First. I want to offer you some credit. This is a much more substantive response than I anticipated. I still think you are wrong and I will expand on why shortl

First. I want to offer you some credit. This is a much more substantive response than I anticipated. I still think you are wrong and I will expand on why shortly, but I want to confirm that I am engaging in this conversation in good faith. << Gosh, I dunno, hire lower-income people? See, this is where the problem starts, because your solution depends heavily on actual implementation and introduces its own set of problems so I list those problems in no particular order: - Who should do that forced hiring ( forced, because if they are not doing it now, it is forced; be as specific as you can )? - What is the lower-income treshold or is that just a euphemism ( but if it is say, please say so there is no misunderstandings )? << You're acting like there's some difficult problem here when there just isn't, and I'm not going to speculate why you think there is. Are you somehow suggesting it is easy? What was your solution again? Hire everyone below certain income threshold? You don't think it qualifies as difficult? I am sorry, but that line of thinking I can only qualify as delusional. At best. << Everyone, huh? And you've never heard that people don't like Silicon Valley or corporate types? You would be surprised. You are close on the anger towards CEO-class, but you are off on tech. There is anger man. There is no denying that, but, at least right now, it seems very distributed. << If you were to counter it, you'd have to not ignore most of it. My favorite part was where you quoted "respondents wanted more regulation", and ignored the first half of the sentence. I did not ignore it. I pointed out internal inconsistency and how it affects the presented argument. You chose to present that argument, badly. You want me to respond differently, present me with a better argument. > What wrong actions? You did not offer specifics. << Gee, I thought you might have read the article we were talking about before you responded. Did I misread you when you wrote the following: << What we have here is a refusal to take responsibility for their own wrong actions, instead pointing the finger at Google, incentives, feigned helplessness, everyone else doing it, and it being "the real world". To me it reads like you direct me to article, but your post suggests your beef is with HN audience. That is ok, but you may want to keep your story straight. It is either article or HN response to it. And so I repeat? What actions? I read the article. I see no issue beyond kid not getting what he wanted. It happens. I also read HN comments. I can assure you almost any other place on the net that story would be torn to shreds across partisan lines. Be grateful that this is still the best place to argue a point. << Or do you really not see anything wrong with perpetuating income inequality by only providing opportunities to people with already-high income? Could it be that the reason you're nitpicking everything in my post is that you're actually just completely okay with inequality? See. You are assuming a whole lot with this fragment. Amusingly, you are assuming wrongly, which should give you an idea about shooting in the dark on this forum. We are all a big herd of cats and that big brush of yours I mentioned in the beginning will not make you friends or converts to your cause. Good argument might. For example, I am not above returning tax rates to WW2 levels, but that is not a conversation for today. There goes your me favoring income inequality theory. << Ah, so the only problems you're interested in solving are the new ones? Great. Sarcasm is easy. Was there anything factually wrong with that statement? Resources are scarce. That is a fact. We are human. That is also a fact. I explained the situation to you. You chose to nitpick yourself on a tangent. It is your call, but it does not advance this conversation one bit. << Feigned helplessness again. Listen carefully, because here I may actually have something useful for you to hear, if you are willing to listen. Whoever taught you those words, they are using you. Whoever gave you those talking points, they see you as a useful tool. It is your life though. It is literally your choice. << What is your problem beyond attempting to say "it's absolutely impossible to hire poor people"? How many? All of them? Some? Which some? Some exclusion criteria will exist. Someone will get sad. Your solution lacks any kind of specificity to seriously address. Nevertheless, I will try with the limited information you did give me. It is not impossible, but there are limits. It really is that simple. We can go over those limits if you are willing to engage, but your solution is, well, simplistic and I am being generous. << Ah right, 2016, I'm sure all those people are dead by now. It was practically two presidential cycles ago. Whether they are alive or dead is irrelevant. The question is of 'sentiment'. Are you really arguing that people's disposition does not change? Seven year old sentiment report to me means little in a world where we forget what happened a week ago. And sentiment is fickle.