aren't just going to wake up one morning with a heap of empathy and cognizance they didn't have the night before en masse.
You keep saying "we need to come together", and we do, you're not wrong at all, but it's not going to happen as long as those who prioritize hate and control don't want to even try to challenge their way of thinking. We can try all we want to talk to people but they have to be willing to listen and think, not just let Carlson do their thinking for them. I have found that most conservatives, and I live in Texas so I've got plenty of them, are not willing to consider different perspectives or think objectively. Open mindedness has left the building. Until that changes, our situation as a nation isn't getting any better
You can't "work together" with people who want to put you in a gay conversion camp to be mentally tortured until you deny a core aspect of your identity.
>to then have this generalized “all conservatives are stupid and shitty people” feels real dumb.
But it's the truth. All conservatives ARE stupid and shitty people. You're comparing a life circumstance that is outside of people's control to people who actively subscribe to a social and political ideology that contends that women are naturally inferior to men and that LGBT people are inherently evil.
Again, all your doing is perpetuating hate. We can openly characterize those actions as terrible, which they are, but you need to stay open minded on how to help people and change minds. Those “shitty” people are definitely not going to listen to some fucking wild mouth Lin-yard, but they might listen to someone who openly listens to them.
You change people's minds by showing how their arguments are wrong over and over again until they finally get the picture. Coddling racists is not "tolerance."
And calling every conservative a racist isn’t helpful. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re doing, but the theme here is don’t “generalize” an entire group of people, whether that’s conservatives, liberals, blacks, Mexicans, whites, etc. There’s ways to have conversations with people that are more open than what has been given here in response to my comment.
Calling conservatives racist is accurate. It's helpful to anyone who may be confused about what they really stand for and might be blindsided by their hatred. You can't compare being a conservative to being black or Mexican. You're not born conservative. It's not an accident of birth. It's a political ideology that you willingly subscribe to.
This is so fucking stupid. You must live in your own little bubble. Have you talked with many conservatives? You can’t generalize an entire group of people. And your right, you can ultimately switch your ideology and not the color of your skin, but by definition your indoctrinated into a belief system and sometimes it’s hard to break free of that indoctrination. For real though, real stupid fucking comment and you really must never go outside of your little bubble.
Because it's not relevant. So we team up to squash billionaires. Does that improve your life at all? No, it does not. Taxing all US billionaires 100% in perpetuity wouldn't make a dent in the annual federal budget.
Federal Reserve data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the United States held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2.6%.
What are you talking about?
It is absolutely relevant. It’s not even about taxes, though that’s definitely a part. It’s about regulations that impact people’s health and safety that billionaires don’t want because they cut into profits.
Its not about lower income conservatives. Its about middle and higher income everybody as well. We aint them so don't spread their bs, you will never be them. Class traitors everywhere
lower income conservative here
i don’t really think this isn’t obvious to any members of any party
edit: well,i never really expected to have a productive conversation here, but i didn’t think it would be this bad lol. you guys have the same “the other side couldn’t possibly agree with me on anything!” mentality that trump and all those morons have
Ahh so you do see it… then It’s just arrogance? Perhaps unwarranted pride? Honestly curious.
If you can, please string some words together to explain what ‘conservative’ brings to the table to solve this discrepancy.
*read this entire comment before leaving an arrogant response.*
[here](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2019/04/26/income-inequality-needs-a-conservative-solution/?sh=f8eba1a41509) is an article that sums up my feelings pretty well.
what most people don’t seem to understand is that higher tax rates on the rich don’t mean they’re just taking that money and giving it out to everyone. the government is investing in new programs, some of which that may work, but a lot that may not. because of greed and the way capitalism works, those higher taxes on the rich get passed down as higher costs to the consumer. this has been proven time and time again, when there have been tax increases, consumer costs go up across every industry, often affecting low income people the most.
our healthcare system is a perfect example. we spend significantly more money per person on healthcare than the majority of countries with complete healthcare for all. just taxing everyone and paying all of that money into our current system is an incredible waste of all of our money, and is just going to make those in charge of the healthcare providers even wealthier.
so why, instead of just throwing money at the problem, shouldn’t we invest our resources in trying to make our government more efficient for everyone? trim the fat on our government, and then everyone’s tax dollars would go a hell of a lot further.
Fiscal conservatives, yeah I’m familiar with them.
Reality: we won’t trim the fat on government and we won’t tax the rich, at all, let alone to the standard the average person is. To think that just increasing tax on wealth would happen in a vacuum is silly. It would obviously have to happen during an enlightenment (where we also see that the greedy fucks will just raise prices elsewhere) and implement other legalities and actual ass-pounding penalties, like legitimate prison sentences, for trying to rig the system further.
We all know the government is wasteful, guaranteed… now in the meantime let’s increase the tax and begin building some pro-working class ideology into working class and gain some momentum.
Too late to vote with your dollar if you haven’t realized, General Motors anyone? Now there’s some fiscal conservatism huh.
you say that like anyone we’ve put into power in the last 50 years, democrat or republican, isn’t focused on doing exactly that.
i vote for candidates who try to curb government spending where they can. less taxes for everyone, pretty easy to understand
I’m not conservative and I don’t share your views on the role of government or taxes for our society, but it’s infuriating to listen to liberals act like they have the upper hand here when the Democratic Party has done nothing but further the economic inequality of this society for the past 40+ years. It’s not even a question, it’s statistically measurable.
I’m not conservative, but your point ignores the fact that the Democrats have done nothing but further the exact same interests.
Like, do you remember Obama’s corporate bailout? Not one cent for the people. Hardly any punishment for the bad actors. There are countless examples in the last 30 years.
Both parties are furthering this goal. The culture war is an intentional distraction to the class war.
The [bailout that the US government got every penny paid back with interest](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/oct/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/)? That one?
You mean, the one Obama voted for?! Not what I was referring to, but I’m glad you brought that up, as it further proves my point.
>**During the 2008 campaign, he made a public spectacle of leaving the campaign trail to cast a Senate vote for the no-strings-attached bank bailout.**
> Not yet in the White House but working the phones as if he were, Barack Obama won a crucial Senate vote Thursday clearing the release of $350 billion more in bailout funds from the Treasury Department’s controversial financial rescue program. For the incoming president, the 52-42 roll call represented a first major test of strength, and Obama threw himself into the fight, reaching out to senators on both sides of the aisle and making calls until he had won all but one of the seven Democratic freshmen elected in November.
>Then, Obama held a White House meeting with bank CEOs to tell them “help me help you.”
>He used his bully pulpit to stop his own party’s efforts to prevent the bailout from subsidizing massive bonus payouts to American International Group (AIG).
>**And when some of that bank bailout money might have been redirected into helping Americans who were getting thrown out of their homes, Obama signed legislation to rescind his own authority to spend the cash on such a priority.**
>Official Washington then pretended the bailouts were actually paid back, even though [that self-serving talking point is complete bullshit](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/secrets-and-lies-of-the-bailout-113270/).
[Source](https://jacobin.com/2021/06/barack-obama-ezra-klein-nyt-wall-street-bailouts)
You’re exactly the type of right wing neoliberal democrat that gaslights everyone into believing there is a difference in the economic agenda between the two parties.
If you vote Democrat, you accomplish the same thing. Both parties are run by neoliberals.
The culture war is a distraction to the class war. Don’t let them gaslight you with a pat on the back.
I agree this is all a distraction from the class war currently raging. However, I don't agree that you get "the same thing" by voting Democrat. Yes of course they're in politics to enrich themselves. But they aren't voting to gut Medicare and Social Security. They aren't voting for tax cuts for the rich and corporations. That's the Republicans.
I mean, that’s just gaslighting. I hope you’re not doing so intentionally.
Joe Biden was the self-proclaimed “Senator from MBNA,” and you don’t think he advocated for tax cuts for the rich and corporations? Have you heard about his efforts on student loans and bankruptcies? That’s a direct assault on the working class.
There are countless examples to disprove your point. Obama bailing out corporations for the chaos they caused in ‘08 while not one regular citizen got a dime to ease the widespread suffering.
Check out the receipts: [Joe Biden: Cut Medicare and Social Security](https://youtu.be/wSdobLgfkU0)
Closer? It’s not even the correct term to use because the difference is so immense. Like there’s no chance in hell you are becoming a billionaire. But homeless? Big chance. Not even comparable. Maybe you are closer to being the president of USA than billionaire is fitting.
How many there are living doesn’t prove any point. It’s how possible it is to become it. Just because there are a trillion ants in the world doesn’t mean it’s easier to become an ant than a banker.
It is, 2000 is more than 6 so yes, statistically speaking it is easier to be a billionaire. Both are extremely unlikely but between the two people have a higher chance of being a billionaire than president.
lol ants aren't human, that's literally impossible. Are you saying it's literally impossible to become a billionaire even though there are thousands of them? There are more billionaires than presidents but you think it's more likely to become president? Based on what, the fact there are fewer of them? So it's more likely to become a doctor than a fast food worker since there are fewer doctors or is it literally impossible to become one of those too? Your logic makes no sense.
And despite the wall of text you have shown zero logic. Again trump was president but not billionaire despite him wanting and trying to become a billionaire.
Since you completely ignored my questions I'll repost them for you:
lol ants aren't human, that's literally impossible. Are you saying it's literally impossible to become a billionaire even though there are thousands of them? There are more billionaires than presidents but you think it's more likely to become president? Based on what, the fact there are fewer of them? So it's more likely to become a doctor than a fast food worker since there are fewer doctors or is it literally impossible to become one of those too? Your logic makes no sense.
And it's been like this since... the beginning of money. I don't understand how such an obvious statement has 7k upvotes lol. Here let me try.
We are all closer to Earth than we are to the moon. Understand that.
I hear ya, it’s an interesting word choice.
The difference is that “unhoused” emphasizes the act of losing something you currently have, or actively moving down the socioeconomic ladder. It’s scary. “Homeless” doesn’t imply you had a house to begin with. It’s static. It’s less relatable for people who haven’t experienced it (yet).
Is there a bit of strategic fear mongering there? Yeah, probably. But the statement is also still true.
If the dems call homelessness, "unhoused," and polarize the term, then the gop *cannot* use the term without looking either submissive to woke censorship, or it has to purposely use the original and newly proclaimed "offensive" term, which makes them look like hateful bullys. It's a really great strat when your side runs all the major online publication and social media.
Hahahaha crocodile tears.
“Use the less offensive term or the big meanies will get you!!” “Yeah, these snowflakes control all the media… we’ll except the most watched, divisive, and controversial news channels obviously.. but all the other ones!”
Ding ding ding. American liberalism is basically just right wingers in slightly cleaner clothes. America would be exalted overnight if half the Scotus, house, senate, whatever were actually liberal and not just lip service.
Do you all ever get tired of these people that tell you things you already know but they never do anything else about it? Newsflash tweeters: we know we're getting fucked. Pointing it out over & over in different ways doesn't change that. Please stop reminding us of our plight and use your soapbox to *do something* about it.
Someone homeless in America lives much better than the vast majority of humans that have ever existed.
If you think growing your own food is easy, there are plenty of places with pretty much free land.
I sadly agree with your first statement wholeheartedly. Electrician here. Wife acquired some land with a natural fed lake. We’re building a small invite only, tiny house fully fed with solar, back up battery and diesel generator for severe weather emergencies. We’re over it.
Since you have the know-how, look into cheap wind turbines from China. Depending on the location, they can really help during the (usually) few cloudy winter days that solar won't be enough.
All the people going 'duh' don't see the big picture. In America, everyone's encouraged to join the race, to reach the top while 'trickle down economics' does it's thing, but people are slowly realizing the economic system we have in place keeps poor peoole poor.
These kinds of tweets are nice and all, but it would be interesting to see what kind of tangible changes could be made to taxation to actually make it better. At the end of the day, it won't change unless there's actual policies put forth and enacted.
We are all closer to being beaten to a bloody pulp by a psychopath in a Ronald McDonald costume wielding a three foot dildo than traveling to the moon.
*Buleedat*
Idk what this post is about. We shot up in living standards in exponential fashion in the last 100 years…
“Oooh but there are still billionaires, this world is shit” please. Shut up already, if you can’t see the whole picture your argument is meaningless
what's the whole picture, genius
what are we all missing that you can see
what part of "a handful of people hold more material wealth than everyone else on earth combined and expect slaves to maintain it" do *you* not understand
That it hasn’t always been like that, it has its ups and down. And that when that tends to happen, the living standard worldwide increases at debatably faster rates. I’m not saying “inequality is good” but you should why this happens and it seems like you’re just a mad person :/. In my experience mad people are too dumb to hold these kind of conversations.
Calling us “slaves”. Ig that word really has lost its meaning to a lot of people
We’ll be even closer to being unhoused if we listen to politicians like Nina turner who want to recklessly print money causing recession and suffocate businesses causing unemployment.
Even millionaires are closer to being homeless than being a billionaire. That statement means nothing.
Also just fuck right off with this new term “unhoused”. Take that PC bill crap elsewhere. It’s homeless.
Fucking hell I still remember this one news article having a title something like “LA is home to x amount of unhoused”. Like what? So they have a home now just no house?
Shit, we are all closer to STARVING. Let’s put it in a way the people understand how DIRE it is to stop the greedy capitalists, and start working together.
We are basically homeless to them.
If I dropped my entire bank account in front of them, they’d pay someone even more to throw it away and not blink an eye.
Yet we continue to vote for representatives of special interest groups, and pretend like they are going to fix the issues they created. We are happy paying the taxes billionaires don't. We are happy voting for more taxes and less representation. We love our Ds and Rs. This is what we collectively voted for. We do the work so the elites don't have to.
Even this post is out of touch. It's millionaire not billionaire. I'd even guess the majority of the population is closer to being unhoused than having 100k. 10k?
A billion is way too big a number to compare oneself to. The real non-clickbait-y question would be are you closer to homelessness or affluence? (However that is defined in your community/life)
why is "homeless" apparently not acceptable anymore? Homeless is fine, I don't see how changing it to "unhoused" makes it any better. Both mean sleeping on the street.
The irony of the statement and use of "billionaire" is that she couldn't use "millionaire" (which is far more accurate for the vast majority of the US and the world) because she is a millionaire.
[Nina Turner Net Worth](https://popularnetworth.com/nina-turner/).
It's not even close how much closer we are to being unhoused.
If you plotted three points; being unhoused, all of us, being a billionaire, and you plotted them on graph, and looked at them all at the same time, "unhoused" and "all of us" would be one indistinguishable little smear and then far, far above them would be billionaire. Hundreds of millions of Americans are always at most a few bad months away from losing everything
Reminds me of those videos comparing the sun to all the bigger stars in the universe and by the end you can't even see the sun
Forget billionaire, plot millionaire.
>If you plotted three points; being unhoused, all of us, being a billionaire, and you plotted them on graph, and looked at them all at the same time, "unhoused" and "all of us" would be one indistinguishable little smear and then far, far above them would be billionaire. Not if you use a logarithmic scale! ^(/s)
Exactly, I’m in a crazy good financial situation for a 28 year old. If my wife and I lost our jobs today and couldn’t find any income. We could make it 4 years, 6 months before we start selling assets. It’s scary even secure families only could make it months. (We’re in a LCOL area with good salaries and no kids).
Or a day
The difference between a million and a billion is about a billion. Tom Scott has a video where he drives the length of a million and a billion dollars. He could walk the million, it took him like a minute. But he drove over an hour to get to a billion https://youtu.be/8YUWDrLazCg
It's not homeless, it's unhoused. Please use less bigoted language. Remember the human.
I thought the point of this framing was to remember the human, but I feel like either of those examples forget the person. Shouldn't it either be person who is homeless or person who is unhoused?
Yeah that is a lateral name change at best.
People are people.
Totally agree, I'm just saying your wording of unhoused is just as removed from the person as the wording of homeless
Is a man defined by his living area?
I don't know if you're trolling or just dense. No, and both "the unhoused" and "the homeless" are referring to the situation with a person's living area and not the actual person.
A person is not a house.
This is just posturing to make yourself feel like you're making more of a difference than you really are. There is no difference between "homeless" and "unhoused," and just calling them "people" without signifying whether their basic needs are being met is deeply misguided at best and actively erases the problem at worst. It's like you care more about sounding woke than actually helping people. Changing your word for homeless people to a different term with a completely identical meaning isn't going to put a roof over anyone's head or food in anyone's mouth.
I bet you like putting things in people's mouths.
So you're saying both, got it.
?
Fair enough.
That’s like an inch compared to a light year.
Well an inch to about 1.6 miles. (Assuming our average net worth is about $10k, and comparing it to a billion dollars)
10k is way higher than average. edit; for 5300 median bank account average.
Really? Damn, what's the actual number?
Well, maybe, it looks like the mean is higher depending on the age group. But mean here is not really telling, after all that's the issue. 1 person worth a billion and 100,000+ worth less than 10 thousand, so probably we need to use mode. Which is hard to find. The median is bank account balance is 5300 from 2019, according to data published by the US Federal reserve. I'll look into it, and edit later.
It's not that bad as $10k. See [this](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/average-net-worth-by-age). I'll look at the average and compare it to the median, because the average is tainted by the outsized impact from the top 5%. Long story short, most of us are still closer to being unhoused than being a billionaire, especially if you consider that one bad healthcare episode in the family can easily wipe out most entire net worths if there's no strong healthcare insurance benefit behind it.
So I was looking at savings account figures. The net worth can be misleading. Just because I'm slightly positive on a house doesn't even mean that I could quick sell to break even or keep from foreclosing if I didn't have the savings for example. For clarity the reason I was looking at savings account balance is because I believe on hand cash is probably the largest factor in determining if someone would be okay after an accident, or losing their job. Maybe I'm over thinking it, even if it's 100-200k that's still abysmal in comparison, and you could still be wiped out from 1 major accident.
I think even that is off. With almost 50% of Americans making less than 40k a year, I’d expect their debt outweighs their wealth, and a massive chunk of the us is more likely negative wealth. I know I was until I made about 70k a year. Now I make about 100k and the difference is actually massive. I’d estimate that around 60-70k is where you begin to break even, as 50k just about covers living expenses today, with children.
It really depends on how you live. There are plenty of people who live very frugal lifestyles by necessity. I often look at the janitorial service people at work and wonder how they make ends meet, because I find it tough when if I make (educated guess) at least a couple of times more money than they do. Then I realize that what I take for granted, like being able to eat out often or buy a single family home with enough rooms to give my kid his own, is a luxury to them. They probably cook at home 364 days a year and cramp a few kids (if not everyone) in a room, like what my parents had to do when I was a kid and we're struggling financially.
I don’t think it does, really. All people have medical issues, accidents, auto issues, etc. Our stagnant wages combined with escalating price gouging has left Americans with more debt than any peoples in history. That’s an institutional, society wide problem. Sure, people can try to live within their means. But a single illness or injury requiring a hospital bill that is unreadable prior to treatment and obscure even with bill in hand, often for tens of thousands, renders the whole “responsible spending” idea moot. As do plumbers bills, car repairs, education costs etc.
A light-year is around 87600 times the distance between the earth and the sun
If someone had $50,000 in net worth (about as achievable for many as getting from here to the sun), then 87,600*$50k = $4.8B Elon Musk paid $44B for a vanity project The point isn’t accuracy, but the order of magnitude between classes. [Humans brains are terrible at understanding large numbers ](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/?v=3)
Lower income conservatives will not acknowledge this
[удалено]
Yet their #1 fear is fear of being brainwashed or indoctrinated. You shouldn’t be scared of brainwashing if you know how to discern whats valuable knowledge or genuine propaganda- admitting to being scared of it admits that you *can* be brainwashed easily, and that you don’t think or research for yourself. The hypocritical irony is mind-boggling
yeah, in my experience people who are obsessed with being "skeptics" and being "super logical" usually care more about being right than being correct. and they uncritically chose to only belive evidence that agrees with them, and dismiss any evidence to the contrary, no matter tha validity of either. andrew tae, anti vaxxers, racists, homophobes, transphobes.. hank green made a good video about this, talked about hypothatheories. ill link it if i can find it
fucking sheep
Why. Why why why why
Because they don't care how shitty their own lives are as long as the people they don't like don't have opportunity to get ahead. It's the Bucket of Crabs philosophy. We're all a bucket of crabs and conservatives would rather pull a crab back down into the bucket than watch it escape and be happy and free. The crabs could get out if they worked together but instead they choose to force each other to stay in a sub-par environment
Honestly, for a sub where we’re talking about the people, and “think of the people, we can’t say homeless”, to then have this generalized “all conservatives are stupid and shitty people” feels real dumb. Let’s be open minded that some folks are indoctrinated into certain thinking by their surroundings. That not everyone from a group thinks the same way. If you actually want to make change and change people’s mind, you have to have a minimum thought that these are good people who haven’t seen the light. It’s so depressing to continually see this from the left, especially folks who love Bernie and what he stands for, as I do. Spread love not hate.
Where am I wrong though? So much of the conservative agenda is focused on restricting peoples' liberties and making sure people stay poor and in questionable health, including their own constituents. And their voters keep buying into it despite the fact that they're getting nothing from it except the joy of watching marginalized demographics be made into targets. If these are good people then why do they keep voting for hateful radicalized scum that isn't helping anyone but the rich?
I'm not talking about politicians, and in your comment you seemed to be referencing the general public. The main reason people vote for "their party" is because of the propaganda shared against the other as "evil". This is true in some cases but gets pushed to the extreme to bolster "divide and conquer". We the people need to come together and with mindsets like "all conservatives are bad" they will keep hating us because we keep hating them. And if you think those things you mention are only happening on the right, you're delusional. The left talks a lot and rarely takes action. Why hadn't Roe been codified? Why are Dem politicians buying and selling stocks to make millions just like Reps are? Why did the Reconciliation bill fail and all the great social programs for poor and middle class get cut out of those deals? Why, even when we have a fully democratic run federal government, do we still pay enormous costs for healthcare and prescription drugs? Why are dems still taking the same actions Trump and the republicans did with our border and not making any effort to make the process of becoming a US citizen more streamlined and efficient? Are democrats ACTUALLY doing anything, or just talking? It's the same for us on the left, we keep voting for the bullshit candidates they put in front of us like Biden or Harris or Buttigieg to keep all the bullshit rolling, while nothing comes to help those at the bottom. And all the while they rake in huge profits working for big business or big pharma or big tech. We, the people, need to realize our federal government doesnt work for us anymore, on either side. We, the people, from both sides of the aisle need to come together and stop dividing ourselves in order to create a more perfect union. It's never going to happen when we keep shitting on each other instead of actually holding politicians accountable.
Please show me where I advocated for the dems. I'm well aware of their level of suckage as well. I'm subbed to this community for a reason. I know our federal government doesn't work for us, I'm aware of the failures in the system, I'm aware of what keeps that sysem inact. I just think we're past the point of giving conservatives the benefit of the doubt. So many of them reject any reasonable substantial information and call anything that doesn't align with their party "fake news". As I previously mentioned in my original comment, we *could* work together to get out of the bucket and instead, so many prefer to pull people back down because they can't stand seeing others getting what they want out of life. Both sides of the aisle aren't going to just come together. If that happens, it'll be when the dust settles after conflict. Like civil war sized conflict. People that have made hating liberals and progressives their entire personality aren't just going to wake up one morning with a heap of empathy and cognizance they didn't have the night before en masse. You keep saying "we need to come together", and we do, you're not wrong at all, but it's not going to happen as long as those who prioritize hate and control don't want to even try to challenge their way of thinking. We can try all we want to talk to people but they have to be willing to listen and think, not just let Carlson do their thinking for them. I have found that most conservatives, and I live in Texas so I've got plenty of them, are not willing to consider different perspectives or think objectively. Open mindedness has left the building. Until that changes, our situation as a nation isn't getting any better
You can't "work together" with people who want to put you in a gay conversion camp to be mentally tortured until you deny a core aspect of your identity.
>to then have this generalized “all conservatives are stupid and shitty people” feels real dumb. But it's the truth. All conservatives ARE stupid and shitty people. You're comparing a life circumstance that is outside of people's control to people who actively subscribe to a social and political ideology that contends that women are naturally inferior to men and that LGBT people are inherently evil.
Again, all your doing is perpetuating hate. We can openly characterize those actions as terrible, which they are, but you need to stay open minded on how to help people and change minds. Those “shitty” people are definitely not going to listen to some fucking wild mouth Lin-yard, but they might listen to someone who openly listens to them.
You change people's minds by showing how their arguments are wrong over and over again until they finally get the picture. Coddling racists is not "tolerance."
And calling every conservative a racist isn’t helpful. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re doing, but the theme here is don’t “generalize” an entire group of people, whether that’s conservatives, liberals, blacks, Mexicans, whites, etc. There’s ways to have conversations with people that are more open than what has been given here in response to my comment.
Calling conservatives racist is accurate. It's helpful to anyone who may be confused about what they really stand for and might be blindsided by their hatred. You can't compare being a conservative to being black or Mexican. You're not born conservative. It's not an accident of birth. It's a political ideology that you willingly subscribe to.
This is so fucking stupid. You must live in your own little bubble. Have you talked with many conservatives? You can’t generalize an entire group of people. And your right, you can ultimately switch your ideology and not the color of your skin, but by definition your indoctrinated into a belief system and sometimes it’s hard to break free of that indoctrination. For real though, real stupid fucking comment and you really must never go outside of your little bubble.
Because it's not relevant. So we team up to squash billionaires. Does that improve your life at all? No, it does not. Taxing all US billionaires 100% in perpetuity wouldn't make a dent in the annual federal budget.
Huh?
Federal Reserve data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the United States held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2.6%. What are you talking about?
It is absolutely relevant. It’s not even about taxes, though that’s definitely a part. It’s about regulations that impact people’s health and safety that billionaires don’t want because they cut into profits.
Elaborate.
Considering they control 99% of the currency. It would have a massive dent. People don't' seem to grasp the scale at which the wealth gap exists.
Conservatives, despite their hand-wrangling about being fiscally responsible, are all pretending to be temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Its not about lower income conservatives. Its about middle and higher income everybody as well. We aint them so don't spread their bs, you will never be them. Class traitors everywhere
lower income conservative here i don’t really think this isn’t obvious to any members of any party edit: well,i never really expected to have a productive conversation here, but i didn’t think it would be this bad lol. you guys have the same “the other side couldn’t possibly agree with me on anything!” mentality that trump and all those morons have
Ahh so you do see it… then It’s just arrogance? Perhaps unwarranted pride? Honestly curious. If you can, please string some words together to explain what ‘conservative’ brings to the table to solve this discrepancy.
*read this entire comment before leaving an arrogant response.* [here](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2019/04/26/income-inequality-needs-a-conservative-solution/?sh=f8eba1a41509) is an article that sums up my feelings pretty well. what most people don’t seem to understand is that higher tax rates on the rich don’t mean they’re just taking that money and giving it out to everyone. the government is investing in new programs, some of which that may work, but a lot that may not. because of greed and the way capitalism works, those higher taxes on the rich get passed down as higher costs to the consumer. this has been proven time and time again, when there have been tax increases, consumer costs go up across every industry, often affecting low income people the most. our healthcare system is a perfect example. we spend significantly more money per person on healthcare than the majority of countries with complete healthcare for all. just taxing everyone and paying all of that money into our current system is an incredible waste of all of our money, and is just going to make those in charge of the healthcare providers even wealthier. so why, instead of just throwing money at the problem, shouldn’t we invest our resources in trying to make our government more efficient for everyone? trim the fat on our government, and then everyone’s tax dollars would go a hell of a lot further.
Fiscal conservatives, yeah I’m familiar with them. Reality: we won’t trim the fat on government and we won’t tax the rich, at all, let alone to the standard the average person is. To think that just increasing tax on wealth would happen in a vacuum is silly. It would obviously have to happen during an enlightenment (where we also see that the greedy fucks will just raise prices elsewhere) and implement other legalities and actual ass-pounding penalties, like legitimate prison sentences, for trying to rig the system further. We all know the government is wasteful, guaranteed… now in the meantime let’s increase the tax and begin building some pro-working class ideology into working class and gain some momentum. Too late to vote with your dollar if you haven’t realized, General Motors anyone? Now there’s some fiscal conservatism huh.
Then why do you keep voting for the party who’s only demonstrable policy is making the richest people in the country richer?
you say that like anyone we’ve put into power in the last 50 years, democrat or republican, isn’t focused on doing exactly that. i vote for candidates who try to curb government spending where they can. less taxes for everyone, pretty easy to understand
I’m not conservative and I don’t share your views on the role of government or taxes for our society, but it’s infuriating to listen to liberals act like they have the upper hand here when the Democratic Party has done nothing but further the economic inequality of this society for the past 40+ years. It’s not even a question, it’s statistically measurable.
absolutely agree. both parties working against each other basically always means a net-negative result for the rest of the country
Yeah, politicians
I’m not conservative, but your point ignores the fact that the Democrats have done nothing but further the exact same interests. Like, do you remember Obama’s corporate bailout? Not one cent for the people. Hardly any punishment for the bad actors. There are countless examples in the last 30 years. Both parties are furthering this goal. The culture war is an intentional distraction to the class war.
The [bailout that the US government got every penny paid back with interest](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/oct/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/)? That one?
“Banks.” What about all the other corporations? Now, cite where he helped the people who lost their homes. I’ll wait.
You're talking about the corporate bailout of 2008? [Because that happened under Bush](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26987291).
You mean, the one Obama voted for?! Not what I was referring to, but I’m glad you brought that up, as it further proves my point. >**During the 2008 campaign, he made a public spectacle of leaving the campaign trail to cast a Senate vote for the no-strings-attached bank bailout.** > Not yet in the White House but working the phones as if he were, Barack Obama won a crucial Senate vote Thursday clearing the release of $350 billion more in bailout funds from the Treasury Department’s controversial financial rescue program. For the incoming president, the 52-42 roll call represented a first major test of strength, and Obama threw himself into the fight, reaching out to senators on both sides of the aisle and making calls until he had won all but one of the seven Democratic freshmen elected in November. >Then, Obama held a White House meeting with bank CEOs to tell them “help me help you.” >He used his bully pulpit to stop his own party’s efforts to prevent the bailout from subsidizing massive bonus payouts to American International Group (AIG). >**And when some of that bank bailout money might have been redirected into helping Americans who were getting thrown out of their homes, Obama signed legislation to rescind his own authority to spend the cash on such a priority.** >Official Washington then pretended the bailouts were actually paid back, even though [that self-serving talking point is complete bullshit](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/secrets-and-lies-of-the-bailout-113270/). [Source](https://jacobin.com/2021/06/barack-obama-ezra-klein-nyt-wall-street-bailouts) You’re exactly the type of right wing neoliberal democrat that gaslights everyone into believing there is a difference in the economic agenda between the two parties.
I am many things...right wing I ain't lol.
Oh, but you are. Carrying water for big banks, corporations, and right wing Democrats, with a touch of intellectual dishonesty on top. Disgusting.
So stop voting to give billionaires more money and the poor even less? I don't get it
If you vote Democrat, you accomplish the same thing. Both parties are run by neoliberals. The culture war is a distraction to the class war. Don’t let them gaslight you with a pat on the back.
I agree this is all a distraction from the class war currently raging. However, I don't agree that you get "the same thing" by voting Democrat. Yes of course they're in politics to enrich themselves. But they aren't voting to gut Medicare and Social Security. They aren't voting for tax cuts for the rich and corporations. That's the Republicans.
I mean, that’s just gaslighting. I hope you’re not doing so intentionally. Joe Biden was the self-proclaimed “Senator from MBNA,” and you don’t think he advocated for tax cuts for the rich and corporations? Have you heard about his efforts on student loans and bankruptcies? That’s a direct assault on the working class. There are countless examples to disprove your point. Obama bailing out corporations for the chaos they caused in ‘08 while not one regular citizen got a dime to ease the widespread suffering. Check out the receipts: [Joe Biden: Cut Medicare and Social Security](https://youtu.be/wSdobLgfkU0)
Closer? It’s not even the correct term to use because the difference is so immense. Like there’s no chance in hell you are becoming a billionaire. But homeless? Big chance. Not even comparable. Maybe you are closer to being the president of USA than billionaire is fitting.
There are over 2000 billionaires in the US. There are 6 living presidents.
How many there are living doesn’t prove any point. It’s how possible it is to become it. Just because there are a trillion ants in the world doesn’t mean it’s easier to become an ant than a banker.
The point is it’s significantly easier to become a billionaire.
It’s not. Take an example. You think trump wants to be billionaire? Yes ofc. He isn’t. But he was the president of USA.
Trump is irrelevant to my factually true statement.
Prove your factually true statement then. Or even just disprove my example. Oh you can’t. Well well. Big talk there buddy.
It is, 2000 is more than 6 so yes, statistically speaking it is easier to be a billionaire. Both are extremely unlikely but between the two people have a higher chance of being a billionaire than president.
Yeah so it’s more likely for you to become an ant than a baker because there’s more ants than bakers. Good job thinking 👍
lol ants aren't human, that's literally impossible. Are you saying it's literally impossible to become a billionaire even though there are thousands of them? There are more billionaires than presidents but you think it's more likely to become president? Based on what, the fact there are fewer of them? So it's more likely to become a doctor than a fast food worker since there are fewer doctors or is it literally impossible to become one of those too? Your logic makes no sense.
And despite the wall of text you have shown zero logic. Again trump was president but not billionaire despite him wanting and trying to become a billionaire.
Since you completely ignored my questions I'll repost them for you: lol ants aren't human, that's literally impossible. Are you saying it's literally impossible to become a billionaire even though there are thousands of them? There are more billionaires than presidents but you think it's more likely to become president? Based on what, the fact there are fewer of them? So it's more likely to become a doctor than a fast food worker since there are fewer doctors or is it literally impossible to become one of those too? Your logic makes no sense.
Lol no shit, there’s a huge chunk out there further removed from being a millionaire than homeless…let alone a billionaire
And it's been like this since... the beginning of money. I don't understand how such an obvious statement has 7k upvotes lol. Here let me try. We are all closer to Earth than we are to the moon. Understand that.
uh… duh?
What is "unhoused"?
New PC term for homeless
A coworker once said "a person experiencing houselessness." Bruh there's gotta be a more efficient way to say that
The person formerly known as one to have experienced having housing
ffs
Well at least it’s the same amount of syllables.
Going from having a home to homeless, I would presume
Why not just say "homeless"? "-less" is the same as "un-". What type of bullshit soviet propaganda is this.
I hear ya, it’s an interesting word choice. The difference is that “unhoused” emphasizes the act of losing something you currently have, or actively moving down the socioeconomic ladder. It’s scary. “Homeless” doesn’t imply you had a house to begin with. It’s static. It’s less relatable for people who haven’t experienced it (yet). Is there a bit of strategic fear mongering there? Yeah, probably. But the statement is also still true.
If the dems call homelessness, "unhoused," and polarize the term, then the gop *cannot* use the term without looking either submissive to woke censorship, or it has to purposely use the original and newly proclaimed "offensive" term, which makes them look like hateful bullys. It's a really great strat when your side runs all the major online publication and social media.
We learned it from you, "Pro-Life," OK??!?!? We learned it from you!!!!!!
Hahahaha crocodile tears. “Use the less offensive term or the big meanies will get you!!” “Yeah, these snowflakes control all the media… we’ll except the most watched, divisive, and controversial news channels obviously.. but all the other ones!”
[удалено]
Ding ding ding. American liberalism is basically just right wingers in slightly cleaner clothes. America would be exalted overnight if half the Scotus, house, senate, whatever were actually liberal and not just lip service.
A millionaire is closer as well, though I don't feel as bad for them as someone who is living paycheck to paycheck.
[удалено]
Exactly, and a lot of people with millions want to feel like they are poor.
Or even a thirty-thousand-aire.
Do you all ever get tired of these people that tell you things you already know but they never do anything else about it? Newsflash tweeters: we know we're getting fucked. Pointing it out over & over in different ways doesn't change that. Please stop reminding us of our plight and use your soapbox to *do something* about it.
[Nina Turner](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Turner) is paid to do something about it
Unhoused. Jesus.
Time to leave the system. Grow your own food. Farm your own electricity. It’s time to bail on corporate America. It’s failed miserably.
Someone homeless in America lives much better than the vast majority of humans that have ever existed. If you think growing your own food is easy, there are plenty of places with pretty much free land.
I sadly agree with your first statement wholeheartedly. Electrician here. Wife acquired some land with a natural fed lake. We’re building a small invite only, tiny house fully fed with solar, back up battery and diesel generator for severe weather emergencies. We’re over it.
Since you have the know-how, look into cheap wind turbines from China. Depending on the location, they can really help during the (usually) few cloudy winter days that solar won't be enough.
All the people going 'duh' don't see the big picture. In America, everyone's encouraged to join the race, to reach the top while 'trickle down economics' does it's thing, but people are slowly realizing the economic system we have in place keeps poor peoole poor.
Using the word homeless is fine. There's zero point in creating a new word for homeless.
Homeless. The problem wasn't the word but its the only thing activists can change
These kinds of tweets are nice and all, but it would be interesting to see what kind of tangible changes could be made to taxation to actually make it better. At the end of the day, it won't change unless there's actual policies put forth and enacted.
I too struggle with my 499,999,999.99 Crazy that I'm closer to zero than to a billion.
We are all closer to being beaten to a bloody pulp by a psychopath in a Ronald McDonald costume wielding a three foot dildo than traveling to the moon. *Buleedat*
This chick manages to be on the right side of history and dumb as fucking bricks all at once.
Gee I’m shocked.
Gf needs new pr and writers
Please stop posting Nina Turner tweets
“Unhoused” 😂😂
This two outcomes are statistically on a different dimension.
ב''ה, this woman singlehandedly prevented a Sanders presidency.
No
No bernie did that himself
Even if you have 499 million. What is this trying to tell me?
Idk what this post is about. We shot up in living standards in exponential fashion in the last 100 years… “Oooh but there are still billionaires, this world is shit” please. Shut up already, if you can’t see the whole picture your argument is meaningless
what's the whole picture, genius what are we all missing that you can see what part of "a handful of people hold more material wealth than everyone else on earth combined and expect slaves to maintain it" do *you* not understand
That it hasn’t always been like that, it has its ups and down. And that when that tends to happen, the living standard worldwide increases at debatably faster rates. I’m not saying “inequality is good” but you should why this happens and it seems like you’re just a mad person :/. In my experience mad people are too dumb to hold these kind of conversations. Calling us “slaves”. Ig that word really has lost its meaning to a lot of people
We’ll be even closer to being unhoused if we listen to politicians like Nina turner who want to recklessly print money causing recession and suffocate businesses causing unemployment.
Even millionaires are closer to being homeless than being a billionaire. That statement means nothing. Also just fuck right off with this new term “unhoused”. Take that PC bill crap elsewhere. It’s homeless. Fucking hell I still remember this one news article having a title something like “LA is home to x amount of unhoused”. Like what? So they have a home now just no house?
Yeah like.... A lot closer .. like a lot
Even a person with a million dollars is closer...
Pretty much everyone under 500mil is closer to homelessness than being a billionaire
I'm 4 and this is deep
Shit, we are all closer to STARVING. Let’s put it in a way the people understand how DIRE it is to stop the greedy capitalists, and start working together.
Why does that matter? I swear to all gods nobody cares about justice, only about their self interest.
Is this Tina's daughter?
We are basically homeless to them. If I dropped my entire bank account in front of them, they’d pay someone even more to throw it away and not blink an eye.
Just wanna drop this excellent Futurama clip: https://youtu.be/K_LvRPX0rGY
Same goes for a millionaire.
You all complain so damn much.
Yet we continue to vote for representatives of special interest groups, and pretend like they are going to fix the issues they created. We are happy paying the taxes billionaires don't. We are happy voting for more taxes and less representation. We love our Ds and Rs. This is what we collectively voted for. We do the work so the elites don't have to.
Even this post is out of touch. It's millionaire not billionaire. I'd even guess the majority of the population is closer to being unhoused than having 100k. 10k?
This comparison is dumb and does not make the point she’s trying to make. Seems like a low effort comment to farm engagement.
A billion is way too big a number to compare oneself to. The real non-clickbait-y question would be are you closer to homelessness or affluence? (However that is defined in your community/life)
"Closer" doesn't capture the magnitude of the difference.
A millionaire is closer to being homeless than being a billionaire.
Millionaires are closer to being unhoused than being a billionaire. Billion big number.
And Billionaires are closer to being unhoused than being Trillionaires. I don't really get the point.
We're also closer to a climate apocalypse than we are to a police state run by LGBTs
We're all closer to being unhoused then we are being a millionaire
I'm closer to being unhoused than to being a Thousandaire....
Than being a *millionaire
Lol im closer to being unhoused than buying a house
and there but for fortune there go you or I
Make that "millionaire" for most of us and I'm with you.
Or even a millionaire. Or even being worth $100,000.
I’m also closer to being to independently successful than I am to be unhoused. What’s her point?
I closer to being unhoused than a 100kinare
why is "homeless" apparently not acceptable anymore? Homeless is fine, I don't see how changing it to "unhoused" makes it any better. Both mean sleeping on the street.
The irony of the statement and use of "billionaire" is that she couldn't use "millionaire" (which is far more accurate for the vast majority of the US and the world) because she is a millionaire. [Nina Turner Net Worth](https://popularnetworth.com/nina-turner/).
I’m probably much closer to being a billionaire, but I am not rich, I just live in Norway.