Your comment is both ironic and hilarious but I'm not sure you have the perspective to understand why. Thank you for "explaining reality" to me with your "what

Your comment is both ironic and hilarious but I'm not sure you have the perspective to understand why. Thank you for "explaining reality" to me with your "what makes the most sense" argument about why the successful turnaround of Hostess is a "crock" that is ethically dubious and screwing the common man. The bottom line is that in a capitalist society reducing costs is required to stay competitive. The only way to artificially inflate employment is to mandate it with regulations. I was curious what mandates you would have, perhaps banning robots so that all baking had to be done by hand? Or if it's not the raw employment numbers you object to, but rather the pay differential between management and labor, how would you force a multiplier that is fairer to without being gamed? I talk to people who argue views like your's regularly and they collapse when logically analyzed. I am hoping you can explain it to me better.