I'd rather leave my personal history out of it if that's ok, though I can share it it would convince anyone so best stick to wider measures. Fair? Also, again,

I'd rather leave my personal history out of it if that's ok, though I can share it it would convince anyone so best stick to wider measures. Fair? Also, again, we agree a lot and I think that's worth remembering. I too decry loss of unions and civic orgs. I think we need a system that gives more opportunities and where the opportunities are of better quality. But there are still 2 issues I feel we disagree on: First, the 70m lazy people. To be clear, I didn't say they were all lazy, I said some were and some were short termist. I'd add that others were risk averse or unambitious. Why is this number not credible to you? There are 330m people in the US, so 21% of people being either lazy or short termist or risk averse etc actually sounds LOW to me. Maybe I am spending time with the wrong people? Second, who are these elite? I keep hearing about them. But no one seems to know for sure what makes one elite? Right now it seems that we have 70m non elites complaining about 280m elites. How can the elite also be the majority? You can't be above average and in the majority, being elite and the (overwhelming) majority sounds far from possible. Again, I don't disagree our society needs to improve. I support everything from a UBI to criminal justice reform to education. Now is a perfect time to go after China and that should even bring back jobs to some extent. I just don't buy this ill defined "elite" concept as the root cause. The root cause is 20-40 years of social progress and a minority of people choosing (however understandably) not to engage with the new (better) system. Sorry to be blunt about it. That, and people being bored.