"You wrote that people would have to choose between having no police and firemen, and having low housing prices. " That was write after writing "This is the sa

"You wrote that people would have to choose between having no police and firemen, and having low housing prices. " That was write after writing "This is the same as the cities having trouble attracting police/firemen/etc because they can't pay enough." So, first, yes, i did essentially write about "fewer", and you are just ignoring that part. I also can't possibly see how one would assume i was being literal in the sentence you quoted in light of that (reading your other comments on hacker news, you don't seem to do that elsewhere) Since that doesn't make a lot of sense, i'm just going to assume you simply have no evidence, and instead of saying "you know what, you might be right, maybe i should reevaluate", you've chosen to just instead be super pedantic. That's kind of sad. I was hoping you actually had any data to back up your counter-argument, because i'd really like to see the other side of this.