Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: Let's get to the show. Some breaking news happening in
Speaker 2: the media world, a titanic event, maybe not that Titanic.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Ninety two year old Rupert Murdoch is officially stepping down
Speaker 2: as the chairman of Fox and News Corp.
Speaker 3: Here's what he writes in a memo to colleagues.
Speaker 2: Dear colleagues, I'm ready to let you know I've decided
Speaker 2: to transition to the role of chairman emeritus at Fox
Speaker 2: and News. For my entire professional life, I have engaged
Speaker 2: daily with news and ideas that will not change. The
Speaker 2: headline is that he will be turning all responsibilities over
Speaker 2: to his son, the sole runner of the company, Lachlan Murdoch.
Speaker 2: He writes, quote, my father firmly believed in freedom. Lachlan
Speaker 2: is absolutely committed to this cause. Self serving bureaucracies are
Speaker 2: seeking to silence those who would question their providence and purpose.
Speaker 2: Elites have contempt for those who are not members.
Speaker 3: Of their rarefied class.
Speaker 2: Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites,
Speaker 2: peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth. Bit rich
Speaker 2: coming from the multi billionaire who's made really the same
Speaker 2: business as doing the exact same thing but for other people, hey,
Speaker 2: you know who amongst us that.
Speaker 3: It does of course settle a projection there.
Speaker 2: For a major succession related drama, because Lachlan will be
Speaker 2: in charge of the company for now, but the ninety
Speaker 2: two year old Murdoch whenever he dies. There's actually a
Speaker 2: clause I believe in his trust or as well, whereas
Speaker 2: four surviving children will all have equal voting shares for
Speaker 2: the future of the company. James Murdoch, on others, son,
Speaker 2: is very dismuch disagrees with Lachlan and with the future
Speaker 2: of Fox News and News Corp. He's very much more
Speaker 2: like Hillary Clinton type liberal supporter and would probably be
Speaker 2: more likely to either sell it off or to change
Speaker 2: the editorial direction of the company. Apparently the other two
Speaker 2: children are probably more inclined to agree with James, but
Speaker 2: there's no real way to change this. So it really
Speaker 2: is like the drama from six. But as long as
Speaker 2: he's alive, Lachlan will remain in charge.
Speaker 1: But be session fans. I guess James is more like
Speaker 1: Chavn Yes, but the idea well, and Lachlan is like Shron.
Speaker 2: Was actually interesting character, though James appears to me to
Speaker 2: just be like your standard variety multi billionaire son lives.
Speaker 3: I'm sure there are layers there.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are layers there, but I mean, the
Speaker 1: idea is that Lachlan was like buddies with Tucker and
Speaker 1: sort of embraced this trumpy persona at least he was
Speaker 1: more comfortable with that extent. So yeah, so you can
Speaker 1: slot in which our succession character you feel like he fits.
Speaker 1: But at least for now we have an answer of
Speaker 1: who is going to take over the reins in the
Speaker 1: immediate future. And obviously, I mean this really does come
Speaker 1: at a critical juncture for Fox News, in particular because
Speaker 1: the entire cable business, and certainly in the entire cable
Speaker 1: news business, is on a on a downswing, probably a
Speaker 1: permanent one. You know, they're trying to figure out their
Speaker 1: streaming and how they continue to compete in a new era.
Speaker 1: And then obviously on the political front, they threw all
Speaker 1: in with Ronda Santis. Ronda Santis is in fifth place
Speaker 1: in New Hampshire right now, like He's decline has been precipitous.
Speaker 1: He clearly he's you know, maybe barely hanging out in
Speaker 1: to second place in most polls, but is not even
Speaker 1: close to challenging Trump for the brass ring here, and
Speaker 1: so you know that bet was off there. Still continue
Speaker 1: to be in legal trouble over their coverage and stopped
Speaker 1: steal nonsense. They're still embroiled in lawsuits there, so that
Speaker 1: has been an issue for them. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: of questions about the future of this organization, how they
Speaker 1: position themselves in a potentially next Trump and administration. Throughout
Speaker 1: the Republican primary, how they positioned themselves for the future
Speaker 1: with streaming, et cetera. They have very all the cable
Speaker 1: news companies have a very elderly audience base, so that's
Speaker 1: a risk for them as well. So does come at
Speaker 1: a kind of pivotal moment for the industry and Fox
Speaker 1: News included.
Speaker 2: Just think back to our focus group, only one person
Speaker 2: said Fox News was really got there.
Speaker 3: That's right, one out of eight. So that tells everything.
Speaker 3: Publican base voters ten years ago.
Speaker 2: One said Fox twenty years ago they would be like Fox,
Speaker 2: Fox five will they would have named every single one
Speaker 2: of their favorite shows that time is damn guys, the
Speaker 2: Internet has completely taken over.
Speaker 3: So yeah, he's got it. He's got a tough thing
Speaker 3: going for him.
Speaker 2: If I were them, I mean, Fox is not where
Speaker 2: the fu I mean, that's where the money was. But
Speaker 2: obviously the one bet of their entire portfolio that I
Speaker 2: think is the best of Wall Street Journal, you know,
Speaker 2: if if they still have their hands on but that's
Speaker 2: not how they look it over there, because it doesn't
Speaker 2: print the same amount of cable carriage fees.
Speaker 3: He's got. He's got a lot on his hands, I
Speaker 3: think for the future.
Speaker 2: Indeed, I did a monologue about the Sound Freedom not
Speaker 2: that long ago. But there's been some very troubling developments
Speaker 2: with the leadership of the organization that was behind it,
Speaker 2: specifically Tim Ballard. Let's go and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. So Tim Ballard has how had to
Speaker 2: depart the operation Underground Railroad after a sexual misconduct investigation. Internally,
Speaker 2: they said, quote, our has dedicated to combating sexual abuse
Speaker 2: and does not tolerate sexual harassment or discrimination by anyone
Speaker 2: inside of the organization. So what they said is that
Speaker 2: while Tim Ballard allegedly is preparing for a Senate run Crystal,
Speaker 2: he quote has invited women to act as to quote
Speaker 2: his wife, on undercover missions which were aimed at rescuing
Speaker 2: victims of sex trafficking. He would then quote allegedly coerce
Speaker 2: these women into sharing a bed or to showering together,
Speaker 2: claiming it was necessary to fool traffickers. So obviously that's
Speaker 2: incredibly creepy behavior. They're a believed quote to be higher
Speaker 2: than seven in terms of the number of women. That
Speaker 2: would account for some employees who were coerced into this.
Speaker 2: And you know, the organization itself has distanced himself, they said,
Speaker 2: quote he has permanently separated from the organization. We're dedicated
Speaker 2: to combating sexual abuse. We have retained an independent law
Speaker 2: firm to conduct a comprehensive investigation to all the relevant allegations.
Speaker 2: What I actually thought was most noteworthy was the Mormon
Speaker 2: Church ranging in let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: The Church of Latter day Saints actually denounced many of
Speaker 2: the claims made by Tim Ballard, saying quote, his activities
Speaker 2: were morally unacceptable and that they had betrayed the French.
Speaker 2: This was after a previous allegation about how he had
Speaker 2: been betrayed and how the president of a church had
Speaker 2: been has had his name used in terms of Tim's
Speaker 2: quote personal or financial interests. It's pretty rare to see
Speaker 2: the Mormon Church actually come out and basically disavow and
Speaker 2: denounce the claims which were made that basically that the
Speaker 2: church was standing by him. As I said, the backdrop
Speaker 2: of all this is he wants to run for a
Speaker 2: Senate in Utah and then at the same time, with
Speaker 2: other things dropping, let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: One of the producers behind the film quote held an
Speaker 2: allegedly underaged trafficking victim's breast during an was found during
Speaker 2: an investigation for sexual misconduct during one of these investigations.
Speaker 3: And or trips that were made with the to go
Speaker 3: and to rescue victims of human trafficking.
Speaker 2: So some contrary behavior to what was shown in the
Speaker 2: film Crystal I think to say the least.
Speaker 1: Indeed, and listen, to be clear, Tim Ballard denies everything
Speaker 1: as he did nothing wrong, that they had really strict
Speaker 1: guidelines in place, et cetera, et cetera. But you now
Speaker 1: have a lot of women who effectively said very similar
Speaker 1: behavior that they experienced. There was a letter that was
Speaker 1: going around throughout the Utah philanthrop community basically warning about
Speaker 1: this HR investigation that was occurring within his own organization,
Speaker 1: which again he has now been forced out of right
Speaker 1: into these sexual harassment allegations. Part of what the letter
Speaker 1: said is it was ultimately revealed through disturbingly specific and
Speaker 1: parallel accounts that Tim has been deceitfully and extensively grooming
Speaker 1: and manipulating multiple women for the past few years, with
Speaker 1: the ultimate intent of coursing them to participate in sexual
Speaker 1: acts with him under the premise of going where it
Speaker 1: takes and doing whatever it takes to save a child.
Speaker 1: So the allegation here is that effectively he would use
Speaker 1: these women's real concern about trafficking victims and say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, how far would you go to make sure
Speaker 1: that these kids are okay? Well, I guess you have to,
Speaker 1: you know, sleep at the bed that I guess you
Speaker 1: have to shower with me. I guess you have to
Speaker 1: pretend you're my wife for this trip. Those are the allegations,
Speaker 1: and I think, you know, the fact that he was
Speaker 1: pushed out of his own organization says something. There's also
Speaker 1: there is a long documented track record of him being
Speaker 1: caught in overt lies about some of the work that
Speaker 1: his organization has done, including you know, things that he
Speaker 1: has told Congress about specific trafficking survivors, the details of
Speaker 1: which he made up. The involvement of his organization with
Speaker 1: these trafficking survivors he also invented and embellished. So there
Speaker 1: were some red flags about this dude already, even in
Speaker 1: advance of these allegations. And then the other thing that
Speaker 1: you know, within the world of organizations that are genuinely
Speaker 1: working to combat human trafficking, there were a lot of
Speaker 1: questions about their tactics, and that ties into the other
Speaker 1: allegations about this executive producer and how he ends up,
Speaker 1: you know, groping this uh maybe under age potentially underage,
Speaker 1: sixteen year old, potentially uh sex trafficking victim. Is the
Speaker 1: the other organizations said, listen, part of what you're doing
Speaker 1: here is you're actually creating more demand for sex trafficking
Speaker 1: and in particular underage sex trafficking victims by going into
Speaker 1: these commune in the tactics that you're using. So there
Speaker 1: were a lot of red flags. That doesn't mean you
Speaker 1: can't like the movie, that doesn't mean that you can't
Speaker 1: really support the core underlying mission, but just in terms
Speaker 1: of these particular individuals being heroes.
Speaker 3: A lot of problems.
Speaker 2: I think that's the that's the key point, right, which
Speaker 2: is that the movie was popular for a reason.
Speaker 3: It was actually one of the biggest films in South
Speaker 3: America as well.
Speaker 2: Like a lot of people, the idea behind it really
Speaker 2: resonated in terms of the problem probably which is very present,
Speaker 2: but that the people behind it, you know, people behind it,
Speaker 2: at the very least, have not conducted themselves in the
Speaker 2: most professional manner, regardless of whether it's true or not.
Speaker 3: And I actually think that's a shame for the organization.
Speaker 3: And unfortunately, I've.
Speaker 2: Seen a lot of people will be like this is
Speaker 2: a witch hunt and all of that, and I'm like, listen,
Speaker 2: you know you read these are people who are in
Speaker 2: the organization who agreed with the cause, who it's like
Speaker 2: they're not like liberals so much.
Speaker 3: They were on these trips.
Speaker 2: They who were on the trips, who are involved the
Speaker 2: Church of Ladder, like the freaking Mormon. You're accusing them
Speaker 2: of being like liars.
Speaker 4: And yeah, it's like, what are we talking about anyway,
Speaker 4: Let's all just be honest, let's have a discussion, especially
Speaker 4: because I know that the film resonated with so many people.
Speaker 3: That doesn't mean.
Speaker 2: Though that it's all about real life. So important to
Speaker 2: always keep that in mind. And I'll see you guys later.
Speaker 2: We love history over here, and Crystal actually suggested this,
Speaker 2: so I decided to do a.
Speaker 3: Little bit of a dig and give everyone the facts.
Speaker 2: So this some fascinating stuff released from the Vatican archives.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: A new letter shows that Pope Pius the twelve probably
Speaker 2: knew about the Holocaust much earlier than the Vatican has
Speaker 2: ever admitted to.
Speaker 3: So this letter, it.
Speaker 2: Was sent actually in nineteen forty two, and it warns
Speaker 2: about Nazi attempts explicitly to exterminate Jews.
Speaker 3: In the Holocaust.
Speaker 2: The letter, which was reproduced, shows that years before the
Speaker 2: Vatican has previously maintained that they knew about the mass
Speaker 2: extermination campaign against Jews in the Holocaust, that a priest,
Speaker 2: a German America or sorry, a German Catholic priest, had
Speaker 2: given a heads up to the Vatican that quote, six
Speaker 2: thousand Poles and Jews a day were being killed quote
Speaker 2: in ss furnacer furnaces at the Belzak camp near Rava Ruska,
Speaker 2: which was then part of German occupied Poland now in
Speaker 2: western Ukraine. Apparently they also referenced Auschwitz and Dakau, some
Speaker 2: of the most infamous and worst death camps in the
Speaker 2: entire Holocaust. Now, the reason why this is very significant
Speaker 2: is because there's been always a lot of debate about
Speaker 2: the Vatican and how they handled World War Two and
Speaker 2: specifically Nazi Germany. And so what this brings up is
Speaker 2: the fact that the Pope at that time actually never
Speaker 2: spoke out against Hitler while he was in power. Now,
Speaker 2: the key part of that, though, is that while he didn't, yes,
Speaker 2: technically do that, the Vatican has always argued that they
Speaker 2: used diplomacy to try and prevent a Nazi backlash, that
Speaker 2: really what they did is they worked like behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: There's always been a lot of controversy around this, because
Speaker 2: there's questions about like the Pope at that time modives themselves.
Speaker 2: The Allied powers actually begged the Vatican to get involved.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, after reading this, it does seem pretty clear
Speaker 2: like you knew exactly what was going on in December
Speaker 2: of nineteen forty two at the same time, I mean,
Speaker 2: like I'm like somewhat sympathetic, I guess because it was
Speaker 2: a crazy situation. They the Nazis had long been like
Speaker 2: anti Catholic, but politically there were some interesting stuff going
Speaker 2: on between these two parties when the Nazis rose to power.
Speaker 2: But then of course they were also going after in
Speaker 2: some cases priests and others who were working in the
Speaker 2: resistance movements, like in France. So I don't know, maybe
Speaker 2: in their justification, I'm assuming as they didn't want to
Speaker 2: invite like explicit backlash against the Church, that's what they're saying.
Speaker 3: That's their spin. I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 1: To me, it seems pretty clear cut, like you knew
Speaker 1: there were death camps and you didn't say anything about it. So,
Speaker 1: and there's also interesting this, as you said, it was
Speaker 1: found in the Vatican archives in letters correspondence that they
Speaker 1: said was like haphazardly stored and seems to not just
Speaker 1: be a one off. It seems to be a series
Speaker 1: of correspondents between this individual and the Pope. So the
Speaker 1: idea being that, you know, there were letters before this,
Speaker 1: even before this letter. Now that we've found that they
Speaker 1: have not let yet located, either they've been misplaced forever
Speaker 1: or they're somewhere else in the Vatican archives that haven't
Speaker 1: been turned up yet. But the idea being that, like,
Speaker 1: this wasn't even your first signal. You knew what was
Speaker 1: going on even before this, You were in this ongoing
Speaker 1: correspondence with this individual. So to me, it seems pretty
Speaker 1: hard to justify.
Speaker 2: Yeah, especially because the Allied powers were literally begging them
Speaker 2: to do it. There was actually an interesting new book
Speaker 2: that just came out last year, a guy named David Kurtzer.
Speaker 2: It was called The Pope at War. It really puts
Speaker 2: the It puts the Pope on blast and oh really, yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, he didn't have this document, but he knew
Speaker 2: and inferred enough. What effectively he concluded is quote he
Speaker 2: thought he could negotiate with Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and
Speaker 2: tempered Nazi hatred with diplomacy while the pope act carefully
Speaker 2: quote amid initial concerns that access powers may eventually control
Speaker 2: europe pies never changed his approach, even as evidence and
Speaker 2: pleased for the Vatican to take a stand mounted so quote,
Speaker 2: as a moral leader. He must be judged a failure
Speaker 2: also because he was in power. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: it's a crazy situation. He came to power I think
Speaker 2: it was like March nineteen thirty nine, and he died
Speaker 2: in almost nineteen sixty, like nineteen fifty eight, So he
Speaker 2: was the pope for almost twenty years. And so even afterwards,
Speaker 2: apparently they did quite a bit to just cover up
Speaker 2: some of the things that were going on. And even
Speaker 2: his predecessor, they never really knew what to do with
Speaker 2: Hitler and with all the rise of power until they
Speaker 2: explicitly turned against the Church because they hated communists just
Speaker 2: as much as.
Speaker 3: Some of the German conservatives.
Speaker 2: Anyway, there's a lot we could go into here, but
Speaker 2: the letter itself fascinating stuff, and I guess just proves
Speaker 2: really the point of David Kurtzer's entire book, which is like, yeah,
Speaker 2: this is a huge failure on their side. And a
Speaker 2: lot of the justifications and stuff that they came up
Speaker 2: with really just don't stand.
Speaker 3: The test of time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they don't hold water.
Speaker 2: I wanted to keep an eye on a very troubling
Speaker 2: trend in the United States which we're all aware of,
Speaker 2: but which the numbers are really stark.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: A new analysis from the CDC of death certificates over
Speaker 2: the last twenty years shows that obesity is a factor
Speaker 2: and cardiac debts has tripled over the last twenty years.
Speaker 2: So there were two hundred and eighty one thousand deaths
Speaker 2: from heart disease linked to obesity in the last twenty years.
Speaker 2: The death rate has tripled from two point two deaths
Speaker 2: per one hundred thousand to six point six per one
Speaker 2: hundred thousand in the database which are linked to obesity,
Speaker 2: and the increase in obesity related debts has with the
Speaker 2: steady decline actually of heart disease overall. So the reason
Speaker 2: why this is troubling is that overall deaths from heart
Speaker 2: disease are actually down by eighteen percent, but obesity related
Speaker 2: heart disease is up by twenty So as obesity continues
Speaker 2: to be a factor, the advance in medicine and statins
Speaker 2: and all this other stuff that we're used in non
Speaker 2: obese cases of heart disease are still going to continue
Speaker 2: to be a problem. They also show that obesity currently is,
Speaker 2: and this is stunning, one hundred and fifteen million people
Speaker 2: in the United States are now, as they put it,
Speaker 2: affected by OBEs or classified OBEs themselves, forty two percent
Speaker 2: of adults. But the worst part, and this is always
Speaker 2: the one that kills me, twenty percent of children now
Speaker 2: according to the CDC. And the issue with that figure
Speaker 2: is that that is just obese, that's not even just
Speaker 2: bmi overweight. And then if you really dig into it,
Speaker 2: a stunning like eight percent or so are like forty
Speaker 2: or fifty bmi like incredibly overweight relative to where they
Speaker 2: should be. And the issue with that is that leads
Speaker 2: to all kinds of insane conditions like type two diabetes
Speaker 2: with small children or children, teenagers and others. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's just a lifetime of suffering and it will shorten
Speaker 2: your life span.
Speaker 3: Your health span is a disaster.
Speaker 2: So there's a lot, you know, there's a lot of
Speaker 2: issues that are happening here, and the overall health impact
Speaker 2: is so stunning and so immense. I saw a recent
Speaker 2: chart actually that debts related to sugar and or obesity
Speaker 2: outstrip any drug in the history of the United States.
Speaker 2: If you classify sugar as an actual drug, which I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, there's a good case to be made. Like
Speaker 2: we talk all about alcohol related debts, ventanyl related debts and
Speaker 2: all this wipes every single one of those, you know,
Speaker 2: out of the water. I mean, it's just because it's
Speaker 2: more I guess societally accepted. All right, we don't think
Speaker 2: of it that way. I mean probably should.
Speaker 1: There's when you see statistics like this, like I saw
Speaker 1: a map recently that showed the obesity rates by every state,
Speaker 1: and if you go back to the nineties and look
Speaker 1: at the same map, the state in the nineties that
Speaker 1: had the highest obesity rate now is actually a lower
Speaker 1: than the state now that has the lowest obesity rate.
Speaker 1: Like that, things have shifted so much dramatically over time,
Speaker 1: and when you look at those sort of society wide numbers,
Speaker 1: you realize there are big picture, systemic things happening here
Speaker 1: that are so much, so much further beyond just obviously
Speaker 1: people have agency and I don't want to tell anybody
Speaker 1: they can't improve their lives and make their situation better.
Speaker 1: But I also think people need to cut themselves some slack.
Speaker 1: That this is a massive society wide trend that is
Speaker 1: driven by some huge factors. I mean, obviously like big AG,
Speaker 1: big food, the way we've been like systematically lied to
Speaker 1: thanks to the corrupting influence of big companies in terms
Speaker 1: of what actual nutritional guidance should look like and what
Speaker 1: is actually good for us and what is not good
Speaker 1: for us. I mean, the sugar lobby has been and
Speaker 1: big soda has been a tremendously negative impact in our society.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the Washington Post also had an
Speaker 1: article about how many of these so called dietitians are
Speaker 1: now paid by the food industry to go on TikTok,
Speaker 1: to go on Instagram, etc. And promote things that again
Speaker 1: are just like flat out lies and further confused people
Speaker 1: how even to make good choices for themselves and for
Speaker 1: their kids. So there's a lot going on here. I
Speaker 1: wanted to ask you, Sager, if you think that ozempic
Speaker 1: can be any sort of a realistic like improvement. It's
Speaker 1: a very kind, let alone solution, but it can be
Speaker 1: an improvement.
Speaker 2: I know doctors who are on one side. I know
Speaker 2: doctors who are on the other side. I personally, here's
Speaker 2: my belief. I do not believe that there can be
Speaker 2: a quote unquote medical cure to such as systemic problem.
Speaker 2: I don't believe in magic solutions. I don't believe in
Speaker 2: magic pills. And I think there's always a catch. Now,
Speaker 2: maybe the catch is better than the alternative. So for example,
Speaker 2: people are like improvement, yeah, right, So people who are like, well,
Speaker 2: I took it and then when I went off of it,
Speaker 2: I gained my weight backs, and that means I have
Speaker 2: to stay on it forever. And you know, I mean
Speaker 2: that sounds very profitable for Novo no artisks or whatever
Speaker 2: who's the manufacturer. So I used to start to get skeptical.
Speaker 2: There's been previous also reports about like muscle mass loss
Speaker 2: and also by people who use ozembit, but that could
Speaker 2: also be biased to the population who wants to, you know,
Speaker 2: lose a little bit of weight and gain some muscle.
Speaker 2: We're not talking about the morbidly obese.
Speaker 3: I you genuinely don't know. I think there needs to
Speaker 3: be a lot of study.
Speaker 2: But like I said, I am just skeptical of some
Speaker 2: sort of like one size fits all pills solution that
Speaker 2: you have to take on a consistent basis. Side effects
Speaker 2: can be numerous, you know, there's lots of stuff about
Speaker 2: and just in general, like slowing down your gut. When
Speaker 2: you tell me that and that's the solution, I'm just like,
Speaker 2: I don't know, man, Like, I don't know how.
Speaker 3: Exactly this all works out.
Speaker 2: However, that could be better than being morbidly obese and
Speaker 2: being seven hundred pounds, so, you know, maybe that is
Speaker 2: an answer.
Speaker 3: I think it's probably a case by case basis that
Speaker 3: people can make.
Speaker 2: Especially for people who are morbidly morbidly obese, I think
Speaker 2: that is so horrifically bad for you that getting out
Speaker 2: of that is, you know, is the most imperative thing
Speaker 2: that you can do for your health. The question then
Speaker 2: comes for people who are like on the edge, who
Speaker 2: are overweight and or on the obesity line, like what's
Speaker 2: the best way to get there.
Speaker 3: I'm still a big believer in the tools.
Speaker 2: Like mother nature gave us, which is diet, exercise, and
Speaker 2: it's just very incredibly, incredibly hard even for people who
Speaker 2: are just blend, people who have money, will power and
Speaker 2: all that the modern environment is not set up for
Speaker 2: you to sucty eight, and I just I don't know
Speaker 2: what the I mean. We've talked about this. It's like
Speaker 2: when you want to walk ten thousand steps. Yeah, if
Speaker 2: you have any semblance of a desk job, it sucks.
Speaker 2: Like you'll be like it's like six pm, You're like, Okay,
Speaker 2: I got to go for a one hour and fifteen
Speaker 2: minute walk today.
Speaker 3: Yeah, or carving out moment in your day.
Speaker 2: And I've been trying to burn like five hundred calories
Speaker 2: of cardio per day on top of any resist.
Speaker 3: It takes me like an hour and a half. Maybe
Speaker 3: I'm just slow, maybe, but it's also.
Speaker 1: I mean in other countries that have rely more on
Speaker 1: walking public transportation, like when I lived in New York City,
Speaker 1: absolutely it was built in I walk to work every day.
Speaker 1: It was roughly like you know, a little over a
Speaker 1: mile in each direction. And so just like built into
Speaker 1: my day is at least three miles of walking without
Speaker 1: ever going to the gym. And so when so much
Speaker 1: of are like the way our cities and towns are
Speaker 1: constructed is just about you know, getting in the car
Speaker 1: and yeah, there's no there's like basically zero physical activity
Speaker 1: built into the average Americans day. That's one thing. Then
Speaker 1: you know you have all of the We subsidize things
Speaker 1: like corn. That's why there's like every type of corn
Speaker 1: in your food every day, high fruit shows corn syrup
Speaker 1: and whatever. We subsidize things that are unhealthy. We make
Speaker 1: junk food like the cheek food that you can possibly buy,
Speaker 1: and then we turn around and wonder like, oh, why
Speaker 1: why do we have these skyrocketing obesity And.
Speaker 2: Then evening, you know, even things like rice, it's like, well,
Speaker 2: you can make the rice, you can soak the rice,
Speaker 2: you can put it in the rice kicker, or you
Speaker 2: can buy that Uncle Ben's five minute rice. It sounds
Speaker 2: pretty nice. It's but it's super processed. And it's like, well,
Speaker 2: if you're busy, what are you going to do? I
Speaker 2: have so total sympathy, you know, I see moms and
Speaker 2: stuff at the grocery store. If we've got like three
Speaker 2: screaming children, I'm like listen, you know for you.
Speaker 3: Like that is another thing, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Like the amount of hours that we work, how stretched
Speaker 1: people are having to work two and three jobs? Like
Speaker 1: you think you have time to cook some like perfect
Speaker 1: healthful meal, even if you could afford the ingredients that
Speaker 1: would entail, and we make it impossible for people to succeed,
Speaker 1: and then we only look at like the individual part,
Speaker 1: which again and blame them, which again, Listen. I don't
Speaker 1: ever want to take away from people the agency who
Speaker 1: improve their life to make changes that are going to
Speaker 1: help them in whatever they're going through. But when you
Speaker 1: only are focused on the like you know, pull yourself
Speaker 1: up by the bootstraps conversation, and you're not looking at
Speaker 1: these overall trends, I think that can be very dishonest,
Speaker 1: and I think it can also end up being extremely
Speaker 1: unhelpful for the people that most need that assistance.
Speaker 5: Totally agree.
Speaker 6: Pew Research Center survey finds that everybody thinks everything sucks.
Speaker 7: Yes, and for more details on that. Basically, the breaking
Speaker 7: news is that Americans have correctly assessed the state of America. Yes,
Speaker 7: so this is a new research from PU We can
Speaker 7: put the element up on the screen where majorities of
Speaker 7: Americans say the political process is dominated by special interests,
Speaker 7: flooded with campaign cash, admirred and partisan warfare. Elected officials,
Speaker 7: Peugh goes on to say, are widely viewed as self
Speaker 7: serving and as ineffective. And Pew says that actually, this
Speaker 7: study finds quote no single focal point for the public's dissatisfaction.
Speaker 7: There's widespread criticism of the three branches of government, both
Speaker 7: political parties as well as political leaders and candidates for office.
Speaker 7: Now this is they say, coming amid historically high levels
Speaker 7: of voter turnout in national elections. So they find that
Speaker 7: contrast to be somewhat interesting. I think it's worth noting
Speaker 7: some specific results here. Just four percent of US adults
Speaker 7: say the political system is working extremely well or very well.
Speaker 5: Four percent.
Speaker 7: That's not just among people who say extremely well. That's
Speaker 7: extremely well and very well. Another twenty three percent say
Speaker 7: it is working somewhat well. About six and ten say
Speaker 7: they have not too much confidence or no confidence at
Speaker 7: all in the future of the US political system. Pew
Speaker 7: says positive views of many governmental and political institutions are
Speaker 7: at historic lows. Just sixteen percent of the public will
Speaker 7: say they trust the federal government always or most of
Speaker 7: the time. That's even including people who say most of
Speaker 7: the time. Again, usually you can see numbers like that
Speaker 7: for people saying, oh, I always trust this or that,
Speaker 7: But you're concluding both of those views. That's extremely bad
Speaker 7: for America. Obviously, it goes without saying. Now, while trust
Speaker 7: has hovered near historic lows Pew says for the better
Speaker 7: part of the last twenty years, today it stands among
Speaker 7: the lowest levels dating back nearly seven decades, and more
Speaker 7: Americans have an unfavorable than favorable opinion of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 7: That's the first time this has occurred in polling going
Speaker 7: back to late nineteen eighties. A growing share of the
Speaker 7: public dislikes both political parties. Nearly three and ten express
Speaker 7: unfavorable views of both parties, the highest share in three
Speaker 7: decades of polling, and a comparable share of adults do
Speaker 7: not feel very represented by either party, and candidate choices
Speaker 7: are under wellming. Sixty three percent of Americans say they're
Speaker 7: dissatisfied with the presidential candidates that have emerged so far. Now,
Speaker 7: I was actually going to make that point too, in
Speaker 7: that we have a leading candidate for the Republican nomination
Speaker 7: that is not participating in the debate so far, and
Speaker 7: we also have a president that is currently the sitting
Speaker 7: president of the US who is not debating despite actually
Speaker 7: the majority of his party. It's not, of course, it's
Speaker 7: normal for the president not to engage in the debates
Speaker 7: during the primary process, but his voters are on the
Speaker 7: side of wanting him to debate. Most of his own
Speaker 7: voters think he's too old to be in elected office
Speaker 7: right now. So you have even among the party voters
Speaker 7: for the two main political parties right now, dissatisfaction with
Speaker 7: the leading candidates, both of those leading candidates clinging to
Speaker 7: their power. And this is as you have six and
Speaker 7: ten Americans saying they have not too much or no
Speaker 7: confidence at all the future of the US right. We
Speaker 7: see numbers like this all of the time. It's no
Speaker 7: real surprise. You're always going to have some level of
Speaker 7: distrust high with some institutions. You're not always going to
Speaker 7: have perfect trust across all institutions. But man, these numbers
Speaker 7: are steep.
Speaker 5: They're really bad.
Speaker 6: And there are contradictions within these numbers and within the
Speaker 6: views that people are holding that can't be worked out
Speaker 6: by the political system necessarily, and one of them being
Speaker 6: that essentially a number one thing that people say, besides
Speaker 6: complaints about politicians, that people say to Pew here is
Speaker 6: that they don't like the way that partisan that the
Speaker 6: way that things have become so partisan that they think
Speaker 6: that Democrats and Republicans care more about fighting each other
Speaker 6: than they care about solving the problems of the country.
Speaker 6: Like massive numbers of people agree with that obviously true statement.
Speaker 6: At the same time, they also and other Pew surveys
Speaker 6: and somewhat in this one express their deeply, deeply negative
Speaker 6: views about the other party. So they are expressing the
Speaker 6: very thing that they think in aggregate is bad. But
Speaker 6: that's and that's why it can't be worked out because
Speaker 6: while everybody agrees what the problems are, people disagree on
Speaker 6: what the solutions are.
Speaker 5: Like everybody agrees that, you know, the two.
Speaker 6: Party system stinks, but nobody agreed nobody certainly the parties
Speaker 6: are not going to agree to dissolve themselves and allowing
Speaker 6: new parties or a multi party system, nor would there
Speaker 6: even be a mechanic for that outside of like a
Speaker 6: constitutional convention. And then everybody agrees that, uh, partisanship is
Speaker 6: the problem, but they will say that it's the other
Speaker 6: side that just needs to go away and stop, you know,
Speaker 6: being in the way of things.
Speaker 7: Well, and this, by the way, is why the whole
Speaker 7: mansion no Labels movement that John Huntsmen are resolve that
Speaker 7: contradiction at all, right, and it actually is, it's the
Speaker 7: exact opposite. Read So they look at polls like this,
Speaker 7: and by the way, P did a word bubble of
Speaker 7: American's top description in the current state of politics. Biggest
Speaker 7: word is divisive. But then the second biggest word is corrupt, messy, bad, polarized, chaos, dysfunctional, crazy.
Speaker 7: One of them is just shit.
Speaker 3: Wh it'sp blurped out.
Speaker 7: But like, they look at this and they say, oh,
Speaker 7: big opening for the no label's movement to the point
Speaker 7: where they're seriously flirting with a third party presidential bid.
Speaker 7: And they really are.
Speaker 6: But what right, What they're forgetting is two things. One,
Speaker 6: lots of people who are independence and don't like one
Speaker 6: of other parties, disagree with each other. You've got right
Speaker 6: wing independence, you got left wing independence, and then you
Speaker 6: got independence who are kind of all.
Speaker 5: Over the place.
Speaker 6: And then you have independence who are kind of checked
Speaker 6: out and they're like sort of pay attention to the news,
Speaker 6: sort of sort of don't might show up for the election,
Speaker 6: might not. And to say that all forty percent of
Speaker 6: those people like would then support Joe Manchin through no
Speaker 6: labels is absurd and then your point about the corruption
Speaker 6: and money in politics is key, because No Labels is
Speaker 6: funded by dark money, like private equity goons, people who
Speaker 6: own baseball stadiums, like secretly writing checks to get this party,
Speaker 6: this non party, No Labels party on the ballot in
Speaker 6: fifty states. Who for what purpose? Who knows why, who's
Speaker 6: to benefit, who's funding it? And so the idea that
Speaker 6: you would approach a population that is saying it's one
Speaker 6: of its top concerns is the corruption of politics by
Speaker 6: by big moneyed interests, then you'd come at them with
Speaker 6: seventy million dollars in dark money supporting Joe Manchin and
Speaker 6: Larry Hogan and Lisa Murkowski or whatever, and that they're
Speaker 6: going to and that everybody from the socialist left to
Speaker 6: the libertarian right who are registered as independents are going
Speaker 6: to like flock behind that. It's like give that money back,
Speaker 6: you're stealing it from them, but actually it should all
Speaker 6: be confiscated.
Speaker 7: They don't want that, I mean nobody, absolutely nobody wants that.
Speaker 7: And when compromises are brokered in Washington, it's by industry,
Speaker 7: it's by lobbyists. And so if you're ever hearing Joe
Speaker 7: Manchin say, there's like the problem solver Caucus.
Speaker 5: Yeah right, it's a no labels product.
Speaker 7: Oh yeah, yeah, And they have like it's it's all
Speaker 7: just like established from politicians that are so close to
Speaker 7: the center on the right and the left that they
Speaker 7: can sit in a room together. It's not bringing you know,
Speaker 7: Matt Gates together with Alexandria Casio Cortes and some centrist
Speaker 7: Josh Gottheimer.
Speaker 3: Right, if you can do.
Speaker 7: That, then talk to us. But you actually, what you
Speaker 7: want to do is relegate both of the populist wings
Speaker 7: to the fringes right further, and you want the sort
Speaker 7: of adults in the room is what they like to
Speaker 7: call themselves to take over.
Speaker 6: That was the explicit mandate of no labels. No Labels
Speaker 6: launched after the Tea Party wave and then surged, surged
Speaker 6: as like as you know, it's fifty people give a
Speaker 6: lot of money after Bernie Sanders, and so their argument
Speaker 6: was the Tea Party is bad, Bernie Sanders is bad.
Speaker 6: You know, let's let's build a wall of money and
Speaker 6: keep these angry people out. Yeah yeah, and they think
Speaker 6: that that that's the solution to the crisis.
Speaker 5: Nugget.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's amazing, but it's also amazing to me that
Speaker 7: you can have this level.
Speaker 3: It's like when.
Speaker 7: People say they lament the level of trust in media,
Speaker 7: a lot of journalists all the time will be like frothing.
Speaker 7: They're very upset because trust in media is low. And
Speaker 7: for me, I'm like Lois, I'm like, oh, thank god,
Speaker 7: Like these numbers are low, because genuinely, if numbers and
Speaker 7: trust in media were high right now, and they've been
Speaker 7: higher than they should be in the past, but like
Speaker 7: people have caught on to the media's corruption and lies,
Speaker 7: that's a good thing. It's bad for the country that
Speaker 7: we can't trust the media, but it's good that we
Speaker 7: recognize we can't trust the media because then you can
Speaker 7: sort of look to different sources and you can make
Speaker 7: decisions in it in a different way.
Speaker 5: But then, but then some of.
Speaker 6: Those sources have their own agendas and are then just
Speaker 6: feeling a vacuum, and we're just manipulating people themselves.
Speaker 7: This is this is all a thinly veiled Oh I
Speaker 7: don't know. I think you do a pretty good job
Speaker 7: failing it, Ryan, This is all a veiled advertisement for
Speaker 7: Ryan's new mushroom company, Psychedelic Company, is all he will
Speaker 7: phone trust.
Speaker 5: There's no realities. You might as well just enjoy these much.
Speaker 7: And then he steps into the vacuum and sells you psychedelic.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 7: But in all seriousness, there's no answer to this. I mean,
Speaker 7: that's like, that's probably the biggest problem. The answer is
Speaker 7: either no labels or.
Speaker 6: I think this wave might be cresting, I think, and
Speaker 6: that maybe we can't see it because Trump is still around.
Speaker 5: And he's going to be around for a very long time.
Speaker 6: But I feel like, at least on the democratic side,
Speaker 6: there's a lot of people are checking out, like you've
Speaker 6: seen st worries about big Democratic donors and small democratic
Speaker 6: donors are stepping back in a big way from and
Speaker 6: I think that part of that is this wave that
Speaker 6: we saw from twenty seven sixteen seventeen, with Trump coming
Speaker 6: in and everybody everybody experiencing politics as this like minute
Speaker 6: to minute phenomenon is unsustainable, and I think people gradually
Speaker 6: are kind of pulling back from it, though they will
Speaker 6: return through twenty twenty four as Trump, you know, exerts
Speaker 6: his gravitational force on our political field. But I think
Speaker 6: that that's obviously that is temporary, and I think it's
Speaker 6: possible that we're seeing a fading on the right, though,
Speaker 6: Are you seeing a decoupling a little bit for the
Speaker 6: connection or.
Speaker 5: People just as frothing at the mouth as they always were.
Speaker 7: No. I think it's a huge problem on the right
Speaker 7: because it's so specifically attached to Donald Trump, and the
Speaker 7: Trump factor looms over absolutely every other conversation. So if
Speaker 7: you want to have a same conversation that would appeal
Speaker 7: to the average voter about weaponization of the Department of Justice,
Speaker 7: you're going to have to be litigating these completely thorny
Speaker 7: cases against Donald Trump, where some of them it's like, Okay,
Speaker 7: did he do something wrong?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 7: Would they be bringing charges against Biden if he did this?
Speaker 7: Probably not, And it gets tangled up in these kind
Speaker 7: of meta discussions instead of the central discussions. And so
Speaker 7: that means the entire sort of populist movement is specifically
Speaker 7: tied to one man, and that one man happens to
Speaker 7: be very unpopular outside of this sort of Trump base.
Speaker 7: He might be something that people tolerate and will vote
Speaker 7: for if their other train is Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 7: but sort of in a broad sense, he's not like
Speaker 7: a popular you know, someone who's going to like build
Speaker 7: bridges between this wide swath of voters and left and
Speaker 7: the right. He's pretty unpopular and if you look at
Speaker 7: his numbers, and that's a big problem because it means
Speaker 7: Republicans who are trying to broaden the base and are
Speaker 7: trying to let some populism in the door have to
Speaker 7: contend with that, and that makes the populism unpopular.
Speaker 6: Yeah, in the short version of the few survey rails,
Speaker 6: nobody likes this, but this is what we got.
Speaker 5: We're going to keep modeling forward.
Speaker 8: We're going to keep you exactly all right.
Speaker 5: To stick around for more modeling.
Speaker 9: You know, it's funny you wouldn't tell an employer that
Speaker 9: you plan to put in so little effort that if
Speaker 9: you put in any less effort, it would be illegal.
Speaker 9: And yet that is exactly what minimum wage is. And
Speaker 9: is it possible to live anywhere on a US's minimum
Speaker 9: wage and not just subsists, not just barely scrape by,
Speaker 9: but experience some level of comfort because the origin of
Speaker 9: the minimum wage in the US is a commitment to
Speaker 9: the idea that if you're working full time, you shouldn't
Speaker 9: have to experience poverty. You work forty hours a week, whatever,
Speaker 9: you're doing developing software or working on as semay line
Speaker 9: or behind a deep fryer. You should be able to
Speaker 9: relax after work and not worry about whether or not
Speaker 9: you have enough money to both pay rent and eat.
Speaker 8: In the late eighteen hundred.
Speaker 9: Sweatshops were a big issue in the US, and one
Speaker 9: way of combating this was to institute a minimum wage.
Speaker 8: In nineteen thirty eight. This was set at twenty five cents.
Speaker 9: When FDR was pushing for this legislation, he called it
Speaker 9: a living wage, saying that no business which depends for
Speaker 9: existence on paying less than living wages to its workers.
Speaker 8: Has any right to continue in this country. And he
Speaker 8: meant every.
Speaker 9: Single business and every single worker. And he went out
Speaker 9: of his way to clarify living wage as a decent wage.
Speaker 9: And this was when he was pushing for a minimum wage.
Speaker 9: So I think it's safe to say that a minimum
Speaker 9: wage was meant to be a decent page, fair day's
Speaker 9: work for a fair day's wage. So, now that I've
Speaker 9: said wage too many times, where do you have to
Speaker 9: go to live on the US federal minimum wage?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 9: So I'm in New York and here minimum wage is
Speaker 9: fifteen dollars an hour. If you're working forty hours a week,
Speaker 9: you are going to be left with about eighteen hundred
Speaker 9: dollars a month after taxes. Well, if you should spend
Speaker 9: roughly a third of your income on rent, that's six
Speaker 9: hundred dollars a month, which is insane. Here, let's see
Speaker 9: what that gets you. Nothing, which is why New Yorkers
Speaker 9: spend more like two thirds of their income on rent.
Speaker 9: So what can we get for less than twelve hundred dollars?
Speaker 9: Two apartments in the entire city under twelve hundred at
Speaker 9: least on this site. But one thousand dollars for an
Speaker 9: apartment is really good. So one thousand dollars plus a
Speaker 9: subway tasks, three hundred dollars on food, two hundred and
Speaker 9: four electric, gas, internet, and your phone.
Speaker 8: It's gonna be really tough.
Speaker 9: Even if you find a roommate situation where you can
Speaker 9: save a few hundred dollars on you're not going to
Speaker 9: have much leftover at the end of the month to
Speaker 9: get drinks with friends or see a movie.
Speaker 8: Obviously a child is going to.
Speaker 9: Be way over the budget. Definitely don't do that. But
Speaker 9: you know what, in New York that's one of the
Speaker 9: most expensive places in the world. There are places in
Speaker 9: the US, I'm sure with a way lower cost of living.
Speaker 9: So where could you live? According to the Bureau of
Speaker 9: Economic Analysis, Arkansas has the lowest cost of living. Median
Speaker 9: rent for a studio apartment is five hundred and twenty
Speaker 9: eight dollars.
Speaker 8: Eight hundred and.
Speaker 9: Sixty dollars is what the average person spends on their
Speaker 9: car and transportation, two hundred and fifty dollars for food,
Speaker 9: two hundred and four electric gas, internet.
Speaker 8: And your phone.
Speaker 9: If you can delete the car because you just happen
Speaker 9: to live near some public transit that may actually be
Speaker 9: really cheap. Let's say you are so lucky and you
Speaker 9: never have to stay at work until nine or ten
Speaker 9: after the.
Speaker 8: Bus stopped running.
Speaker 9: Well, hey, you could be doing worse, and it just
Speaker 9: so happens that a living wage in Arkansas is fifteen
Speaker 9: dollars and twenty five cents, not too far off. One problem, though,
Speaker 9: Arkansas's minimum wage is not fifteen dollars an hour.
Speaker 8: It's eleven.
Speaker 9: But you know what, you're still doing a lot better
Speaker 9: than all these states that are making seven to twenty
Speaker 9: five an hour. Now, as it turns out, only about
Speaker 9: two percent of the workforce make exactly minimum wage. But
Speaker 9: that's one point six million people. And yes, some of
Speaker 9: them are teenagers, but most of them are not. And
Speaker 9: these are only the people making exactly federal minimum wage.
Speaker 9: There are a lot more people making seven fifty seven
Speaker 9: to seventy five eight nine dollars an hour. About fourteen
Speaker 9: percent of all US workers make fifteen dollars an hour
Speaker 9: or less. That's nineteen million people on average.
Speaker 8: For the United States.
Speaker 9: If this is the poverty threshold, and this is a
Speaker 9: living wage, this is minimum wage. If you're splitting the
Speaker 9: rent with someone, it gets easier. But as soon as
Speaker 9: you add a couple kids to that, the gap between
Speaker 9: you and poverty gets a little smaller, and the gap
Speaker 9: between you and comfort gets a lot bigger. So where
Speaker 9: can you live on seven to twenty five? Well, Belgium
Speaker 9: has a lower cost of living. Maybe you could move
Speaker 9: to Belgium. Belgium's poverty line is one three hundred and
Speaker 9: sixty six euros for a single person. The work week
Speaker 9: there is thirty eight hours, and the minimum wage before
Speaker 9: taxes is one nine hundred and fifty five euros. For
Speaker 9: some reason, you move to Belgium and you're working remotely
Speaker 9: from the US making the US minimum wage a scenario
Speaker 9: I can't imagine exists outside of this video, but that's
Speaker 9: the game we're playing. At seven twenty five an hour,
Speaker 9: it would take almost seventy two hours a week to
Speaker 9: make the Belgium's minimum wage, So.
Speaker 8: Belgium is out.
Speaker 9: The UK also has a lower cost of living. Again,
Speaker 9: why are you working remote from England making an American's
Speaker 9: minimum wage?
Speaker 8: That makes no sense.
Speaker 9: Evidently, a living wage in the UK is ten pounds
Speaker 9: ninety The minimum wage there is ten forty two, so
Speaker 9: they're lagging behind a little bit as well. And in pounds,
Speaker 9: the US federal minimum wage comes to five eighty five,
Speaker 9: which is apparently the minimum wage for sixteen year olds there.
Speaker 8: Not doing so great. Uruguay is pretty affordable.
Speaker 9: Looks like you can live for as little as fourteen
Speaker 9: thousand US dollars there, and as far as I can tell,
Speaker 9: they won't charge taxes on income that is earned outside
Speaker 9: the country, but you do still have to pay American
Speaker 9: taxes on that money earned, so that's too much for
Speaker 9: US as well. It goes without saying it's almost impossible
Speaker 9: to buy a house when you're making minimum wage it's
Speaker 9: only the rarest of circumstances that will allow you to
Speaker 9: pull this off. But this didn't have to be the case.
Speaker 9: Economist Dean Baker explains that until nineteen sixty eight, the
Speaker 9: minimum wage not only kept pace with inflation, it rose
Speaker 9: in step with productivity growth, which, according to him, would
Speaker 9: place minimum wage at more like twenty four dollars an hour,
Speaker 9: which would make it way more possible for a couple
Speaker 9: each earning minimum wage to actually buy a home. Clearly,
Speaker 9: that is not the timeline we're living in, Okay, So
Speaker 9: moving down the cost of living list by country, you
Speaker 9: can live in Taiwan for eleven hundred dollars a month,
Speaker 9: but again seven to twenty five take home is more
Speaker 9: like nine to fifty a month.
Speaker 8: Cuba cost of living is nine to ninety five. Getting closer.
Speaker 9: Continuing down the list, the first place that we find
Speaker 9: that's under nine to fifty a month take home is Jordan.
Speaker 9: The cost of living for a single person with an
Speaker 9: apartment outside out of a city center is apparently nine
Speaker 9: hundred and twenty dollars a month. Some cursory and lazy
Speaker 9: research has confirmed this, the point being if you make
Speaker 9: seven dollars and twenty five cents an hour. There are
Speaker 9: places you can go where it will be a decent living.
Speaker 9: Those places just are in America. Also, it will be
Speaker 9: thousands of dollars for you to actually move to those places,
Speaker 9: So you're definitely trapped here no matter what. Fortunately, there
Speaker 9: is progress being made, in no small part to groups
Speaker 9: like five for fifteen states have individually raised their minimum
Speaker 9: wage and brought more and more people into a higher
Speaker 9: standard of living. As far as what's going on federally
Speaker 9: right now, the Republicans have a bill that would raise
Speaker 9: the minimum wage to eleven dollars an hour, which clearly
Speaker 9: isn't enough, and it's only for people who can prove citizenship,
Speaker 9: which means it will exclude the probably five million undocumented
Speaker 9: workers in the US. But you know what, if you're
Speaker 9: not slipping poison pills and needless cruelty into the bills
Speaker 9: you're authoring, that takes the whole sport.
Speaker 8: Out of legislating, right.
Speaker 9: But a much better bill was introduced this summer in
Speaker 9: the Raise the Wage Act of twenty twenty three, which
Speaker 9: would bring the federal minimum wage to seventeen dollars an
Speaker 9: hour by twenty twenty eight, which is much closer to
Speaker 9: what we actually need in this country, and that will
Speaker 9: do it for me. I hope you found this video interesting.
Speaker 9: I hope you learned something. If you did, make sure
Speaker 9: you are subscribed to Breaking Points. You can also follow
Speaker 9: me on Twitter or at my own YouTube channel, where
Speaker 9: I talk about media and politics and things. Liking and
Speaker 9: sharing always helps. Thank you so much to Breaking Points,
Speaker 9: Thank you so much for watching, and I will see
Speaker 9: you in the next one.