>Nobody's talking about how you got into your position. Yes, the author did "talk about it" when he contends that people got that 100k jobs because of "luck" a

>Nobody's talking about how you got into your position. Yes, the author did "talk about it" when he contends that people got that 100k jobs because of "luck" and "good fortune" instead of meritocracy. The author is throwing that premise-as-fact into the reader's face. The author has overlooked the fact that the reader must agree with that "luck" premise as a precondition of agreeing with the author's policy changes. >We're talking about whether the government should send you free money for a position you've already got. Ok, don't just write that sentence as some abstract credo. What does that mean in terms of concrete policy? Let's play that scenario out. That's what I tried to do with my last comment. Are we wanting $100k job earners to vote for raising taxes on themselves via abolishment of mortgage and 529 tax deductions? Yes? If so, you think his arguments persuasive to those who don't think those deductions were morally wrong? Did he successfully convince them that they are oppressing the low-income class?