Affordability vs. the Poverty Line

Summary

Podcast Summary: Optimist Economy – "Affordability vs. the Poverty Line"

Podcast: Optimist Economy
Episode: Affordability vs. the Poverty Line
Hosts: Kathryn Anne Edwards (Economist), Robin Rauzi (Editor)
Date: February 3, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode tackles the contentious debate sparked by a viral essay suggesting the modern “poverty line” in America is $140,000 a year. Edwards and Rauzi break down the essay’s arguments, examine the flaws and merits, and, most importantly, discuss the distinction between “affordability” and “poverty.” The conversation explores the historical and policy context of how poverty is measured, where current measures fall short, the realities of benefits and welfare cliffs, and why so many Americans feel they’re not getting ahead—even when the economy looks strong on paper.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Announcements and Housekeeping

• The hosts reunite in Houston, though record in separate rooms due to technical difficulties.
  • "So instead, we're just gonna get beers after the show together and not record it." – Katherine Ann Edwards (01:47)
• Celebration of spiritual sponsors, with a shoutout to Rebecca from Hillsboro, Oregon.
  • (02:08)

---

2. Understanding Hedonic Adjustment (and Economic Jargon)

• Robin explains looking up “hedonic adjustments,” as referenced in the viral essay, and how it's used in CPI (Consumer Price Index) calculations.
  • "Hedonic Adjustments... is an adjustment that the BLS makes to how much something costs related to how much more valuable it is and how much more value or usefulness it provides." – Robin Rauzi (03:16)
• Kathryn adds context on how hedonic pricing reflects the value of a product’s quality components rather than just sticker price, using housing and suit-shopping examples.
  • "Hedonic pricing would be the price component of a house that comes down to how nice the park is at the end of the street, or if it's next to, like, a power plant." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (03:53)
  • Discusses the challenges agencies face in statistically adjusting for quality over time, and why it’s imperfect but necessary. (05:35)

---

3. Main Topic: The $140,000 'Poverty Line' Essay

Essay Background and Public Reaction

• The essay, “My Life is a Lie” by Michael Green, went viral for its claim that $140,000 is the new U.S. poverty line.
• Media and economists, including the Washington Post, weighed in—most disagreeing with the essay’s premise but noting its resonance.
  • "He correctly describes the genesis of the poverty measure, but he incorrectly describes what's been done since." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (09:34)
• Kathryn shares her initial reaction and backlash received after criticizing the essay.
  • "I got one of the more personal and nastiest DMs I have ever gotten, where I was called a dismissive little B word for ignoring the troubles of people." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (11:07)
• Kathryn recognizes the emotional impact the essay had, even if it missed technical accuracy.

History and Mechanics of the Poverty Line

• Molly Orshansky’s original poverty calculation (food costs x 3), created with limited data, became the foundation.
  • "She has two pieces of data. One that says Americans spend about a third of their money on food, and one that is an estimate from the U.S. department of Agriculture of how much food costs for family sizes." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (12:03)
• The U.S. often identified economic problems before devising proper measurement tools (like poverty and unemployment during the Depression).
  • "We have tried to piece together how many people were unemployed, but we don't really know." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (13:22)

Affordability vs. Poverty – Where the Frustration Lies

• Many Americans feel unseen by current economic measurements; poverty measures aren’t designed to capture “affordability crises.”
  • "People feel like they're not seen or that what's going on doesn't matter, which is suggestive of like, we are at a focal point." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (14:55)

Critique of the $140,000 Benchmark

• Green's method takes average costs for modern necessities and tallies them—that sum ($140K) becomes his poverty threshold.
  • "If you were to line up all households in the US from richest to poorest, inclusion in the top 25% starts at $150,000 a year. So $140,000 is going to be more than what probably 70% of American households make." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (17:19)
• Kathryn is sharply critical:
  • "This is a guy who doesn’t understand the income distribution. To say that $140,000 is poor when $150,000 is the top 25% is someone who, like, has never met someone who makes less money than him." (17:19)
• Distinction between "struggling" and "poverty": Struggling with high costs does not equal poverty, which is a more extreme form of deprivation.
  • "Poverty is not being able to afford things. Poverty is poverty. And we have a categorically cruel social welfare system in the US that helps very few people." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (19:08)

The 'Valley of Death' and Benefits Cliff

• The essay discusses the “valley of death”: as incomes rise, benefits phase out, sometimes leaving families worse off due to lost subsidies—especially for health insurance and childcare.
  • Robin notes that while there is some truth, real-life access to all eligible benefits is rare.
    • "The vast majority of people will not collect a benefit for everything that they're eligible for." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (24:05)
• Administrative burdens, intentional inefficiencies, and work requirements in certain states keep people from accessing help. Florida’s application system during the pandemic is cited as an example.
  • "Some states had so cruelly designed their application process with the intention of getting people to quit before finishing..." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (24:46)

Policy Choices and the Real Economic Problem

• The economic frustration is not just about measurement, but about choices: Reagan-era conservatism, weakened unions, minimal intervention, and repeated tax cuts have led to today’s hardships for a growing swath of Americans.
• Conservatives and liberal economists diverge greatly in their reception and interpretation of these economic pain points.
  • "To say that Americans are struggling is to be liberal in some kind of fundamental way in the US Economy...” – Kathryn Ann Edwards (34:41)
• Many "conservative economists" claim that poverty and inequality are “exaggerated” if measured “correctly”—a viewpoint the hosts challenge.
  • "They have to say America is doing awesome because they’re the ones who got what they wanted." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (34:36)

Personal Anecdotes: Poverty vs. Low Income

• Kathryn recalls advice from a fellow academic: grad students may have low incomes, but are not “poor” in the true sense because of their prospects and support systems.
  • "Struggle is not poverty. And we don't just have to channel solutions in our economy through poor people. Y'all, our mindset is so broken." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (38:06)

---

4. Noteworthy Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the American economic predicament:
  "The big picture is affordability... They cannot afford their life and they can't prove that they can't afford it." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (14:56)

• On conflating struggle with poverty:
  "Struggle is not poverty... we don't just have to channel solutions in our economy through poor people. Our mindset is so broken." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (38:05)

• On policy and social welfare:
  "The answer isn't let's all be in poverty. It's... really messed up for people who are in actual poverty to say I make a hundred thousand dollars a year and I'm poor." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (19:08)

• On the need for bold solutions:
  "I think that the common parlance of affordability, I think it's only going to be for the best, that it's broad... That means we get to do a ton of stuff in response, and everything can affect affordability. So let’s do it." – Kathryn Ann Edwards (43:44)

---

5. Reflections and Optimism

• Recognizing the "affordability" crisis—and that more people feel squeezed—can be a catalyst for larger, bolder, systemic reforms.
  • Kathryn notes how discussions about healthcare have shifted public willingness to contemplate much bigger changes. (43:44)
• Both hosts acknowledge that while they are critical of the viral essay, they do not dismiss the very real feelings and pressures that inspired it.

---

6. Lighthearted Segment: Executive Orders & Spiritual Sponsors

[46:00]

• Kathryn’s Executive Orders: Retroactive Oscars for the cast of 'Bend It Like Beckham,' and a call for an American remake/series.
• Robin's Spiritual Sponsor: Author Carmen Maria Machado.
• Kathryn's Spiritual Sponsor: British biscuits (shortbread cookies), acquired in London.

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 03:16 – Hedonic adjustment explanation
• 08:25 – Introduction of the viral essay and its main claims
• 12:03 – History of the poverty line calculation
• 14:55 – Why traditional measurements fail to capture today’s struggles
• 17:19 – Critique and context of the $140,000 “poverty line”
• 19:08 – Poverty vs. struggle, and the failure of U.S. welfare systems
• 24:05 – Challenges with accessing and retaining benefits (“benefits cliff,” administrative burden)
• 34:36 – Conservatives’ stance on measured poverty and inequality
• 38:05 – The difference between low income and true poverty, and how American policy solutions get trapped
• 43:44 – Optimistic call for broad, bold action on affordability

---

Conclusion

“Affordability vs. the Poverty Line” dissects a viral but flawed essay, using it as a springboard to explore the deeper, more unsettling crisis in America: an economy that generates prosperity but increasingly fails to distribute it in a way that secures well-being for most families. The real problem is not having a broken poverty line—but a broken approach to policy and measurement that fails to keep pace with changed realities. The hosts challenge listeners to keep pushing for a new, bolder social contract, one that addresses today’s needs rather than clinging to outdated benchmarks.

---

For more:

• Listen to related episodes on the history of the poverty line and on "work requirements."
• Support the show at optimisteconomy.com.
• Share your economic worries with the hosts at [e-mail].

---

(Summary by AI – maintaining the original episode’s analytical, incisive, and often wry tone.)

Transcript

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Maybe you already know about naked short selling. Maybe you've personally shorted stocks yourself, but do you know about the time short sellers ruined a Super Bowl?

[Robin Rousey]

Basically, for me, I was a little late, but red flags went up. Like, what is going on? This is really scary.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

At Planet Money, we get the story behind the money. To explain how money works, listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Robin Rousey]

We had a lot of technical difficulties this time.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

This was so hard. It was so hard and we didn't even do it. Oh, man. Oh, man. Hello and welcome to Optimist Economy. I'm Katherine Ann Edwards, economist.

[Robin Rousey]

I'm Robin Rousey, editor.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

On this show, we believe the US Economy can be better. And we talk about how to get there one problem and solution at a time.

[Robin Rousey]

Today on Optimist Economy, we're going to talk about an essay that made the rounds while we were on hiatus, suggesting that the new quote unquote poverty line is $140,000. Katherine has thoughts.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Spoiler. It's not. It's not. Just FYI. Spoiler. It's not. But we'll talk about why.

[Robin Rousey]

At the top of our show are a couple of announcements. Big announcement, which is, I'm in Houston with Katherine, but after much travails, we're in two separate rooms trying to record this podcast fam.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

We wanted to be in the same room talking to each other. Couldn't do it. It did not work. On many levels. It didn't work. And luckily we didn't do it because I think at some point one of us would have died when we tripped over all the cords.

[Robin Rousey]

There's so many cords.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

So this is a safer, better way to podcast is to have a conversation when you're actually like 25ft away in the next room over. This is better. The future is natural.

[Robin Rousey]

This feels more natural.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

It does feel more natural. So instead, we're just gonna get beers after the show together and not record it. Exactly. But you can trust it's happening this time. So this is gonna be our first five minute episode.

[Robin Rousey]

And thanks for coming.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Okay, so in summary, announcement one is that Robin and I are hanging out without you.

[Robin Rousey]

Announcement number two is, I forgot to say, last week we had four people become spiritual sponsors of Optimist Economy while we were on hiatus, which was so amazing and so sweet. So specifically this week, want to shout out Rebecca from Hillsboro, Oregon, who is one of them. And you too can sponsor our show at the spiritual level or any level that you're comfortable with at Optimist Economy. Dot Com.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Our next segment is Retcon.

[Robin Rousey]

It's only our second episode in the season. Do we have. We don't have a Retcon.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

I actually don't think I have a Retcon. I mean, I could definitely try to think of one if I wanted to, but I don't think we have anything to apologize for at the moment.

[Robin Rousey]

Except for the thing we're going to retrack that we haven't retract yet.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah. Yeah. Yep.

[Robin Rousey]

Okay. Terms and conditions. Did you look anything up this week, Catherine?

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

I actually took a very small, some would say maybe a little bit dumb how short of a vacation I took to London, but I was across the pond.

[Robin Rousey]

Oh, so look at you, et cetera.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

I looked up really simple stuff, like words that are in English, but I didn't know what they were meant because I was in another country. But we don't need to go over that now. I'm just bragging about being in London.

[Robin Rousey]

You are. You are. I looked up hedonic Adjustments because it was in this essay, and he used it as the quote, unquote, the hedonic lie. So it took me a while to figure out that he was referring to hedonic adjustments. As far as I can tell, this is an adjustment that the BLS makes to how much something costs related to how much more valuable it is and how much more value or usefulness it provides.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

And he called it a lie.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah, Maybe you can explain it better than I did.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Hedonic is. It's a really cool concept that's hidden behind economics language that makes it so inaccessible, but you absolutely understand. So if you think of a house, that house has a price. Let's say this house is $500,000. $500,000 is. Encompasses what we would call many differentiated characteristics of the house. Hedonic pricing is the idea that there is a, like, a price component of the quality that is not necessarily just the overall price. Hedonic pricing would be the price component of a house that comes down to how nice the park is at the end of the street, or if it's next to, like, a power plant. And we think of hedonic pricing as a way to discuss the implicit prices that make up the overall price price. It is the quality that makes up a big price. I'm willing to pay for a good school. I'm willing to pay for a nice street. I'm willing to pay for lots of windows. And all of those are the components of this overall sticker price. And so those are the. You can Think of them as implicit prices, component prices, hedonic prices. They're all kind of different, but they get at the same idea that each aspect of the house that you buy has its own price.

[Robin Rousey]

But this is so, I mean, in the definition I was looking up related to cpi, right, which is the Consumer Price Index. I mean, a house is something you buy one time, I think, for the cpi, don't they adjust things like, I don't know, a car adjusted for inflation would cost this much, but a car that now has airbags and analog brakes and all these additional features, there's more value to the, to the vehicle.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah. So the hedonic pricing adjustments to the Consumer Price Index are getting at this idea that the components of the overall price has changed. So the way that I always thought about it is that most of the time when you go shopping, you're actually shopping on a hedonic price. And then the price tag is almost like an afterthought.

[Robin Rousey]

Like, does it match, does the price tag match what your hedonic pricing in your head is?

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Say one were to testify in front of Congress and wanted a new suit.

[Robin Rousey]

Yes.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Right. I'm going to go shopping for a suit. I'm shopping for components, right. I'm shopping for a color that's really just going to bang on camera. And I'm shopping for a, a fit and quality that, like, if I get something on it, it won't show. Right. I'm. I'm shopping for all of those components. And you can think of each of those components as having an implicit price where I would pay 20 bucks extra for a really good color versus I'm shopping for a suit that cost $99. You shop hedonically, you're. You're buying on that margin. But when it comes to aggregate statistics of prices, I mean, this is so hard. This, in my mind, this is one of the hardest things the BLS has to do is somehow put into statist statistical terms the quality adjustments that we know and see in our everyday life and have that make sense over time. There's lots of ways that they go about doing it, but it's not perfect. And of course, being the bls, when they think they've missed, they'll go back and they'll say, we think we were wrong, and they'll issue a correction.

[Robin Rousey]

All right, we're going to take a quick break, and then we'll be back with our centerpiece discussion or the big Pilcrow.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

The big Pilcrow. The biggest pilcrow.

[David Remnick]

Right now, we are Living through some of the most tumultuous political times our country has ever known. I'm David Remnick, and each week on the New Yorker Radio Hour, I'll try to make sense of what's happening alongside politicians and thinkers like Cory Booker, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Tim Waltz, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Newt Gingrich, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Charlamagne, the God, and so many more. That's all on the New Yorker Radio Hour, wherever you listen to podcasts.

[Robin Rousey]

Okay, we're back for our centerpiece discussion today, which is about this essay that appeared during our hiatus. And we both were asked about. And I think Katherine has a lot to say about. I actually stumbled on this piece on Substack before it blew up. I was Googling something for something else I was editing. One thing led to another, and I somebody in another substack said, if you haven't read this and you should. So I was like, well, okay, I'll read it. But then my mother sent it to me in a text and said, I want to know what Catherine thinks about this. So the original essay on Substack was called My Life is a Lie, I think.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yep, part one, My Life is a Lie. This is where I'm going to say the subhead is How a Broken Benchmark Quietly Broke America. And this is. This is when that's like, when I started to get a little pissed off.

[Robin Rousey]

But yeah, and you weren't alone. It went a little viral in sort of finance, bro, kind of social media circles, and it got picked up by the Free Press. The original version is like 3,000 words long. They did an edited version, and I think the headline on that was something like, the Valley of death. Why $100,000 is the new Poverty? So it was written by this guy named Michael Green, and he's a strategist at a financial advisory firm. I think that gives him a particular point of view that comes through in this piece, this idea of trying to look beyond something to try to find something that's not obvious to people. So it wound up not just shared kind of virally, but it also wound up. The Washington Post wrote an article about what economists thought about what he said, which was mostly, he doesn't understand the poverty line, but he's touching on something that clearly touched a nerve. And that's where I'm going to hand it to you.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Well, you sent me this article because you were like, hey, my mom. And I like, moms come first. So you said, your mom wants to know what I thought. And so Some point during some maternity leave, Hazes had, like, clicked on it and started to read it. And I just. I had a really hard time getting through it because, like, the opening salvo is the broken measure where he. He's both right and wrong, and that he correctly describes the genesis of the poverty measure, but he incorrectly describes what's been done since. The logic behind it. Yeah, in the kind of genesis sense. It was a little too, like, poverty is three times food. I felt sick to my stomach. I was like, come on. Like, get it together. So I kind of read through the rest of the essay, and I was like, okay, this is what this guy's doing. And then by the time I got to the end, I was like, well, he's still going. And I skimped. So then separately, many of y' all are money with Katie listeners. And she just ended her show. She's taking a break of an indefinite hiatus. And on her last episode, she had a bunch of people back as, like, kind of a best of conversation. And I was incredibly honored to be among one of these best of of. And she was like, I want to know what you think of this essay. And I was just honest. Like, I had a hard time finishing it. I didn't really like it. And I tried to explain in this interview of, like, what my hesitations were. And I got one of the more personal and nastiest DMs I have ever gotten, where I was called a dismissive little B word for ignoring the troubles of people.

[Robin Rousey]

That's interesting.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

I underestimated how much this essay resonated with people. We don't have to repeat. The conversation I have with money with Katie. Like, y' all go listen. That was my, like, kind of formal introduction to it, is that I didn't take it seriously enough, and I wasn't, like, respectful enough of it, and someone was just like, you are an awful person for ignoring Americans. Like, just like this, like, nasty screed about how people like me are what's wrong with America? Um, so second verse, same as the first. Let's talk about it this time and see if I can be submissive but not get people mad at me.

[Robin Rousey]

So you. If you haven't listened to our what you don't understand about poverty episode, that might be a really good background. You can just hit pause. You can go listen to that. Come back. But it explains how Molly Oshansky came up with the poverty line as a. As the idea of what deprivation looks like.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Now, keep in mind that, like, she's doing this Without a computer, she doesn't have regular survey data. She has very little at her disposal, not even a good measure of income in the United States. She has two pieces of data. One that says Americans spend about a third of their money on food, and one that is an estimate from the U.S. department of Agriculture of how much food cost for family sizes. The logic is, if people need this much food to live, say it's like I need $100 to buy food and people spend a third of their money on food, then $300 a month is the poverty line, or $300 a month is a measure of adequacy. Later, Johnson's kind of brain trust within the White House that is directing the war on poverty adopts this measure and calls it the poverty line. What I think is the most interesting part, which this guy totally missed, is that if you go back and think about the Great Depression and unemployment, we did an episode about this. We didn't have a measure of unemployment going into the Great Depression. We didn't have a reliable and uniformly and consistently measure of unemployment until the late 1930s. Really, at the earliest you could claim is the late 1930s.

[Robin Rousey]

Late in the Depression. Yeah.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

We have tried to piece together how many people were unemployed, but we don't really know. Same thing. When the US Decides it's going to declare war on poverty, we don't have a measure of poverty. It's not adopted, it's not accepted. We don't have a way of doing it. We kind of find one and take it. And both of these measures have trade offs, they have advantages and disadvantages. But it's like we recognize the problem before we measured it and then we went back to trying to find a measure that worked. I think the era that we're in now is we're in this affordability cris, and we can't measure it because we don't have a measure of affordability. That is the more interesting notion that we're seeing these, like, massive turning points, these huge epochs in the U.S. economy of the problem is mounting. And part of the problem is that we can't measure the problem. And people feel like they're not seen or that what's going on doesn't matter, which is suggestive of, like, we are at a focal point. Right. Like, to me, the fact that people are so mad at the poverty measure as, like, not measuring affordability, which is not supposed to do that, is the interesting part. I didn't convey that before, but that. But like looking back on this essay and how people responded and how mad people got after my Money with Katie essay and kind of trashed me, I think. I didn't say what I wanted to say, which is kind of shocking given how much I talk. But I didn't say what I really wanted to say, which is like, he was so close, but he just kind of wasn't there.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

The big picture is affordability. This is what the US like the average American is circling around, is that they cannot afford their life and they can't prove that they can't afford it. It's like they have to convince politicians that they can't afford it and we don't have a way of measuring it.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah. And that's kind of what he attempts to do in the second half of this essay. He makes some obviously really bad leaps, one of which is going from a measure of. Of deprivation. Right. Of bare sustainability, and then saying, okay, now I'm just going to look at averages. I'm just going to look at the national averages and then try to call the new the national average. If you're below the national average, that you're poor, which you're just like, okay, like, not an economist. Famously not an economist. And even I can tell you that doesn't math.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Like, I thought there was, like, a little bit of irony here of like, oh, so you're going to, like, trash woman in the 1950s who didn't have a computer and came up with one of the first measures of inadequacy and deprivation and how hard that was for her. And then you're going to, like, put together your own measure and you're going to get trashed for it. And you're like, oh, it's. But it does remind me of that Onion article about Bill de Blasio of like, oh, not so easy to find a mayor who doesn't suck, huh? I'm like, oh, not so easy to put together a number that describes a primary fear lane in the US Economy that people are going to get really mad at you for.

[Robin Rousey]

For people who haven't read this, like, I do worry that this is going to be hard to understand if you haven't read this. He feels like three times food does not adequately reflect our current reality because people don't spend a third of their income anymore on food. So then he tries to reverse engineer or Shinsky's system, which makes zero sense. And many, many of the critiques of his piece are like, that part of what he does in this essay makes zero, zero sense. He then, though, goes on to Basically tally up what it takes for a family of four to get by right now that's the part that really resonated with people. And he says, like, look, you can't just have a landline phone anymore. You have to have a cell phone. You have to have broadband access because you need it to communicate with your child's school. You need it to do your job. And he calls this, what does he call it, like the price of full participation in the economy or something like that?

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah, this is what this guy does. He takes the average price of various goods and services that he deems as necessities, and he adds them up and whatever they come up to. For a family of four, that's poverty, it's $140,000. I'm gonna give you two numbers to put into context. Why, you know, kind of, I don't say flabbergasting that often, but I was flabbergasted by 140,000. The first number, if you were to line up all households in the US from richest to poorest, inclusion in the top 25% starts at $150,000 a year. So $140,000 is going to be more than what probably 70% of American households make. Another way to think about it is, okay, so lots of households might have, like, young people, old people, people who retire. Just have one person. Maybe it's not the same. He thinks it's just a family. So think about it is that if you were to take. Just look at workers, not everybody, just workers. And look at the median full time workers. So this is someone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. The middle person of that group of workers earns $63,000 a year. So by his metric, two median full time workers would not make enough money to be out of kind of his measure of poverty. That's how high this number is. Now, the problems in our economy can be high enough so that people making that much money can be a struggle. But it is describing well over 60 to 70% of Americans. Whether you look at workers, whether you look at households, whether you look at families. I mean, it's a really high number. And I had this like, really, like really, really, really, really. I mean, I just got mad when I read it because my first kind of reaction was, this is a guy who doesn't understand the income distribution. To say that $140,000 is poor when $150,000 is the top 25% is someone who, like, has never met someone who makes less money. Than him and only knows richer people. So he thinks like he's barely getting by. That was the first reaction. But the second reaction, less about him and more about the response, was this kind of conflation that people have that if they're struggling, they're poor, if they're having problems with rent, if they're having problems with their cell phone, that is poverty. Poverty is not being able to afford things. Poverty is poverty. And we have a categorically cruel social welfare system in the US that helps very few people. We either push benefits through the tax system where you're more likely to get it if you're high income, or we have a paltry, meanly distributed social welfare system to only the very poorest of the poor. And then we do a lot of things to sabotage them, even getting it if they're eligible. That's how we help people. That leaves out a bunch of people in the middle. The answer is not let's make all those people poor and so then we can help them. Let's just do a better job managing our economy and not reward poverty like a little letter jacket that people get to say, I'm poor, I get to have help. Now our economy has problems. The answer isn't let's all be in poverty. It's so it's really messed up for people who are in actual poverty to say I make a hundred thousand dollars a year and I'm poor.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah. There's a whole section in this essay that he calls, I think, the Valley of Death, which is where he's talking about how as you're trying to climb from $40,000 toward $100,000, that you hit these tiers of income where you begin to lose these benefits. And when this piece came out, we were having a lot of, of that discussion around the Affordable Care act, healthcare subsidies. So I think that it also fed into that narrative in the political moment about people potentially who didn't have their health insurance through their job, but had to buy it on the marketplace, potentially looking at this really big jump in monthly premium costs and that this government help that they've been getting would go away. But he also suggests that people are getting huge childcare subsidies. And I was like, in what planet? And basically suggesting that you earn another $10,000, but because you essentially step beyond the subsidy level of some sort of government assistance, that you actually wind up taking on all that expense and then some. All of which seemed like pretty, pretty far fetched.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

There is a very large part of the poverty and social benefits literature that Looks at this kind of like they call it the marginal tax on income, the marginal tax on labor. That the idea that, like, if you moved up an income and you lose benefits, the value of the extra income is worth less than the value of the benefit that you'll lose. And this is why a lot of public programs have been redesigned so that benefits phase out. So, you know, if you have ever applied for food stamps, you. The amount that you get is a function of your income. So that if you have, your income can rise and your benefit kind of falls accordingly so that there's no cliff of benefits that you fall off of. The one that's very hard to price this way is Medicaid, because there's no way to phase out Medicaid. The way that you can phase out a weekly or monthly food benefit, the way that you could phase out cash, if we had it. But this idea that you lose benefits and that you have this disincentive to earn extra income has been a part of the economics literature for decades. And there's a poverty researcher or there's an economist at Johns Hopkins who was, like, pioneering in this field, and I heard him, gave a talk a few summers ago where he said that he thought that the research had been quite effective and that this idea that you have to phase out benefits and be careful about five benefits all phasing out at the same time. Those benefit clips, like, we now have programs that take these into account. Things like the earned income tax credit, you know, basically kicks in to boost the return to earned income as program eligibility is phasing out. And so they're basically coming up with a work bonus through the tax system so that if you are losing benefits, you're losing food stamps on the right hand, but your left hand is getting more money from work because you're gonna get a work bonus from the government. I mean, they. They did try to think of these things thoughtfully. It's a lot harder at the bottom when there's up to six programs or seven programs that you could have a family be eligible for. But where this research lives now is the understanding that the vast majority of people will not collect a benefit for everything that they're eligible for.

[Robin Rousey]

Say that again.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

So, like, in theory, if I am making $10,000 a year and I have a kid, I should be. I mean, like, food subsidies, health subsidies, housing subsidies, energy subsidies. I mean, I should be eligible for.

[Robin Rousey]

You should qualify for all of.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

And I should, like, arguably maybe even get cash from the government. It is actually rare that someone will get all of the benefits that all the programs that they are eligible for. Right. Like housing subsidies.

[Robin Rousey]

Is that because they just don't know about all of them? They don't apply for all of them. They're just not. They don't get qualified.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah, it's a combination. So housing subsidies aren't an entitlement. You can have the income low enough to get housing help from the government, but they don't have enough money to go around, so you don't get it. You can have income low enough to get childcare help from the government, but they don't have enough to go around, so you don't get it. So there's that problem. Then there's the problem that you have to know to apply. You have to fill out the application, and that process has to be something that you can navigate. Some states have been really active at trying to come up with almost like a common application, or when you apply for food stamps, you're automatically applying for Medicaid and just trying to get you all the benefits you can. Other states will make it as hard as humanly possible so that you get deterred from applying and don't actually finish it. So this came up a ton in the pandemic when unemployment insurance claims spiked. And some states had so cruelly designed their application process with the intention of getting people to quit before finishing the application that now all this federal money is on the table, and states are basically now desperate to try, capable of getting it. Yeah, they can't. So Florida was the case where they had just paid millions of dollars for someone to redo their online application for unemployment insurance. But they had done it in a way to make it harder to apply. And the way that it really broke down was that every time you answered a question, you had to go to a new page. So the number of times you could crash was high. So Florida ended up having parking lots where they printed out applications and handed them to people through the window to work on and then bring back Greg, you couldn't come inside and get the application. All of this was a way. We call this administrative burden. Yeah, we're gonna make it hard for you to go get the benefit. So the point that he brings up about the idea that you could lose a benefit as you make more money is a universal problem in any program that you design in any place. But in some ways, it's almost like. It's like a really early 90s problem. You know, the problems that we have now is getting people connected to the benefits that they're eligible for and getting them enrolled and knowing that in some ways the people who deliver those benefits are actively operating in a way to make sure that you don't get them. So a great example is work requirements. Work requirements are a paperwork administrative burden that is designed to get people to drop out of public programs.

[Robin Rousey]

We also have an episode on this from season one. You can go. If you're new here, you can go back and listen to it. It's called work requirements Don't Work work.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah, but work requirements, like the state of Michigan added work requirements to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, which is the cash benefit that replaced welfare that is not as generous, doesn't go to as many people, and has a time limitation. They put work requirements on TANF during the Great Recession because they needed to get people off of it. If people have to reapply and recertify and fill out their paperwork, you lose people at every certification. And the harder you make the certification, the more you lose people. Not harder. Like the income test has changed. I mean, harder. Like it's 30 pieces of paper and if they mess up, they lose the benefit. That is the problem that we have in benefit delivery for the very poor. So, yes, if you earn more money, you could lose assistance. And he brought up the case of subsidies, but there was this real like, is it forest for the trees?

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah, he couldn't see the forest for the trees.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah, couldn't see the forest for the trees. I think he was missing the whole picture. The problem isn't that the poverty line is too low or that we don't count poverty as $140,000. The problem is, is that we have mismanaged our economy for the past five decades to ignore market failures that make it very hard for people to afford their life. And a health care subsidy phasing out at around $100,000 that someone's going to lose if they earn more money is very different from, we should not be selling health care for profit. And that's hurting a bunch of people. Right? Like, it was a very, like, privileged focus on, like, look at this family with $100,000 who's losing their health insurance subsidy very hard for that family. But it was like making the wrong conclusions, like picking a part of the problem that hits a privileged set of people and then says, maybe not a privileged set of people. It was a privileged point of view.

[Robin Rousey]

This is a person who works in finance and whose clients are people who have financial advisors. He's talking to people who are well off. He used the language that they speak and they could maybe understand it. And there's a usefulness to that part of what he was doing. When I went back to read this for a second time before we recorded this, I realized at the very beginning of this essay, he says, that he wanted to figure out why people are struggling to make ends meet when we've had strong economic and GDP growth and low unemployment. And I thought, I got a paper you should read. You know, and in fact, somebody linked to the Time magazine article about the study that you did about why household income, taxable household income has not kept up with GDP growth. I mean, at the end of the day, that's the question he's trying to interrogate. And he winds up down this other rabbit hole about benefits and things that are. That's not the source of the problem.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

I almost didn't want to do an episode on this because I feel like it's. It's gotten so much attention and not that piling on is what we're all doing, because I think it's good to have a conversation. But I almost, like, didn't want to give too much attention to what was, in fact, like, not a great essay. Like, it misses the mark on a couple levels, but I guess if so many people were interested and it hit a nerve in some way, like, it's worth talking about. But I almost thought, like, the essay is the least interesting part. Like, it's, it's, it's. He misses this big question of, like, GDP is growing, but incomes aren't. That's been a problem for a long time.

[Robin Rousey]

I think he's, he's sort of obsessed with how much our economic outlays cost. He's forgetting in this piece about the inputs, which are our income. Right. And that that's what's not growing. Yeah.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

And I, and I, if you're interested in social policy, like, deciding that the poverty line is poorly constructed is like a pretty easy port of entry. And I think it opens up the door to have these conversations about, like, you know, well, how do we measure struggle? But don't lose sight of what is causing the struggle? And there was a bit of just like, not keeping your eye on the ball kind of in the whole reaction on some level that, that we have made policy choices and we are reaping what we sow and we need to make different choices.

[Robin Rousey]

Well, he also, he really hammers on economists. Like, he blames economists for saying everything's fine when it's not. He sort of misses the entire definition of that that I think Actually, you said last week, which is what we were feeling in this post Covid period, is the struggle of the middle class. Like, that the middle class is the one that got really more suddenly squeezed. And his kind of conclusion is, the middle class isn't middle class. The middle class is poor now.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah. So we can put in context that the conservative economists are who, like, really hated this piece. Really hated it? Yeah, really hated it. And they. I mean, they like really piled on and they took it down. Somebody who wants to trash economists, I'm like, shoot your shot. I don't think we're like a lovable profession. There's some pretty loathsome people who have the same title that I do. Open Net.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah, I did. I feel like the Post article, you know, you had some liberal economists who were like, you know, he's trying to understand this poverty thing. And these conservative economists who are just, what an idiot. This guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

I mean, conservatives were so mad at this because the conservative. I would say the central conservative argument over the past 30 years has been income inequality is not that bad. Poverty is not that bad. And that actually wages and incomes are growing sufficiently for America to be a prosperous place. And this feeling that people can't afford enough or that their life is hard or that poverty is rising, that none of that is true. And that if you looked at other ways to think about poverty, like poverty and what you consume versus poverty versus what you bring in, poverty is closer to like 3%. That is their central, you know, in very consistent over numerous decades argument. America is not poor. Americans are doing well. We don't have deep income inequality. It is exaggerated. We don't have wage stagnation. That is exaggerated. We don't have mass poverty. That is exaggerated. And that if you actually measure correctly, we are doing great. They have to.

[Robin Rousey]

If you just measure correctly.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

If you just measure correctly, we're doing great.

[Robin Rousey]

This is like Cato and the American Enterprise Institute and a whole set of conservative economists and conservative think tanks and conservative economists.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

This is like, very fundamental to the conservative economics point of view, is that all the complaints of wage stagnation and income inequality and poverty are exaggerated. They are misrepresenting what is actually going on. In some ways, they have to, because we are in the fifth decade of a deeply conservative era in American economic policy. We are fighting unions and not protecting them. We are letting the minimum wage erode. We are passing tax cuts in almost no social policy. We are not in, like, intervening in any type of market failure in a significant way. If something is wrong, we'll throw a tax credit at it and some market regulation, but we will not grossly interfere. I mean, we've passed five tax cuts this century. They have to say America is doing awesome because they're the ones who got what they wanted.

[Robin Rousey]

And if they got what they wanted, then yeah, yeah.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

So. So they.

[Robin Rousey]

To.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

To say that Americans are struggling is to be liberal in some kind of fundamental way in the US Economy or in the economic space, because you're saying that the ruling policy agenda is failing. So to say that people are struggling is a liberal argument, which is why this guy got so dumped on by so many conservative economists of, like, this is ridiculous.

[Robin Rousey]

And the liberals were like, but Molly Oshansky.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah, but the liberals were like me. And they were like, you get Molly Oshansky's name out of your mouth, sir, and please do not further misrepresent what this pioneering woman did. It is one of the most misrepresented things I hear talk about in some ways in the poverty space is what Orshansky did. And I'm sure I'm culpable in some degree because I feel the need to defend someone who set out to try to help children in poverty in any way that she could and didn't like how much she gets piled on over the years as if she endorsed how we went about things. You know, his essay is basically saying we have these massive economic. Structural. Economic problems that need fixing. And I guess on some level, I just thought he didn't say it very well. It resonated with other people. It didn't resonate with me. And I have a visceral reaction to the casual way in which people will claim that they're in poverty.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

So there's this, like, really fundamental moment for me in my, like, economic journey where this really hits home. So I'm studying at the University of California, Davis, and I take a break from Wisconsin in the middle of my PhD to go to the poverty center at Davis to do a poverty fellowship and to get exposed to different poverty researchers. And one of the professors there explained to me that they had this problem of, not necessarily a problem, but like, in Davis, California, they were trying to set aside money for the local school district for schools that were in high poverty areas and schools. Schools that needed help. And one of the schools that showed up as being kind of high poverty wasn't high poverty per se. It had a lot of grad students, and grad students don't make that much Money. In fact, most grad students would have low enough income to be at or near the poverty level. And so I'm sorry, they were like.

[Robin Rousey]

Resident in the neighborhood.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Is that like. It was like a neighborhood that lots of PhD students lived in.

[Robin Rousey]

And they have no income, really, and.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

They have really low income. So if you're a PhD, PhD student, I mean, 15 to $20,000 a year is your stipend at least it was 15 when I went to school, which does put you below the poverty level. I was like, well, if they have, if they're low income, if they meet the measure. Right, like they should get the money. And she was like, katherine, they are not poor. They have low income. That is not the same thing as being poor. And I, it always struck me of what she was trying to say, right? Like, these were students who were taking a temporary vacation into the land of very, very low income. They were going to finish and have a high job. If they ever needed more money in a desperate way, they could immediately get it. And there was a ticking clock to their low income status. And that was very different from being stuck there. And I think that I kind of have that same reaction when I read something like this of like, struggle is not poverty. And we don't just have to channel solutions in our economy through poor people. Like, y'. All. Our mindset is so broken.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Like, remember that. Remember that you've been in five decades of conservatism. So you, you are desperate to show that you're poor because you're desperate to get help from the government because you think that the only people who are allowed to get help by the government are the very, very poor. Your mindset is totally broken. We can have universal childcare right now, and you shouldn't have to be poor to have a benefit from an investment in children.

[Robin Rousey]

To get it or to do it. Yeah. To deserve it.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah. And in some ways, his logic and what took off represents what is broken about how we view the economy in some way that we don't understand that there's this, it's not paradigm shift, it's not sea change, something transformation.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah. I mean, I think we're at a. I don't know if it was Covid or two Trump administrations, I don't know, but we're at a pivot point where we really have. People are really saying, like, can this continue to go on like this? And I can't. And these are the big questions. I mean, I think that we're going to try to wrestle with on the.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Show it can't go on. And I think what's been happening over time is that the number of people who are feeling like they can't make it is just creeping up the income distribution. And I hate to say it, but like, it's finally hurting people who matter. Because the difference between $140,000 and poverty is that people who are in poverty have struggled always ways. And $140,000 is not good enough today. $20,000 has never been good enough. It's never been near good enough. They don't have near enough to get by what the people who are struggling with affordability. It's just, you see it go higher and higher, that as goods become in, services become higher and necessities get out of reach, that it's more and more people who feel the squeeze. But it's worth remembering that there's an order to who matters in our economy and who matters in our society. And like, we're starting to see affordability hit some heavy hitters who have some sway in how we do things.

[Robin Rousey]

I mean, I think that we've had this, this problem with pathways to the middle class and middle class affordability for a while. And it's manifesting in different ways. And people's political response to it manifests in a lot of different ways, a lot of different frustrations, different anger. So you feel like it's just. It's climbing up out of the middle class and upper middle class. Is that what you're saying when you say it's beginning to affect people who have some sway or some power?

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah, I mean, this guy's a finance bro. And the post is titled My Life is a Lie. And he's saying that the affordability and the struggle to make it and the paucity of government meaningful government help, to put the thumb on the scale for you, is $140,000. I mean, that's well above median income. That's well above average income for a family. He wrote an essay saying that the average American can't afford a life basically.

[Robin Rousey]

For childcare for two children. He's talking about a family of four.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I mean, it's, it's, you know, this is. This problem is seeping into many more Americans lives than are comfortable with it or are used to it or expect it. Yeah, yeah.

[Robin Rousey]

No, I think that's right. I think that the thing that he's tapping into is the difference between I pretty much always have enough money, I just have to decide how to allocate it. And now I actually Can't. I don't have any slack to allocate. Can I afford car payments if I need to get a new car? No, I can't. Do I need to worry about how much it's going to cost to insure my car if I get a new car? I mean, housing costs, people talk about, in general, insurance costs through the roof. And all of these things have added up and added up and added up.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah. I mean, just to make sure there's going to be someone who listens and they're going to be like, man, f her, just read like this, like final caveat of. Just because I didn't like this essay doesn't mean I don't think people are struggling.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Or that people could be at $140,000 and struggle. I think that they're absolutely struggling and I think they're struggling much higher than that. It's not about the people's experience that I didn't like or saying that it's not true.

[Robin Rousey]

It's that it's not poverty.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah. It's that it's the poverty thing that really, it's like. Yeah, once you've said it, I'll never be able to look away. I just. Yeah, but we always try to end on an optimistic note. And, and like we say, one problem and solution at a time. Well, this was like the problem.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

This is the big problem. But I guess the optimistic thing is kind of what it was last week, which is that the more people that recognize it, the better that we'll be able to address it. Not through like shitty subsidies, I mean, like actually address it. Like do something bold. Do something big. And I guess the bigger the problem gets and the bigger that the problem feels, the bolder the action gets to be. Think about healthcare reform 15 years ago versus the healthcare reform today. I mean our, our society has transformed in how it views private health insurance, employer sponsored health insurance, health insurance in general. You know, the problem didn't feel as big back then. Now it feels insurmountable. And on so many levels, things that might have been a problem 15 years ago feel like a battle that will never win. And that means that the solution gets to be that much bigger if we ask for it, if we fight for it, if we, if we take advantage of this boldness. So I, I think that the common parlance of affordability, I think it's only going to be for the best, that it's broad, it refers to a lot of things. It could mean housing, it could be transportation, it could mean healthcare. It could be childcare, because that means we get to do other. A ton of stuff in response, and everything can affect affordability. So let's do it. I don't even actually like affordability as a. As. Like a.

[Robin Rousey]

As a concept.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

No. Not even a. Like, as a motivator.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah. That we have to be able to.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Afford more or just have a better economy. I don't know. I don't know if I really like affordability as, like, the umbrella term, but.

[Robin Rousey]

It'S the one that's out there.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

It's the one that's out there, and it does lead us to the same place, which is big, bold action. So that is great.

[Robin Rousey]

All right, we're going to take a little break, and then we'll be back with executive orders and spiritual sponsors.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Okay. Okay.

[Robin Rousey]

I'm going to go in there.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You come in here. Okay.

[Robin Rousey]

Okay.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Wait. Can you roll in one more time? Can we get. Can we get a roll? Right? Ready? In one, two. I'm going to catch you. You. Need. We need a rug. We definitely need a rug. This is. It's. It's a little dicey. Okay. So we couldn't record the whole episode here because you're going to see just how close our faces have to get.

[Robin Rousey]

I know. It's like we're going to sing a duet.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yep.

[Robin Rousey]

In the 30s.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

In the 30s. It is really close.

[Robin Rousey]

So we're both in Houston.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

We're both in Houston. And we're going to do executive orders, and we'll just, like, pass the mic a little bit because you probably do have to get closer.

[Robin Rousey]

Oh, I don't have an executive order.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Huh?

[Robin Rousey]

Okay. It's all you. Executive orders.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

I'll do two. Okay. So my executive order is twofold. I'm taking Robyn's order today. Executive Order 1 is that several members of the cast of Bend It Like Beckham need Oscars. Both of the moms absolutely need an Oscar for that performance because it's two very different moms with very different struggles with their daughters, and they're not one dimensional. Like, they have journeys as they go through, and they're both played to perfection. Especially. Especially Jess's mom. She's so good. Yeah, the dad definitely needs an Oscar, too.

[Robin Rousey]

Retroactive at Oscars.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

I just think it's a movie that it's a retroactive. You know, like, we need to do an apology Oscar for Bend It Like Beckham. Y' all made a sports movie that was also a movie about community and identity and so many other things. It was impeccable it's impeccably acted. The moment I just watched it again. Going to London. London, anyone? I like to watch movies that are themed for the destination. So I was going to London and I watched it. It is the first time I have watched Bennett, like Beckham since becoming a mom, I think is probably the key thing. And so I now kind of see it more through the parents perspectives. Not that I have teenagers, but their characterization, I'm like, oh, man, that's actually like an amazing portrayal of moms on film.

[Robin Rousey]

One of the cast members, I don't know all their names, comes to the Angel City Football Club games all the time and they always show her on the big screen and everybody goes wild.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah, okay. Anyway, I need to move on from the Bend It Like Beckham show, which is what we're now going to be. Now, my second executive order is that we need to remake Bend It Like Beckham on the regular. Like, why is this movie not set in America? Hollywood. You could do it with. With so many immigrant communities in the US you could do it with like the burgeoning National Women's Soccer League. You could do it. There's just. I mean, like, because that movie is.

[Robin Rousey]

I mean, clearly needs to be a series. Like a Netflix, like eight part series.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yeah, Every year. Every year, yeah.

[Robin Rousey]

New new situation, new immigrant community.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

It's also a movie about class. And there's lots of ways to explore class in the US So that is the executive orders. Now we can do spiritual sponsors.

[Robin Rousey]

My spiritual sponsor this week is Carmen Maria Machado, who's a novelist and short story writer, and I went to see her give a reading last week and she's amazing. And if you haven't read her work, you should.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Okay, rolling on in. My spiritual sponsor are British Biscuits, AKA cookies. Yeah, they're cookies for us because we're normal and they're shortbread cookies, but they call them biscuits and brought some and.

[Robin Rousey]

Gave them them to me and my wife.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

Yes, I brought biscuit. I brought biscuits home from London. From London, where she was.

[Robin Rousey]

Oh, man.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

The title of this episode is going to be Catherine was in London.

[Robin Rousey]

Yeah. And affordability.

[Katherine Ann Edwards]

We like Paddington too. Our show is edited by Sophie Lalonde. Our video production for social media is by Andy Robinson. Video consistency. If you like the podcast, you can share clips from the show with your friends and enemies on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn.

[Robin Rousey]

We also have a sporadic newsletter on Substack as well as an optimist chat room. It's just like a group text thread that's also on Substack. Support from listeners like you helps keep our podcast going, so if you have the means to contribute, you can do [e-mail].