[marcusverus]

> Medicare is infrastructure that is directly related to the success of any company in the United States.

That must be why there were no successful companies in the United States before 1965.

> But the fact that Medicare exists means that Tesla's factory workers don't need to be paid at levels that reflect they need to 100% self-fund their retirement.

Tesla is paying them that much, because Tesla--and all employers and employees--are funding Medicare via earmarked taxes on income.

> There is a broader definition of "infrastructure."

"The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have already held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. Adn the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but to change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer, and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language." ~Hayek

[coffeecloud]

> That must be why there were no successful companies in the United States before 1965.

Of course there were. There were also lots of successful companies before we had highways or municipal plumbing. So I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.

>Tesla is paying them that much, because Tesla--and all employers and employees--are funding Medicare via earmarked taxes on income.

Tesla benefits because every employer has been paying in. Anyone can freely go work in a Tesla factory because they know they will receive the same health benefits at the end of their working life if they go work there. They also benefit because their current employees don’t need to pay for the cost of their parents healthcare, which Tesla most likely did not pay for.

Regarding your quote. Was your intention to imply that I’m a totalitarian because I’m using a slightly different definition of a word than you? That seems a bit severe.

Let’s ask Wikipedia about infrastructure:

> One way to describe different types of infrastructure is to classify them as two distinct kinds: hard infrastructure and soft infrastructure.[4] Hard infrastructure is the physical networks necessary for the functioning of a modern industrial society or industry.[5] This includes roads, bridges, and railways. Soft infrastructure is all the institutions that maintain the economic, health, social, environmental, and cultural standards of a country.[5] This includes educational programs, official statistics, parks and recreational facilities, law enforcement agencies, and emergency services.

I don’t think it’s by any means a stretch to say Medicare or the FDA are institutions that maintain economic/health standards.

[marcusverus]

> So I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Companies are no more successful with Medicare than they were without Medicare, so simply claiming that it is "directly related to success" is meaningless.

> Tesla benefits because every employer has been paying in.

Your argument was that Tesla was paying lower wages, which was objectively false. Now you're really branching out! This first claim is just a low-effort handwave. They benefit because... the program exists? Compelling.

> Anyone can freely go work in a Tesla factory because they know they will receive the same health benefits at the end of their working life if they go work there.

People went to work before Medicare, and more freely, because they kept more of their income. So the only difference you're actually stating here is that "they know they will receive benefits", which, again, is tautological--the benefit of the program is that people know the program exists. Amazing.

> They also benefit because their current employees don’t need to pay for the cost of their parents' healthcare, which Tesla most likely did not pay for.

How is this a benefit to tesla? Vibes?

> Was your intention to imply that I'm a totalitarian because I'm using a slightly different definition of a word than you?

I was merely observing the age-old tendency of people who advocate for the never-ending growth of the state to manipulate language in service of their goals. It usually takes the form of conflating less popular things for which they're advocating (welfare, etc) with obviously necessary things (roads, bridges, the electric grid, etc) which already enjoy broad support. I don't doubt that you are sincere in your belief that this new definition is legit. (Who wouldn't happily use terms which make their policy preferences sound better?) Yet this is an obvious example of the old trick, which is always worth calling out for the benefit of the uninitiated.

[coffeecloud]

K