Minum wage

[Chris11]

I live in BC. RIght now the minum wage is set at 8.75 per hour. In the area of BC that I live in, it has been found that the minimum 'living wage' for full time workers is 11 per hour. This is such bullshit. You should be able to live.

 

[smithcommajohn]

I love a well put together rant. This thread, however, does not qualify. At least spell minimum correctly in the title.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

If the minimum wage is above what the market would have valued the specific type of labour, all the minimum wage serves to do is ostracise people from the work force and relegate them to welfare. The unseen consequences of this is that less people are producing services to meet each other's demands. Hence, less wealth overall. Which further compounds the problem at hand of the less well off not being able to acquire goods and services they desire.

I refer you to below:

http://mises.org/media/4059/That-Which-Is-Seen-and-That-Which-Is-Not-Seen

 

[Oblivious]

We don't even have a minum wage in my country dude!

 

[Solitaire U.]

Hell, come on down here to Mexico and smoke some of this shit, you'll consider yourself blessed...

 

[Jordan~]

If the minimum wage is above what the market would have valued the specific type of labour, all the minimum wage serves to do is ostracise people from the work force and relegate them to welfare. The unseen consequences of this is that less people are producing services to meet each other's demands. Hence, less wealth overall. Which further compounds the problem at hand of the less well off not being able to acquire goods and services they desire.

I refer you to below:

http://mises.org/media/4059/That-Which-Is-Seen-and-That-Which-Is-Not-Seen

"Now, you know that we must unlearn this
allegiance to a life of service,
and no longer answer to that heartless
hay-monger, nor be his accomplice
(that charlatan, with artless hustling!)
but Ursala, we've got to eat something!
and earn our keep while still within
the borders of the land that menace girded
(all double-bolted and tight-fisted!)
until we reach the open country,
a-steeped in milk and honey!

Will you keep your fancy clothes on for me?
Can you bear a little longer to wear that leash?
My love, I swear by the air I breathe:
sooner or later you'll bare your teeth!"

You are Monkey, leading Bear away from the farmyard with promises of an imagined promised land if she'll only keep dancing for a pittance a little longer.

Also:

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You are Monkey, leading Bear away from the farmyard with promises of an imagined promised land if she'll only keep dancing for a pittance a little longer.

The only thing that lifts us from the depths of poverty, hunger and disease, of subsistence on the land, is the the freedom to serve one another's demands and its corollary, technological innovation. If there is a state promising the land of milk and honey for society or the individual, no doubt one would be dancing to appease the whims of the rulers. One would be living and working for a fantasy. To be free, is to reject the fantasy. To be free, is to reject the delusion put forward in statist propaganda. To be free, is to reject the state. To be free, is to reject what the state is fundamentally based on, violence. With the abolition of the state and all the ills that come with it (privilege and monopoly), we will no longer be dancing for a pittance to appease the rulers. We will be finding and implementing the best means to serve one another.

You imply that I'm a proponent of the status quo, I am not. I'm not a proponent of socialism, fascism, merchantilism, the welfare state or any other forms of state interventionism. I am a proponent of the sovereignty of the individual. Without hesitation, I reject the state. The state useless and detrimental.

 

[Jordan~]

You imply that I'm a proponent of the status quo, I am not.

No, just that there's more than one way to oppose the status quo. You are a proponent of the status quo, however, in the sense that the economic status quo in the west is captialism, which you propose, albeit with the state keeping tabs on it to varying degrees. Monkey escapes the farmyard (the state) with Bear but tells her that she has to keep dancing for money because that's the way the world works, and if she holds on a little longer they'll reach the promised paradise, which, it becomes clear, doesn't actually exist - he just intends to lead her on with the promise that it does to exploit her labour.

When a disparity in economic power exists, a disparity in political power exists, giving those with the economic upper hand the ability to influence the ideological narrative in such a way as to perpetuate their own advantage at the expense of the disadvantaged. That is, they can promise that everyone will be as rich as they are, some day, so long as they keep working for whatever their bosses are willing to pay them. That works well for them, because they're the bosses and it means they can pay as little as they like; little enough to keep them deliberately in their place.

Yes, in theory everyone could be free to compete and become as wealthy as they were willing to work to become, but without a cultural revolution to fundamentally change the way people think, it would inevitably disintegrate into oligarchic statism and class struggle for the above reason: once power is established it entrenches itself.

And yes, in theory the competition of those possessing economic power could result in an overall increase of wages, but it's in the collective interests of the rich to pay their workers as little as they can get away with, and if they could secure a general agreement amongst themselves to use their power to prevent anyone from paying workers more and thereby stealing them away and leaving them without a workforce, they would. I trust neither states, groups nor individuals to hold power in a climate of self-interest - all will use it to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of everyone else, thereby entrenching their power and establishing a status quo unassailable save by revolution.

And if a cultural revolution were required, anyway, why not one that altered the requirements for general prosperity in such a way that economic disparity was not one of them?

In principle, with a few provisos (that no one be allowed to suffer preventably for lack of necessities), I agree with you; my problem is that I don't see your vision being realisable except in a way that could also result in the realisation of greater ideals still. Given the nature-bending feats of cultural transformation that a society like that would require, why stop there? Why not abolish not only the state, but also the bully? Why not abolish not only privilege, but the desire for privilege?

 

[Smooch]

To be free, is to reject the fantasy. To be free, is to reject the delusion put forward in statist propaganda. To be free, is to reject the state. To be free, is to reject what the state is fundamentally based on, violence. With the abolition of the state and all the ills that come with it (privilege and monopoly), we will no longer be dancing for a pittance to appease the rulers. We will be finding and implementing the best means to serve one another.

^ This This This

for some reason you just said what I've known for quite some time now and yet I've never found the words to express it

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

No, just that there's more than one way to oppose the status quo. You are a proponent of the status quo, however, in the sense that the economic status quo in the west is captialism, which you propose, albeit with the state keeping tabs on it to varying degrees. Monkey escapes the farmyard (the state) with Bear but tells her that she has to keep dancing for money because that's the way the world works, and if she holds on a little longer they'll reach the promised paradise, which, it becomes clear, doesn't actually exist - he just intends to lead her on with the promise that it does to exploit her labour.

'Animal Farm'? Right?

I hate to break it to you. The status quo or as you have put it, economic status quo, is not capitalism. It is either socialism, fascism, merchantilism or the welfare state. Typically what has been occurring is a combination of all of the above. Interestingly enough, one would not be too mistaken to believe that all these interventionist philosophies are one in the same.

When a disparity in economic power exists, a disparity in political power exists, giving those with the economic upper hand the ability to influence the ideological narrative in such a way as to perpetuate their own advantage at the expense of the disadvantaged. That is, they can promise that everyone will be as rich as they are, some day, so long as they keep working for whatever their bosses are willing to pay them. That works well for them, because they're the bosses and it means they can pay as little as they like; little enough to keep them deliberately in their place.

Yes, the above is very typical of the current paradigm. People whom have vast wealth can use their wealth to influence governance. This occurs all to often. It signifies the problem with the existence of the state and democracy. They do indeed put forward the false idea that if one just works hard their desires will manifest. All to put forward their agenda of creating privilege for themselves at the expense of the greater majority.

... so long as they keep working for whatever their bosses are willing to pay them. That works well for them, because they're the bosses and it means they can pay as little as they like; little enough to keep them deliberately in their place.

Now the above is quite dubious. In an unhampered market, the value of a specific type of labour is dependent on the supply and demand for the specific type of labour. I have very specialised labour. It is in relatively high demand. There is a low supply. I get compensated relatively greater for services rendered. General types of labour, relatively low demand and relatively high supply get less compensation for services rendered. This is why in general I will get compensated more as an engineer/applied mathematician than you would get compensated as a philosopher. These price signals serve a greater purpose. They tell society where resources should be allocated. Resources are always allocating to where ever in the economy which has the greatest demand.

In an intervened in market compensation and value is quite different. By the use of government's apparatus of violence competition between those who demand labour is reduced. Hence, there is less demand for labour, therefore, labour is compensated less. This is when you get your 'pay as little as they like' scenario. Not only in conjunction to labour getting compensated less, prices of good services increase due to less competition between producers.

Yes, in theory everyone could be free to compete and become as wealthy as they were willing to work to become, but without a cultural revolution to fundamentally change the way people think, it would inevitably disintegrate into oligarchic statism and class struggle for the above reason: once power is established it entrenches itself.

No. The idea of those who work hard will become wealthy and have their desired realised is not a theory. One could propose it as an hypothesis but it is easily invalidated. We are all born different, unequal. We all have different levels of aptitude. Not all have faculties to be inventors, able to bring together the factors of production most efficiently to meet demand and receive a profit, great poets or apt in pontificating the metaphysical. Some people, such as inventors, can provide society with more benefit than others. In an market economy their labour is simply worth more to society.

And yes, in theory the competition of those possessing economic power could result in an overall increase of wages, but it's in the collective interests of the rich to pay their workers as little as they can get away with, and if they could secure a general agreement amongst themselves to use their power to prevent anyone from paying workers more and thereby stealing them away and leaving them without a workforce, they would. I trust neither states, groups nor individuals to hold power in a climate of self-interest - all will use it to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of everyone else, thereby entrenching their power and establishing a status quo unassailable save by revolution.

Man, you read too much Marx. There is no such thing as a collective interest of the rich. There is no static pool of rich people that collude together. Rich become poor, poor become rich. Those who don't serve the demands of society fail. Those who serve the demands of society succeed. Producer cartels may form from time to time but they are always broken by a new competitor in the market or one reducing its prices below the others to have a comparative advantage. Producers are always in competition with one another. Some producers may dislike competition. Hence they use the state's apparatus of violence to eliminate their competition. The very act of doing so is no capitalism and is to the detriment of society as a whole.

Below is a refutation of class struggle:

http://mises.org/daily/4537

And if a cultural revolution were required, anyway, why not one that altered the requirements for general prosperity in such a way that economic disparity was not one of them?

It seems like you have conflated the negative effects of the state with capitalism. To remedy this I recommend you read 'Man, Economy and State with Power and Markets' by Rothbard, 'Theory of Money and Credit' by Mises and 'Theory of Socialism' by Mises.

 

[Jordan~]

'Animal Farm'? Right?

No, the song Monkey & Bear by Joanna Newsom, which isn't about politics at all, but could be if you looked at it right. To address the topic, I'm saying that you're offering a vision of exactly the same thing (wage labour) only this time it's good. Why not no wage labour, never mind a high minimum wage or none at all? If your answer depends on any observation of something that can be modified by culture, see below.

I hate to break it to you. The status quo or as you have put it, economic status quo, is not capitalism. It is either socialism, fascism, merchantilism or the welfare state. Typically what has been occurring is a combination of all of the above. Interestingly enough, one would not be too mistaken to believe that all these interventionist philosophies are one in the same.

There are important distinctions between all of them, but this is a thread about minimum wage. Briefly, though, that the state sometimes opposes the dominant means of production and distribution does not mean that they're defined by this opposition. Even in countries with the most state intervention, state capitalism remains a form of capitalism.

Yes, the above is very typical of the current paradigm. ... Now the above is quite dubious. ... Resources are always allocating to where ever in the economy which has the greatest demand.

In an intervened in market compensation and value is quite different. ... Not only in conjunction to labour getting compensated less, prices of good services increase due to less competition between producers.

If everyone in the world who could use your labour were to agree that it would benefit them if they deliberately undercompensated you for it, since you'd have no choice but to work for them anyway, what could you do but work for a reduced rate? But then, why would anyone become an engineer? Then again, does it really require more effort to be an engineer than to be a labourer? It's still a relatively cushy existence compared to hard labour, and if you're going to be paid the same you'd probably rather go for the job that requires the least physical work for the same compensation. Where there's power, it's wielded in the interests of those who possess it in order to gain greater power still and modify the system to entrench that power.

My point is, what checks are in place in a stateless free market society to ensure the preservation of the free market? Who checks that no one is manipulating it, that people aren't forming consortia to work in their interests to the detriment of the system? How do you prevent power from being transferred into the hands of the first people to strike it rich, and then how do you prevent them from using their power to entrench their privilege and devolve the society back into statism? What you're saying might be true of a free market free of intervention, but how do you ensure that it remains free of intervention without some kind of regulatory mechanism in place? The regulatory mechanism can't be a state threatening the use of physical force against anyone who interferes in the free market, so it would have to be cultural - a desire common to everyone, or at least to the vast majority, to keep the market free of intervention and manipulation, and therefore not to tolerate threats to its freedom. Given that such a culture does not exist and would need to be engineered, this brings me to the final point in the referenced post - why stop there?

Any challenges made to a system on the basis that it's not compatible with the way people are can't be tenable when the alternative that you propose isn't compatible with the way people are, either. You have to acknowledge that your system would be just as inoperable in any presently existing culture as mine, and therefore that any challenges made based on that (e.g. that people will only be productive for certain reasons in existing cultures) are unsustainable from your position. Not that I'm talking about anything said in this thread in particular.

No. The idea of those who work hard will become wealthy and have their desired realised is not a theory. ... Some people, such as inventors, can provide society with more benefit than others. In an market economy their labour is simply worth more to society.

...Or whatever. "In theory" as opposed to "in practice". The challenge stands: What's to stop the inventors from using the power afforded to them by their economic advantage to become inventor-kings?

Man, you read too much Marx. There is no such thing as a collective interest of the rich. There is no static pool of rich people that collude together. Rich become poor, poor become rich. Those who don't serve the demands of society fail. Those who serve the demands of society succeed. Producer cartels may form from time to time but they are always broken by a new competitor in the market or one reducing its prices below the others to have a comparative advantage. Producers are always in competition with one another. Some producers may dislike competition. Hence they use the state's apparatus of violence to eliminate their competition. The very act of doing so is no capitalism and is to the detriment of society as a whole.

You and I are the only two rich people in the world. We're so very good at business that we've outcompeted everyone else and now we've reached a sort of equilibrium with eachother. It's not a very big world or something. We have a very obvious collective interest in remaining rich and not allowing anyone with bright ideas to bring us down. Now, some young upstart has the idea that he's going to steal our labour pool by paying people more initially to draw workers away from us and make a more modest profit, but a profit nonetheless. We're not particularly fussed about him making a profit; what we are fussed about is him reducing the size of our business by stealing our workers.

Now there are several solutions. We could buy him out, hire goons to break his shins, etc. - whatever, we're a lot more powerful than him and he can't get away with doing anything we don't want him to do if we choose to stop him.

Did savvy competitors prevent the rise of the first states? No, there are states, so obviously they didn't. There are unscrupulous people in the world who don't care that something is to the detriment of society as a whole, so long as it benefits them, at least until they die. How do you prevent them from forming states?

It seems like you have conflated the negative effects of the state with capitalism. To remedy this I recommend you read 'Man, Economy and State with Power and Markets' by Rothbard, 'Theory of Money and Credit' by Mises and 'Theory of Socialism' by Mises.

Not really. I just question that economic disparity, or any kind of disparity in power, can ever exist without it resulting in states. Including purely interpersonal power - the power to get people to do what you say through charm or intimidation. For anarchy to be sustainable I think it needs to create a world in which there is no power, meaning that there's no economic disparity, either.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

No, the song Monkey & Bear by Joanna Newsom, which isn't about politics at all, but could be if you looked at it right. To address the topic, I'm saying that you're offering a vision of exactly the same thing (wage labour) only this time it's good. Why not no wage labour, never mind a high minimum wage or none at all? If your answer depends on any observation of something that can be modified by culture, see below.

There are important distinctions between all of them, but this is a thread about minimum wage. Briefly, though, that the state sometimes opposes the dominant means of production and distribution does not mean that they're defined by this opposition. Even in countries with the most state intervention, state capitalism remains a form of capitalism.

Many of the policies advocated by each of those philosophies overlap one another. When ever I refer to capitalism, I refer to capitalism in its true sense. Private ownership of the means of production with free and voluntary exchage. State capitalism ie. merchantislism and fascism, advocates opposite policies to this. Just because a term such as 'state capitalism' doesn't mean its capitalism.

If everyone in the world who could use your labour were to agree that it would benefit them if they deliberately undercompensated you for it, since you'd have no choice but to work for them anyway, what could you do but work for a reduced rate? But then, why would anyone become an engineer? Then again, does it really require more effort to be an engineer than to be a labourer? It's still a relatively cushy existence compared to hard labour, and if you're going to be paid the same you'd probably rather go for the job that requires the least physical work for the same compensation. Where there's power, it's wielded in the interests of those who possess it in order to gain greater power still and modify the system to entrench that power.

Marx has one thing going for him. He said labour was a commodity. Das Kapital Chapter 5? It has been so long. I can't remember. Though, his 'use value' and 'exchange value' was superior over what Smith published on value. Anyway, if everyone decided to under compensate engineers, it is a signification that the demand for engineers has reduced. The more versatile will leave the profession of engineering and do something else which compensates better. If everyone decided to under compensate everyone else, the value of all goods and services against all other goods and services has not changed.

As for labouring and engineering, I have done both. I can tell you that engineering is more difficult to become and is more exhausting than being a labourer. If I derived no other benefits for being an engineer, both professions paid the same and I could not do anything else, I would be a labourer.

My point is, what checks are in place in a stateless free market society to ensure the preservation of the free market? Who checks that no one is manipulating it, that people aren't forming consortia to work in their interests to the detriment of the system? How do you prevent power from being transferred into the hands of the first people to strike it rich, and then how do you prevent them from using their power to entrench their privilege and devolve the society back into statism? What you're saying might be true of a free market free of intervention, but how do you ensure that it remains free of intervention without some kind of regulatory mechanism in place? The regulatory mechanism can't be a state threatening the use of physical force against anyone who interferes in the free market, so it would have to be cultural - a desire common to everyone, or at least to the vast majority, to keep the market free of intervention and manipulation, and therefore not to tolerate threats to its freedom. Given that such a culture does not exist and would need to be engineered, this brings me to the final point in the referenced post - why stop there?

Free markets are self regulating. In the market there would be a demand for anti market manipulation services and people would meet that demand. This is why there has been private markets with private rules throughout the ages. Same goes for security and self defence. The free market fares throughout the middle ages and medieval periods had private law enforcement.

Any challenges made to a system on the basis that it's not compatible with the way people are can't be tenable when the alternative that you propose isn't compatible with the way people are, either. You have to acknowledge that your system would be just as inoperable in any presently existing culture as mine, and therefore that any challenges made based on that (e.g. that people will only be productive for certain reasons in existing cultures) are unsustainable from your position. Not that I'm talking about anything said in this thread in particular.

One would hope that with the rejection of the state which is required for both our ideals that people would have reject their reliance on the state. Hence, they would not have the impulse to allow the recreation of the state.

...Or whatever. "In theory" as opposed to "in practice". The challenge stands: What's to stop the inventors from using the power afforded to them by their economic advantage to become inventor-kings?

If your implying that a person can accumulate wealth to the extent that they're able to manipulate markets without the state to become pseudo kings, what ever reasoning behind this is probably fallacious. I personally don't see how it is possible. Of course if someone accumulates wealth they would have more economic power (they amount of stuff they can purchase) than someone has not. Their economic power is equivalent to the service that they have provided society. Remember people don't engage in transactions if they don't anticipate a benefit. I don't really see a problem with this. Nor can I foresee any doom and gloom scenarios resulting from this.

You and I are the only two rich people in the world. We're so very good at business that we've outcompeted everyone else and now we've reached a sort of equilibrium with eachother. It's not a very big world or something. We have a very obvious collective interest in remaining rich and not allowing anyone with bright ideas to bring us down. Now, some young upstart has the idea that he's going to steal our labour pool by paying people more initially to draw workers away from us and make a more modest profit, but a profit nonetheless. We're not particularly fussed about him making a profit; what we are fussed about is him reducing the size of our business by stealing our workers.

A pool of workers in any given field is not static. Unskilled individuals can be hired and trained. Alternatively, the amount that the current workers are paid can be increased.

Now there are several solutions. We could buy him out, hire goons to break his shins, etc. - whatever, we're a lot more powerful than him and he can't get away with doing anything we don't want him to do if we choose to stop him.

You could try and buy him out. If you break his legs you would probably find yourself charged with grievous bodily harm.

Did savvy competitors prevent the rise of the first states? No, there are states, so obviously they didn't. There are unscrupulous people in the world who don't care that something is to the detriment of society as a whole, so long as it benefits them, at least until they die. How do you prevent them from forming states?

You mean "How do you prevent people from creating a monopoly of violence over an area?" It would require heaps of capital to do so. I don't think people would have the wealth to do so nor would they be able to rid competition between law enforcement agencies.

Not really. I just question that economic disparity, or any kind of disparity in power, can ever exist without it resulting in states. Including purely interpersonal power - the power to get people to do what you say through charm or intimidation. For anarchy to be sustainable I think it needs to create a world in which there is no power, meaning that there's no economic disparity, either.

When you mean you don't want a world with power, you stating that regardless of the level service that one provides another each and all are compensated the same. You have just removed economic incentive and subsequently the division of labour.

 

[Oblivious]

To be free, is to reject what the state is fundamentally based on, violence.

Once again, I arrive to inconveniently point out that rejection of violence entails being beholden to it, which then entails loss of freedom. i.e slavery and bondage.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Once again, I arrive to inconveniently point out that rejection of violence entails being beholden to it, which then entails loss of freedom. i.e slavery and bondage.

How would one be beholden to violence by rejecting it as means to organise society?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oMGC80_x-U

*ahem*
Carry on.

 

[Oblivious]

How would one be beholden to violence by rejecting it as means to organise society?

Because other people will not reject it simply because you do.

 

[Jordan~]

I typed out a piece-by-piece response, but it just led to having to dance back and forth between different points, so instead I'll post something coherent. Also, I'll post it in your thread, because it's migrated from the topic a bit.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Because other people will not reject it simply because you do.

I never implied or alluded that people would reject the use of violence to organise society just because I have done.

I typed out a piece-by-piece response, but it just led to having to dance back and forth between different points, so instead I'll post something coherent. Also, I'll post it in your thread, because it's migrated from the topic a bit.

I thank you for this. You can also save me a world of trouble by reading 'Man, Economy and State with Power and Markets' by Rothbard, 'Theory of Money and Credit' by Mises and 'Theory of Socialism' by Mises. Great resources on how markets operate and the effects of intervention.

 

[Jordan~]

It's not the market itself I'm opposed to nor do I favour interventionism, it's that economic power implies political power and a disparity of political power will lead to the formation of a state.

 

[Oblivious]

I never implied or alluded that people would reject the use of violence to organise society just because I have done.

Then it follows that these delightful fellows will have the upper hand on you.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Then it follows that these delightful fellows will have the upper hand on you.

Right ... Your script RPG doesn't enthuse me.

Coming to a country near you:

YouTube - ‪Lindy: "No Knock Raid" - a song about the drug war's deadliest tactic.‬‏

 

[Oblivious]

Yet this RPG script describes reality. I can understand though, if reality is not enthusing. It seldom is.

So you have government soldiers in your house doing as they please. The only difference is that without a state, those soldiers will be goons from a rival company, or better yet, a neighboring nation. Surely SWAT invading your home is preferable to the Mexican border guard?

You tell us that you are not a utopist, yet you give us no guarantee that a stateless entity will not see abuse of power. The video is not an argument against the state. It merely tells us that people abuse their power.

It does not detract from the argument that those who renounce violence put themselves at the mercy of those who do not.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Yet this RPG script describes reality. I can understand though, if reality is not enthusing. It seldom is.

So you have government soldiers in your house doing as they please. The only difference is that without a state, those soldiers will be goons from a rival company, or better yet, a neighboring nation. Surely SWAT invading your home is preferable to the Mexican border guard?

You tell us that you are not a utopist, yet you give us no guarantee that a stateless entity will not see abuse of power. The video is not an argument against the state. It merely tells us that people abuse their power.

It does not detract from the argument that those who renounce violence put themselves at the mercy of those who do not.

I can not guarantee anything. I doubt the scenarios put forward where rival companies reek havoc on people would manifest. It has not done so in the past in periods where that has been an absence of monopoly of jurisprudence. The only times I can think of where companies have acts as you prognosticate was in merchantilist period and England's parliament band a specific type of cloth. They gave a guild free reign in enforcing the law. I have not read of any free trade city state throughout the middle ages and medieval period of having this occur. There was competition in law enforcement which was quite effective.

If we had a state where all it did was national defence and protect the rights of the individual against aggression, I would be all for it.

 

[Solitaire U.]

The crime is that Jordan and ProxyAmenRa, if they were really industrious, could likely find someone to pay them higher than minimum wage simply for arguing these pointless distinctions that do absolutely nothing to aid the common worker... (no offense).

 

[Jordan~]

What should I do instead? Seriously, I want to know what I can do that's more constructive than arguing over pointless distinctions. If I thought any such a thing existed I'd do it.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The crime is that Jordan and ProxyAmenRa, if they were really industrious, could likely find someone to pay them higher than minimum wage simply for arguing these pointless distinctions that do absolutely nothing to aid the common worker... (no offense).

rofl