I see Stephen Miller is trending, and I have nothing to say about that so I'll just use his name to share something else that made me laugh
and yes this is a real headline
@freevote had no idea (nominal) wages grew that much. but it seems like housing and other cost drivers are a much bigger issue than food. wrong hill to die on!
@matthewschmitz I don't see how it could possibly worse that he HASN'T done the terrible things depicted than if he had.
We give way too much credit to self-awareness as a virtue. Being awful, but "owning" it and turning it into creative fuel really shouldn't be celebrated.
@TheVisaSnatcher@freevote@NYCMayor I like this. Now we're having a good time!
Those screenshots validate every data point used – except shootings was a tie, not an outright record. Good to know.
But I agree it's too short a blip to draw real conclusions from. And hey, maybe Trump deserves the credit for it!
There's more to the minimum wage debate than you're likely to hear from either side.
Recent ballot wins in states like Florida ($15 by 2026), Arizona, Nebraska, and Missouri raised wages but fueled worry over job losses. That part everyone knows. But nuances like teen vs adult impacts often get lost.
To keep it simple, here are just two numbers to consider for now.
The best pro-minimum wage data point: Zero significant job losses in those states post-hike.
Recent analysis shows employment rates held steady or even ticked up in FL, AZ, NE, and MO after voters approved the increases. No mass layoffs materialized as critics feared, suggesting businesses adapted without cutting low-wage jobs at scale. It also helps that the increases weren't too dramatic.
The best anti-minimum wage data point: 1.2 million projected job losses from a $17 federal minimum.
A hypothetical $17 wage floor could eliminate 1.2 million jobs nationwide, according to EPI analysis. It would also hit women hardest (62% of estimated losses) along with sectors like restaurants where margins are thin.
California's $20 fast-food minimum wage, which began in April 2024, reveals what can happen if policymakers move too aggressively. Evidence indicates that while wages rose, many workers experienced fewer hours, reduced benefits, and, in some cases, reduced staffing.
@johnwalters_sd@simonowens Great point. The institutional accounts care less about engagement with the information than with driving traffic to their websites, which they can monetize. Often individual reporters and commentators DO care about the substance, and will share threads that perform quite well.
@RadioFreeTony@simonowens It is about that. “These charts make it pretty clear that links in tweets hurt engagement.”
It is inferring suppression from low engagement. So suppression is the claim; low engagement is the evidence.
My point is there’s omitted variable bias.