Agreed. I didn't make it too far out of the first section. "[U]nless of course you’ve landed a job as a drug dealer or a Wall Street banker, becoming a gangster

Agreed. I didn't make it too far out of the first section. "[U]nless of course you’ve landed a job as a drug dealer or a Wall Street banker, becoming a gangster either way" is a ridiculous line. His definition of "full employment" seems to shift to support his arguments in the middle of a paragraph. And when he said that "[n]o one can doubt the moral significance of the movement" and "[w]hat, exactly, is the point of earning a paycheck that isn’t a living wage", this told me that the author isn't well-versed on opposing viewpoints, which means this piece is just a wordy editorial, and a crude one at that.