Comparing one to 20 doesn't make sense. What is an apt comparison to workers who do the same thing banding together to increase their negotiating power is companies that make the same product banding together to fix prices. Only we call those Trusts and they are illegal, because they stop the market from functioning freely.
So true. unions are uniquely privileged monopolies in our economy.
This is in response to tef saying laws should be based on reason, not emotion.
I think having fewer poor poeple is good from an intellectual vantage point. It's not (entirely) emotional.
...via mobile.
I don't think that people who are opposed to the minimum wage are pro-more-poor people though. In fact just saying it sounds ridiculous. yes, Caden is opposed to the minimum wage because she thinks that what we need is more poor people.
In her first post she outlined that the economic theory behind her stance is that a minimum wage leads to more unemployement. Therefore...more poor people. If you disagree with that, then fine, but painting it as if she (and everybody else on her side) are just dandy with people starving in the gutter is a little over the top.
I *think* what we're trying to get at, though, is the a lack of minimum wage is likely to create underemployment. So some people who are unemployed due to a minimum wage of $7.50 will be able to work if there's no minimum wage and employers are offering $3.75. Because the employer will be able to hire two people for the previous cost of one person. Or, hey, even if the hourly wage was only lowered to $5, the employer could still get 3 people for the previous cost of 2 people.
So is having 1 unemployed person and 1 person making $7.50 per hour better or worse than having 2 people who are making $3.75 per hour? Both are employed in the second scenario. Both are poor in BOTH scenarios. But in the second scenario, both are employed. What does employed mean, exactly, in terms of economic benefit to the individual? We have to talk about living wages in this scenario as well.
However, Caden, I did just add Basic Economics to my kindle requests in my library account. It's 700 pages, but I trust you that it will be an easy read.
But if you make minimum wage you are poor, yes? The debate of minimum wage vs. none doesn't really address the poor people problem. And the debate of making minimum wage a living wage only begins to address that. Even if you make *just* a livable wage and work only 40 hours a week you are still pretty poor.
I *think* what we're trying to get at, though, is the a lack of minimum wage is likely to create underemployment.
The minimum wage and unions also create underemployment because the limited number of jobs in desired industries means people will have to look for work in lower paying fields. Look at the case studies internationally and in our own country's history. The lack of a minimum wage doesn't result in everyone making a crap wage. Nor does the existence of the minimum wage mean poverty is alleviated, especially for those in low-paying fields.
Let me know what you think of the book when you're through! It took me a really long time to get through it, so if you can't finish it I just recommend concentrating on the subjects that interest you.
But if you make minimum wage you are poor, yes? The debate of minimum wage vs. none doesn't really address the poor people problem.
And the debate of making minimum wage a living wage only begins to address that. Even if you make *just* a livable wage and work only 40 hours a week you are still pretty poor.
Again, yes it does b/c of the effect the min wage has on unemployment. See y4m's previous post on who really makes the min wage.
But if you make minimum wage you are poor, yes? The debate of minimum wage vs. none doesn't really address the poor people problem.
And the debate of making minimum wage a living wage only begins to address that. Even if you make *just* a livable wage and work only 40 hours a week you are still pretty poor.
Again, yes it does b/c of the effect the min wage has on unemployment. See y4m's previous post on who really makes the min wage.
Which didn't take into account all those minimum + ten cent an hour jobs out there.
I don't think that people who are opposed to the minimum wage are pro-more-poor people though. In fact just saying it sounds ridiculous. yes, Caden is opposed to the minimum wage because she thinks that what we need is more poor people.
In her first post she outlined that the economic theory behind her stance is that a minimum wage leads to more unemployement. Therefore...more poor people. If you disagree with that, then fine, but painting it as if she (and everybody else on her side) are just dandy with people starving in the gutter is a little over the top.
I *think* what we're trying to get at, though, is the a lack of minimum wage is likely to create underemployment. So some people who are unemployed due to a minimum wage of $7.50 will be able to work if there's no minimum wage and employers are offering $3.75. Because the employer will be able to hire two people for the previous cost of one person. Or, hey, even if the hourly wage was only lowered to $5, the employer could still get 3 people for the previous cost of 2 people.
So is having 1 unemployed person and 1 person making $7.50 per hour better or worse than having 2 people who are making $3.75 per hour? Both are employed in the second scenario. Both are poor in BOTH scenarios. But in the second scenario, both are employed. What does employed mean, exactly, in terms of economic benefit to the individual? We have to talk about living wages in this scenario as well.
Ok, so lets talk about that. I'd think it'd be better to be employed but making shit rather than making nothing. It's generally easier to get a better paying job with a solid work history, right? You can't skip right to manager at wallyworld...got have experience in the retail world first. So that first shit job - even if it's not actually enough to get by is a stepping stone to future raises and future better jobs.
What's the other side of the argument? That it's better to have a floor on wages, even if it leads to more unemployment because...? I guess if you're busting your ass to make not even close enough to actually get by it doesn't leave much energy to try and move on up. No time or energy for education. No money for education either, but that's true whether your underemployed or unemployed. Have to figure out daycare and transportation. There is a certain expense to working, and if you are getting paid so little that it doesn't cover that, then where's the benefit to the job?
But then I'm back to the work history thing - because I know that's a factor in lots of white collar mommies decision to keep working even if daycare eats most/all of your paycheck. You lose lifetime earning potention with those years off.
I'm kinda rambling.
How does the whole "living wage" thing fit into this anyway? Is that just a higher minimum wage?
Which didn't take into account all those minimum + ten cent an hour jobs out there.
I still don't understand how these can exist at all, since employers will only pay as much as the government requires them to. That's what this discussion is about, isn't it?
I don't think that people who are opposed to the minimum wage are pro-more-poor people though. In fact just saying it sounds ridiculous. yes, Caden is opposed to the minimum wage because she thinks that what we need is more poor people.
In her first post she outlined that the economic theory behind her stance is that a minimum wage leads to more unemployement. Therefore...more poor people. If you disagree with that, then fine, but painting it as if she (and everybody else on her side) are just dandy with people starving in the gutter is a little over the top.
Thank you! I'm tempted to accuse the other side of being pro-superficial analyses if they seriously think the minimum wage is what results in fewer poor people.
yes, thank you wawa. Now, we are back to emotional and being put on the defensive in a silly argument. Of course people don't want others to be hurting or poor or whatever.
Which didn't take into account all those minimum + ten cent an hour jobs out there.
I still don't understand how these can exist at all, since employers will only pay as much as the government requires them to. That's what this discussion is about, isn't it?
But I think you can take the market pressure to give raises seperately from the market pressure on starting or overall wages. (at least to an extent. Obviously you can top out your market if you never get promoted) Regardless of what you are actually paying - if you want to keep the people who don't suck you have to give them a raise now and then. So with a minimum wage that means they get bumped from 5.50 to 5.75, but without a minimum wage that might mean they get bumped from 2.50 to 2.75. Every position is going to have a range - the mimimum wage pushes that entire range up, but I don't know that it compresses it very far.
so people making 25 cents more an hour than mimimum still have a wage based on minimum wage.
I still don't understand how these can exist at all, since employers will only pay as much as the government requires them to. That's what this discussion is about, isn't it?
But I think you can take the market pressure to give raises seperately from the market pressure on starting or overall wages. (at least to an extent. Obviously you can top out your market if you never get promoted) Regardless of what you are actually paying - if you want to keep the people who don't suck you have to give them a raise now and then. So with a minimum wage that means they get bumped from 5.50 to 5.75, but without a minimum wage that might mean they get bumped from 2.50 to 2.75. Every position is going to have a range - the mimimum wage pushes that entire range up, but I don't know that it compresses it very far.
so people making 25 cents more an hour than mimimum still have a wage based on minimum wage.
This is the problem I have with Y4M's 3% of people making minimum wage. It's a misleading statistic. As mentioned, if you factor in the jobs that pay minimum + .50cents or $1, I'll bet you are looking at a much higher percentage. In my small towns, like the one I lived in Florida, a good 50% of the jobs dance around the minimum wage mark. Nobody wants to be the job that only pays minimum wage.....so they pay a little bit above it. So while a small percentage are working for actual minimum wage, a very large number of people are working for wages that are based off minimum wage. And this is something that seems to be ignored by economic experts.
I think it's so naive to assume that taking away minimum wage is not going to make those jobs wages plummet. So yeah over time, the cost of goods fall a little. All people's jobs feel the ripple effect and start to fall. We're all in this together right? No. We are lucky enough that my DH and I could take a small hit to our income and we'd be fine. The cost of goods falling would not have that big of a postive impact on us. I mean, we aren't talking the cost of groceries falling in half right? We're talking a few pennies here and there? But for the guy who was making $7 and is now suddenly making $5 an hour, that's a huge difference. I think the states would really have to brace themselves because there would be a huge rise in the need for gov't assistance. Huge. And the people I know who are against minimum wage are absolutely not for the current amount of assistance the gov't gives, let alone more.
I really think that those of us with higher education working our desk jobs get really far removed from how many people live. Even a $1 an hour drop would hurt a lot of people.
This economic stuff is why I have no damn party. I'm like a little puff of dandilion fluff...any logical argument can push me here and there and I can usually see both sides. I wish the economy was less freakin' complicated so it was easier to pin down what actually helps and what actually hurts.
I hear ya. I'm open to whatever is solution is going to work the best. But any solution that can potentially make the lowest economic group even poorer, I just cannot get on board with. There is no way on God's green earth that wiping away minimum wage is going to be the crapshoot that people like the guy I know says it's going to be. "Oh hey wages can go up or they can go down. The market will set the price". mmmmm yeah. Business owners wouldn't be fighting to eliminate min. wage if they thought the wages could go in either direction. They want it gone so they could pay their employees less.
And the scenario of one person making $7 an hour versus 2 people making $3.50 an hour depresses me. These are the choices? Neither are good.
Again, yes it does b/c of the effect the min wage has on unemployment. See y4m's previous post on who really makes the min wage.
Which didn't take into account all those minimum + ten cent an hour jobs out there.
...via mobile.
I guess my point was that unless we are talking about any scenario where people are making more than, say, $10-$13 per hour, we are missing the point, in the end. The squabbling over $7.25 vs. $4 just doesn't compute in the real world. Shit pay is shit pay.
I'm not even saying here that I'm for a minimum wage or whatever scenario. I'm just talking about reasonable expectations of any plan being presented here. Hell, you show me how the free un-unioned market is gonna make every worker in America make over $10/hour and I'll sit and listen all day.
Which didn't take into account all those minimum + ten cent an hour jobs out there.
...via mobile.
I guess my point was that unless we are talking about any scenario where people are making more than, say, $10-$13 per hour, we are missing the point, in the end. The squabbling over $7.25 vs. $4 just doesn't compute in the real world. Shit pay is shit pay.
I'm not even saying here that I'm for a minimum wage or whatever scenario. I'm just talking about reasonable expectations of any plan being presented here. Hell, you show me how the free un-unioned market is gonna make every worker in America make over $10/hour and I'll sit and listen all day.
There's shit pay and then there is shittier pay. There are loads of single moms and people trying to support families on that $7. Lowering it even to $6 would have a HUGE negative impact on them. I think that is what is being overlooked. For people in the lowest income bracket, every dollar does count. It's dismissive to say, "Well so you used to make $7 now you make $5. Poor is poor. You're no worse off."
Unless I'm totally misreading you then feel free to correct me.
I still don't understand how these can exist at all, since employers will only pay as much as the government requires them to. That's what this discussion is about, isn't it?
But I think you can take the market pressure to give raises seperately from the market pressure on starting or overall wages. (at least to an extent. Obviously you can top out your market if you never get promoted) Regardless of what you are actually paying - if you want to keep the people who don't suck you have to give them a raise now and then. So with a minimum wage that means they get bumped from 5.50 to 5.75, but without a minimum wage that might mean they get bumped from 2.50 to 2.75. Every position is going to have a range - the mimimum wage pushes that entire range up, but I don't know that it compresses it very far.
so people making 25 cents more an hour than mimimum still have a wage based on minimum wage.
Actually, in California, the law is that all exempt employees must make at least twice minimum wage.
So even salaried employees in California kind of have a wage based on the minimum wage. Because they have to even out to $16/hour, which means their starting salary for full time employment needs to be $33280. All based on the fact that CA minimum wage is $8/hour.
But I think you can take the market pressure to give raises seperately from the market pressure on starting or overall wages. (at least to an extent. Obviously you can top out your market if you never get promoted) Regardless of what you are actually paying - if you want to keep the people who don't suck you have to give them a raise now and then. So with a minimum wage that means they get bumped from 5.50 to 5.75, but without a minimum wage that might mean they get bumped from 2.50 to 2.75. Every position is going to have a range - the mimimum wage pushes that entire range up, but I don't know that it compresses it very far.
so people making 25 cents more an hour than mimimum still have a wage based on minimum wage.
Actually, in California, the law is that all exempt employees must make at least twice minimum wage.
So even salaried employees in California kind of have a wage based on the minimum wage. Because they have to even out to $16/hour, which means their starting salary for full time employment needs to be $33280. All based on the fact that CA minimum wage is $8/hour.
Interesting. Not surprising. I think a larger percentage of salaries, while not actually minimum wage, are in fact based off minimum wage. So dropping min. wage would affect more people than we realize. Honestly even if it didn't effect those with higher salaries, the fact that someone who is scraping by now would make even LESS money is enough for me to oppose it.
And as pointed out early on in this thread, 70% of our economy is consumer based. People having less money to spend will effect all of us. I don't know what the answer is here other than like I said earlier, don't hike min. wage for now, but damn don't eliminate it either. I just don't see good coming from it.
There are loads of single moms and people trying to support families on that $7.
The BLS statistics I posted earlier suggest that this is not an accurate picture of who actually earns minimum wage.
The statistics aren't accounting for people who earn just above min. wage though. Show me a statistic that shows people who earn $8 an hour (a little above min. wage) and I'll show you tons of people who are living off of that.
Are there people who doubt this? I don't care what the numbers say. Are we sitting so high on our upper class clouds that we don't know there are people supporting families on wages that are just above minimum? And more importantly, they are supporting them on wages that WOULD fall if min. wage was eliminated?
There's no way anyone could convince me that eliminating minimum wage would only affect those who are making exactly minimum wage. Come on now. Tell me that is not what you are saying.
Quick Google from business insider. Half of Americans make less than 27k. There is no way that eliminating min. wage would not affect those jobs that pay a few dollars above.
There are loads of single moms and people trying to support families on that $7.
The BLS statistics I posted earlier suggest that this is not an accurate picture of who actually earns minimum wage.
This chart shows that 1,777,000 women in the US with no spouse present, with children under 18, make under $10k per year. Frankly, if they were working full time and making minimum wage, that would be an improvement.
But if you make minimum wage you are poor, yes? The debate of minimum wage vs. none doesn't really address the poor people problem.
And the debate of making minimum wage a living wage only begins to address that. Even if you make *just* a livable wage and work only 40 hours a week you are still pretty poor.
Again, yes it does b/c of the effect the min wage has on unemployment. See y4m's previous post on who really makes the min wage.
So the takeaway is that it would be better to have two workers making $3.50 than one worker making $7 and one worker making $0?
I'm not really sure about that, since it seems it would then be two people who are dreadfully poor and will be dependent on the government. But beyond that - what's to keep the owner from paying the two workers $2 an hour?
I guess my point was that unless we are talking about any scenario where people are making more than, say, $10-$13 per hour, we are missing the point, in the end. The squabbling over $7.25 vs. $4 just doesn't compute in the real world. Shit pay is shit pay.
I'm not even saying here that I'm for a minimum wage or whatever scenario. I'm just talking about reasonable expectations of any plan being presented here. Hell, you show me how the free un-unioned market is gonna make every worker in America make over $10/hour and I'll sit and listen all day.
There's shit pay and then there is shittier pay. There are loads of single moms and people trying to support families on that $7. Lowering it even to $6 would have a HUGE negative impact on them. I think that is what is being overlooked. For people in the lowest income bracket, every dollar does count. It's dismissive to say, "Well so you used to make $7 now you make $5. Poor is poor. You're no worse off."
Unless I'm totally misreading you then feel free to correct me.
Well you were just repeating what I was saying, sorta. I guess my frustration, using your example, is don't sit here and tell me the problem is solved by raising the $7 to $8, either. Yeah I get that it helps- if it were up to me minimum wage would be more like $12.
The statistics aren't accounting for people who earn just above min. wage though. Show me a statistic that shows people who earn $8 an hour (a little above min. wage) and I'll show you tons of people who are living off of that.
First of all, of course there are people who make a bit above the minimum wage. The minimum wage is purposefully set at just below what many low-skilled workers are paid. Secondly, no there are not tons and tons of people working full-time, year round and making $16K a year ($8/hr, 40 hrs, 52 wks). According to the link below (3rd file), the average earnings for a man working full-time, year-round with NO high school diploma was $33,194 (2009 dollars). For women it's $23,478. We all know it's difficult to find a job w/o a HS diploma. Just finishing HS alone results in a jump in average earnings to $43,140 and $32,227 (men and women). That said, I don't think anyone is arguing that a sudden decrease in wages wouldn't hurt anyone. Any change like that would be difficult, though probably not a long-term problem. But we can't say that's what would happen immediately. I'd have to see some case studies of what happened after the min wage was removed, probably in other countries since I don't think it's happened here, unless you count inflation nullifying the min wage's effects. We do know that unemployment and underemployment is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, characteristic of people in poverty. And we know the min wage disproportionately and negatively affects the employment rate of low-skilled, low-educated, young people (aka those most likely to earn the min wage). So to suggest the min wage actually helps people in poverty is completely assbackwards.
That said, I don't think anyone is arguing that a sudden decrease in wages wouldn't hurt anyone. Any change like that would be difficult, though probably not a long-term problem.
It wouldn't have to be long term. For most people a dip in their wages would hurt them immediately. What's the statistic about people living paycheck to paycheck?
I think we can all agree that while only a small percentage of people are making exactly minimum wage, there are many people making just a few dollars above that. Right? In the south, it's extremely common for people to work full time jobs making $10 an hour or less.
Can't we all agree that pulling the rug out and wiping away minimum wage, would throw all wages into a tailspin? While it most likely wouldn't affect those making 70k, 80k a year, I just don't see how it would not affect those making $ 9-12 an hour which is a lot of people. Where is this place where most people aren't working for close to minimum wage? Because it's not the south, I can tell you that. In the south, if you don't have a degree or some kind of trade, you can plan on making a few dollars over minimum wage for most jobs.
example, I can't tell you how many people, who I'd classify as middle class, used to act like my job that paid $15 an hour was a big deal. This was back in 2002. $15 an hour is 31k a year. Definitely not rich. That was in Florida. It's not that much better here in central VA. Outside of major cities, a $10 an hour job is very common in small town USA.
And we know the min wage disproportionately and negatively affects the employment rate of low-skilled, low-educated, young people (aka those most likely to earn the min wage). So to suggest the min wage actually helps people in poverty is completely assbackwards.
Minimum wage affects employement only because as pointed out before....the company that has one person working for $8, now can have two people working for $4. Is this how those with economic degrees think we can solve unemployment? Not you. Just in general. Because that is a shitty solution.
I don't think minimum wage helps people in poverty. But I do think taking it away will hurt. There is a big difference. For the simple fact that less money=the poor getting even poorer.
What helps people get out of poverty is education and learning a true marketable skill. But the same group that wants to disband minimum wage also wants the gov't to get out of the business of helping the poor attend college. They feel one should only get as much education as they can afford. Which for the poor means getting nothing.
This is why the right is accused of class warfare. No minimum wage, no gov't assistance, no help with college. How is this not keeping people poor? It is not beneficial to anyone, even the wealthy, for people to live in poverty.
I wouldn't have to be long term. For most people a dip in their wages could hurt them immediately. What's the statistic about people living paycheck to paycheck?
I think we can all agree that while only a small percentage of people are making exactly minimum wage, there are many people making just a few dollars above that. Right?
Can't we all agree that pulling the rug out and wiping away minimum wage, would throw all wages into a tailspin? While it most likely wouldn't affect those making 70k, 80k a year, I just don't see how it would not affect those making $ 9-12 an hour which is a lot of people.
No we don't all agree on that. On what are you basing this assumption? I just provided a link with the earnings data, and it says no there are not tons of people making just above the minimum wage. y4m posted this earlier as well. I'll wait patiently for all the examples of economic tailspins caused by the lack of a labor price floor.
Minimum wage affects employement only because as pointed out before....the company that has one person working for $8, now can have two people working for $4. Is this how those with economic degrees think we can solve unemployment? Not you. Just in general. Because that is a shitty solution.
It's a lot more complicated than that b/c the minimum wage affects people moving from industry to industry, not just minimum wage job to nothing, plus non-cash bennies like on the job training and help with child care. As I've said numerous times, we can look back in our own economic history and that of other nations with little to no minimum wage and see that the lack of a min wage did not result in the masses being mired in jobs that pay almost nothing. The benefit to working for a smaller wage over being unemployed is very important. It provides a person with marketable skills from which he can improve. Generally people increase their wages over time until retirement, so if one is unemployed as a youth that means they not only lost out on the actual income they would have earned, but they lost those years of creating their wage base and building upwards on it, and statistically they will not make it up. They will lag behind their age-counterparts who did work as youths.
What helps people get out of poverty is education and learning a true marketable skill. But the same group that wants to disband minimum wage also wants the gov't to get out of the business of helping the poor attend college. They feel one should only get as much education as they can afford. Which for the poor means getting nothing.
College isn't necessary to get out of poverty. A high school diploma is. No one is trying to stop the poor from going to college. We're trying to reform the way college is funded in an attempt to stop the out of control cost escalation that comes with easy credit, price discrimination etc etc etc. I'm so over the argument that if you don't support a particular policy that means you don't care about the entire issue or the people it affects. It's absurd. It's as stupid as creating policies based solely on intentions instead of examining the incentives a policy creates and its results.
This is why the right is accused of class warfare. No minimum wage, no gov't assistance, no help with college. How is this not keeping people poor? It is not beneficial to anyone, even the wealthy, for people to live in poverty. So basically you gleaned nothing from this thread. Sigh. I'm done.
26% of the US workforce makes under $10.55 an hour.
So, yeah. Remove the minimum wage, and those are the wages that drop like stones. 26%.
and though we like to talk about kids flipping burgers, those $10 jobs st just as likely to be in healthcare as in fast food. Health aids are paid shit.
I'm not sure why but I'm hard pressed to believe companies would magically decide to pay already hired employees pennies if minimum wage were removed. I can't say they'd pay the new guys the same as the currently employed but how often do employers decrease someone's pay? Their hours, yes but pay rate?
26% of the US workforce makes under $10.55 an hour.
So, yeah. Remove the minimum wage, and those are the wages that drop like stones. 26%.
and though we like to talk about kids flipping burgers, those $10 jobs st just as likely to be in healthcare as in fast food. Health aids are paid shit.
...via mobile.
Thank you.
Caden, what I gleaned from the this thread is that statistics can be bullshit. I don't care what it says in the links you posted. I know for a fact that in the south, where I've lived for the past 20 out of 23 years, I'd say a good 30%-40% of people making $10 and hour an under. I think the numbers you posted are including jobs in large cities which is driving up the numbers of how much people make.
We are really going to argue that there aren't people supporting families where both husband and wife are making only a few dollars above minimum wage?
College isn't necessary to get out of poverty. A high school diploma is.
Caden please tell me where you live that one only needs a high school diploma to be successful and will make way above minimum wage. Honestly I'm not trying to be an asshole. Look at Indeed.com under central Virginia if you think I'm kidding. And VA is one of the higher paying southern states.
Because I was on my phone, it was impossible for me to c&p this...
From the Economic Policy Institute.... it's an analysis of below-poverty-wage workers from 2009. $21,654 a year, or $1055/hr. Ironic, that... if the minimum wage from 1968 had kept up with inflation, it, too, would be $10.55 an hour.
It's not all high school kids flipping burgers. It's not people being dillatantes, it's people working to survive. It's a massive segment of our economy that would be, IMHO, devistated by the elimination of the minimum wage.
here we go. a chart. I'm sure I'm going to hear about it.
ETA: if you click on the image, you can expand it. or you can just look at it by clicking here: tinyurl.com/9vmn63b
Caden, what I gleaned from the this thread is that statistics can be bullshit. I don't care what it says in the links you posted. I know for a fact that in the south, where I've lived for the past 20 out of 23 years, I'd say a good 30%-40% of people making $10 and hour an under. I think the numbers you posted are including jobs in large cities which is driving up the numbers of how much people make.
So... basically her statistics aren't as good as your own private statistics. You personally know 100% of the people in the south, and that 3 to 4 of every 10 people you know are making $10 and under?
This is amazing. But let's go with your numbers, by all means.
Caden is an ignorant heifer who hates poor people. Or loves poor people and thinks they are the salt of the earth or something as she wants more of them or something.
You know, I'm just confused by the last few exchanges, tbh.