Around the same time, crypto will make traditional money worthless. The only wealthy ones will be those who invested early. Trust me.

I agree.

Do the meanings of words vary or change based on rhetorical stance, cultural context, or historic period?

Are mainstream media and mainstream practices the precedent you understand as the one to guide your choices toward the objectives you identify as meaningful?

The law protects private property.

If you defend the law, how would you overcome the wealth accumulation of billionaires through the legal construct of private property?

There may not be such an event in the foreseeable future, or at any rate, not in the next few days or weeks.

However, the request is not based on a worry about semantics, but rather an observation that language influences how people think and feel.

Preferring language such as claim or steal over earn helps emphasize that workers have an interest in eliminating a class who lives by our labor.

Using language as you have done serves to vindicate the class disparity, to erase the class antagonism, and to protect the interests of the owning class.

Please consider referring to the income of billionaires not as earnings.

Earning is based on achievement or merit. Profits are appropriated, claimed, or stolen, but not earned.

However, for those under certain illusions, exposing that the illusions fail on their merits helps some advance beyond them.

Do you know the original source for the poster? Oldies are goodies. It seems some things never change.

You’re really going to be unhappy when Musk becomes crowned as king.

We could say, *We don’t need to seize the means of production. We just need to seize the shares from the shareholders."

Such comments seem to sidestep the deeper analysis.

I feel uncomfortable with “money makes money”.

Those with money use money to make those without money make money for those with money.

Money and corruption often go hand in hand, regardless of the ruling system.

What do you conclude about rulership, if its interests are separate from the interests of the disempowered?

Where the money from the wealthy flows directly into our governance.

Why do the wealthy leverage state power toward their particular interests, and what do you imagine would stop them from doing so?

stop reversing all the incredible progress made in the 20th century

Why was progress made during certain periods, and why was it later reversed during others?

These problems are all solvable under the current system, it just takes lawmakers who give a flying fuck.

Why are lawmakers indifferent to the struggles of the masses, and what would cause them to become more engaged?

I suppose he must be very frugal with household expenses.

There are very few guarantees ever.

Not having a union guarantees having no power when the bosses stomp their boots over the faces of workers.

A union is just workers agreeing and organizing among themselves that they prefer to fight back. United we can build the power we need to make meaningful advances.

There is no reason simply to let the bosses take whatever they want just because no one tried to stop them.

I get it. You want dialogue, discussion, and deliberation. Nothing hasty.

There are lots of angles to consider, and one thing for sure is no one ever gave them much thought.

Perhaps it would take at least two more decades of development and planning to achieve any kind of tax code that is more sensible and equitable than the one currently in place.

I’m just spitballing here, but maybe the solution is just, like, you know, tax the rich…?

I mean, really tax them, you know, all in, no bars, just get in there, and tax the hell right out of them.

Whad’ya say? Think it might work?

That’s the truth, 110%.

I feel you have a very low bar.

I am really tiring of the shitposts

The company is massive. The organized sections are still minor compared to the whole company, far too minor to be able to pressure the entire company, which remains one of the most powerful in the world.

Sure, but that is true for ever job then. An unknown and hidden confounding factor explaining job choice and the problems of the job can always exist.

The general principle may apply to any job, but you wanted to study the population of sex workers in particular, and doing so requires collecting and analyzing data, in regard to sex workers, properly and sufficiently, toward a conclusion.

I only suggested that your conclusion may not be robust if sex work is disproportionately represented by populations that carry broader vulnerabilities to some of the difficulties that you inferred were directly consequences of sex work.