Obviously there are instances of employers exploiting employees. At no point did I suggest that this wasn't happening, or that it was ok.

That's because you keep inferring things that I have not said, and ignore things that I have said.

The reason I am suggesting ways that employees can improve their condition (e.g. voting), is not because I blame them for their situation, but because I genuinely want their/our situation to improve.

Despite my best efforts, you seem not to grasp this idea that me saying "Here is how I think things can become better" does not mean "This is not a real problem".

I should point out that really enjoying alcohol is different than being addicted to alcohol, although there is often overlap. A person can love alcohol and still not be an addict. Another person may want very badly to not drink alcohol, but simply can not overcome the compulsion to drink.

I am not suggesting that workers enjoy working very hard at tedious soul crushing jobs. I am not blaming them for the situation they are in, nor am I blaming alcoholics for the situation they are in.

In the same way that it would be good if alcoholics could find a way to kick their habit. It would be good if the unskilled could find a way to develop a more profitable skill. I'm not saying it's not hard. It clearly is. But it is the only good solution. And that;s not to say that we can't help them. We can provide recovery programs as well as educational programs, but we can't make them take advantage of those programs, before they are willing.

You failed to issue a disclaimer indicating that you were in need of special coaching, leaving me to assume you had normal human intelligence.

It's not stupid to make an inflammatory statement. Whether a statement is inflammatory depends on who is reading it. Furthermore whether a statement is inflammatory has nothing to do with it's merit or if it is true.

I wrote down exactly what I meant to say and I said what I meant. I'm not sure why this would be a cowardly or disgusting way to present one's ideas, but after talking with you for a while, I can't say I am surprised.

I wasn't making a joke. I was being serious. This is why your language skills are the problem.

You think I am joking when I am not.

You think I am calling your position communism, when I am doing the opposite.

You could tell me you were a 100 year old English professor at Oxford, and it would only highlight how dim you are.

You'd have to be really fucking stupid to have inferred that from what I said.

So all white people have the same backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints? All men have the same backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints? Forcing diversity in terms of physical appearance only gives you physical diversity. If we want diversity of thought, why not enforce that instead of diversity in skin color and genitals?

You can eat whatever you want. Google can hire whoever they want. If you want something other than potatoes then get something else. Maybe potatoes really are all the same. Maybe races of people are all the same too. If you think races and genders decide the substance of what people are, then by all means use that as a measure of diversity.

I *can* claim that I am not advocating that people do C *because* it depends on the reader.

If I tell people that they should go to the hospital *if* they are having a medical emergency, I am not telling "people in general" to go to the hospital even if some of them are having an emergency. I am advocating for some people (the people that meet the *if* condition) to go to the hospital.

If someone thinks that they are having a medical emergency, but I don't think they are, I can still say: *IF* you were having a medical emergency I would recommend you go to the hospital, but because I don't think you are having one, I don't think you should go.

I really don't see what is so hard to understand about this.

I guess I don't see what your point is. It seems like there is lots of room for improvement. We can work on technology for producing better quality food on less resources (like raw materials, energy, and human labor). We can work on producing better cars for less resources. We can work on improving medical technology to make people healthier for less resources. In short there is plenty to be done in the pursuit of making eighteen hundred dollars go further in our society. Those are all jobs that need to be done by skilled people.

Medical care for the elderly is not a drag on the economy. It is a luxury we can afford when our economy is good (e.g. like fancy cars and restaurants). The point of our economy is to produce more wealth for less energy, so that we can live as long as possible and in as much comfort as possible (including when we are elderly). The reason we make money is to spend it one things that make our lives better (like houses, medical care, cars, entertainment, etc). Even when we spend money on investments like mutual funds or an education, it is to make more money later which we will eventually spend on stuff we want.

And this is different than me personally advocating "to people in general" that they should do C

When all the demand is met? You mean like when all our problems are solved?

Sounds like there is some stuff that still needs working on

The government can issue checks even when it has no money. It can print more. The way to prevent our society from falling apart is to make sure that people keep generating wealth, like for example creating all the things you might actually use your SS check on.

I pointed out how you clearly did not read or understand what I wrote, and now you are trying (badly) to do the same thing by suggesting I didn't read the word "reacting" from your post?

How did anything I said imply that I missed the word "reacting" in your post?

Is English your 2nd language or something?

I don't lack empathy for the less well off. I described in detail my frustration at the fact that they do not vote in their own interest. Unlike many other nations which do not have anything close to a democracy, we are fortunate enough to have a democracy. It is not without it's problems, but just about any change could be affected simply by voting. We don't need to storm a government building under a hail of gunfire and risking losing our lives to take back our government from corporations. All we need to do is vote, and we just don't care enough. When I used the "In a democracy the people get the government we deserve", I was including myself in "the people".

You said this in response to this:

If you read this closely, you'll see that I was not calling anything communism. I was describing what the opposite side of the same coin of your caricature looks like. The idea that the world is only Ayn Rand anarcho-capitalists and Stalinist communists is a false dichotomy. People don't fit only in these 2 boxes. I was criticizing this debate tactic of attempting to cast someone into one of these 2 boxes and then simply attacking the strawman of extreme capitalism or extreme socialism.

I am not an ideologue. In terms of capitalism and socialism, I don't think either is evil or the complete solution. I care about what's fair and what works.

And if I say "People should do C if A is true", this is different than saying "People should do C", because "rsilvergun thinks A is true" is not the same as "A is true".

I am saying "I think that rsilvergun should think 'People should do C'" (because rsilvergun thinks A is true), but I don't necessarily think "People should do C" because I don't think "A is necessarily true".

I am not advocating that people do C. I am only advocating people do C if A is true. The fact that rsilvergun thinks A is true does not affect what I am advocating.

Not in the extreme case, but less extreme cases have happened in cycles. We have boom cycles when the economy is good, and more people feel confident that they can succeed in starting their own business, the money is flowing to people who want to invest, and employers are forced to pay people more in order to compete for workers. There is a lot of work being done, but there is a risk that some bad investments are being made that will catch up to us in the next bust cycle.

The opposite extreme is also possible. There are bust cycles when nobody wants to assume risk. Everyone just wants a steady job and guaranteed income, and are willing to trade higher profit potential for stability, and the number of available "jobs" drops as there is a larger supply of workers. I put "jobs" in quotes, because there is certainly things that still need to be done, but the economy is simply not efficiently making these opportunities for productivity easily accessible. There is very little risk of making bad investments, but growth is slow or can even be negative in more extreme cases.

The extremes don't happen because the more extreme the situation gets, the more pressure there is pushing it back to an equilibrium point. But if an extreme actually does happen, the way to fix it is usually pretty clear. If we don't see this pressure to correct the extreme, then maybe it's not really an extreme.