Kinda hard to explain this concept to executives who have made their entire careers based off of dumb decisions like this. Problem is these execs never get fired or laid off, and instead get promoted upwards until all of Microsoft is doing the dumbest thing imaginable to their name. These people have never had consequence before, so are now destined to place those consequences on the company that’s kept them woefully employed.

Not after losing half a million citizens and untold amounts of Military equipment in the Ukraine. Russia is now literally weaker than they’ve ever been, and Trump has spent that whole decline sucking Putins Dick behind closed Doors instead of cutting it off.

Putin’s only powerful because you fall for that narrative. He’s a weak man, with weak ideas, in a weak body, riddled with pancreatic cancer.

Killing him now would be easier than ever, and every leader in the world is a big ass pussy about it because they believe social media over reality. When social media has been almost completely controlled by Russian intelligence for the last decade.

Putins a weak bitch that could be snuffed out in a moment the same as the Ayatolla. The only reason you think he’s untouchable is because you believe the propaganda he’s been putting out instead of the cold facts:

His economy is weak. His Military is weak. He is weak.

Letting him live out of the fear he’s a bigger monster than that is how he’s stayed alive this long. And it’s amazing to me our world leaders are such big pussies to fall for it. Which explains why Trump has so easily grabbed them all.

Here’s my plan:

Get Trump out of office, get an American president that isn’t AIPAC. Treat Putin in Russia the same as we just did Venezuela and Iran.

Putin gets nothing forever. (As he’s dead). Democracy stops collapsing world wide due to his influence over insecure billionaires. US gets to keep breaking bad. But in a way that actually benefits the world instead of just the Epstein class.

Honest question - if you’re comfortable bringing up science, why not sociology instead of biology? Because there’s quite a bit of sociological studies done that proves why DEI is useful to societies. There any particular reason you’re pretending those don’t exist (other than the obvious?)

And not a single one of those resumes will be from someone that has any loyalty to EPIC. Those employees won’t give a shit about the company that pays them, just that they get paid.

So EPIC will continue to lose money by paying top dollar for the most unmotivated of employees. The ones who will collect a check to let management make all the creative decisions, and then leave once that inevitably leads to a dumpster fire. Rinse & repeat with the next place that’ll pay more.

Jokes on the EPIC CEO for being so myopic he doesn’t seem to understand the reality of this situation. That he’s about to pay top dollar for the worst employees imaginable: the ones who won’t shake the boat when its clearly already on its way to being capsized.

No sane person is going to spend that massive amount of money just to see what AI thinks their games could look like. The people who buy games want to see what the devs made them look like. Not what an AI thinks the devs made. Absolutley no one wants a middleman between the art and artist. As that’s supposed to be you. We don’t need AI there. That’s dumb as shit, and expensive as shit to boot.

Bingo. 👍 Well said. I was using the housing market as just another indicator of the exact problem you are talking about. Mostly because it’s much easier to understand in the context of determining Americans total “savings / net worth” which relates closer to the OP.

I appreciate your critical analysis and doubt, but from my perspective I’ve been watching this problem grow for the last 20 years and it’s indeed as abysmal as this article makes it out to be. (If not worse…)

In short, real wages haven’t increased in America in well over 30ish years. Federal minimum wage hasn’t budged in nearly 20.

People have so little money now, the average American is now buying their first house at the age of 40. (The average age was around 28 in the 80’s for comparison) 40 is now the new average age of first time home buyers in America, and I find that a far better metric to analyze in determining Americans current level of savings than what’s contained in this article.

As it goes to show that working for 20 years for the average American is now how long it takes to earn enough for a house. So that’s 20 years every average American is spending at work to save for the biggest “retirement” investment this article doesn’t account for.

Home ownership is literally going to be non-existant for Gen alpha at this current rate it is changing at. As in addition to wages not increasing in decades, costs for all the basics have been increasing in that same time. Insurance rates gave increased nearly 5x in the last 20 years. Rent has more than doubled, as well as the price of all American made cars. All expenses coming from a pool that hasn’t increased in 30 years of flat wages. Which is why it’s taking so long for most Americans to save enough for their first house, let alone retirement.

It’s far worse than what this article is saying imo, because there are far better red flags to analyze than how this article approaches it. I completly agree this article isn’t doing well at supporting their claim, but also encourage a look at alternate data points, as the picture is actually far worse than what this article and most others make it seem. Imo, that’s why this study left out assets like Roth IRAs and Homeownership, because it would have painted an even worse picture, not a better one. At least imo, based on the other facts I’ve provided (but admittedly haven’t sourced, going by recent memory, so feel free to correct me).