<i>Clearly I indicated that one finds all types of personalities amongst poor people. I explicitly state this in my third paragraph.</i><p>I acknowledged that I misunderstood you in the very comment you replied to. I explicitly acknowledged both your belief in the existence of toxic welfare recipients (in paragraphs 2,3 and 4) and those that are &quot;great to be around&quot; in paragraph 8.<p>Apart from explicitly acknowledging and responding to your points, what else can I do to make you believe I&#x27;m not &quot;demonize[ing] and distort[ing]&quot; your opinions?<p><i>There is a difference between more and all.</i><p>I explicitly acknowledge and address this point in my last sentence.<p><i>You are not rich enough to afford someone to clean for you as frequently as you like so you conclude labor is way too scarce?</i><p>Scarcity is when we don&#x27;t have as much of something as we want. So yes - labor is scarce.<p><i>A solution you endorse is to force people to service your needs in exchange for welfare benefits.</i><p>On the contrary, I&#x27;m proposing forcing <i>fewer</i> people to service the needs of others. Currently I&#x27;m forced to service welfare people&#x27;s needs; but if a welfare person has a toxic personality and is unwilling to work, I&#x27;d like to end that use of force.<p>Also, as far as paying market rates for labor, this article (and me, in agreeing with it) is <i>explicitly advocating that we bring wages closer to market.</i> Again, did you read it? It proposes making information more available (by helping welfare recipients access the gig economy) and reducing subsidies that shrink the labor force (via workfare requirements).