Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

$15 an hour minimum wageFollow

#152 Mar 25 2016 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Did the introduction of CAD software eliminate the positions in your field?

Of course it did. What a stupid question. When one person on a computer can do the work of three people with paper and ink, two of those people aren't needed any longer. And they don't magically just increase productivity by three times because the need for their labor is capped and if there was three times the demand for the design work than we would have had nine drafters instead of three.
Except that 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month. Increasing the productive efficiency of each individual worker has a very different effect on the market than simply adding more workers.
Which has nothing to do with anything. You have three people working on one project. You find a way to have one person do the work of the three. Now the only reason to keep the other two is if you are bringing in 3x the number of projects. But 3x the number of projects don't exist because, if they did, you would have already hired nine guys (three teams of three if the math is confusing you) to work on three projects simultaneously. It's not as though you were leaving two projects on the table and lamenting that if only you could find a way to triple your productivity; you were already hiring based on the available amount of work.
Quote:
That would fly in the face of everything I've seen or heard...

So you're ignorant. This should come as a surprise to no one. I work in construction. This might "fly in the face of everything you've seen or heard" but construction isn't really limited by how quickly people can draw a picture. How quickly people can put together a design is probably one of the most irrelevant parts of the time or number of projects involved.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#153 Mar 25 2016 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Part of my argument is that it's a bad idea to try to protect jobs in that manner since as the jobs become less efficient, the workers lose their negotiating power in the job market while at the same time, employers will look for less expensive methods of achieving the same business end.
Employers will almost always "look for less expensive methods of achieving the same business end" hence the jobs going out of country to vastly less expensive labor pools.

Do you think the stockholder care where the employees are? Really?


The attitude of the stockholders is "gimee the highest possible profit". If it means less profit for them to keep Americans working, their collective decision is "I don't care, as long as I get mine".

For you to think otherwise confirms my suspicions that you:

1.) lost a chuck of you grey matter at some point.

2.) are inherently evil.

Pick one.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#154 Mar 25 2016 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except that 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month. Increasing the productive efficiency of each individual worker has a very different effect on the market than simply adding more workers.
Which has nothing to do with anything. You have three people working on one project. You find a way to have one person do the work of the three. Now the only reason to keep the other two is if you are bringing in 3x the number of projects. But 3x the number of projects don't exist because, if they did, you would have already hired nine guys (three teams of three if the math is confusing you) to work on three projects simultaneously.


Sigh. And you failed to understand what I just wrote. Having one person able to do things 3x as quickly is not the same as hiring 3x as many people. Thus, the fact that you didn't just hire 3x as many people before is not indicative that you can't take advantage of the same number of people who can now work 3x as quickly.

Quote:
It's not as though you were leaving two projects on the table and lamenting that if only you could find a way to triple your productivity; you were already hiring based on the available amount of work.


And availability of work is a function of the efficiency of the workforce you are considering hiring. You really don't get this? Why do you suppose that right as industrial advances came along allowing for mass production of furniture the demand for furniture increased to consume that increased productive capability? It wasn't a freaking accident. The demand was there, but the existing production methods did not allow for sufficient price/volume numbers to match supply and demand. Once the production methods improved, that changed the calculation, allowing for that demand to push for more supply, thus allowing for more workers to be employed using the new and improved methods.

Your argument is like saying that there's no reason to introduce mass production methods for furniture because all that will happen is that the same amount of furniture will be made by 1/3rd the workers, since if the demand for furniture was higher, they would have hired 3x the people before. Um... At the risk of repeating myself, the real world has disproved that assumption many many times over. What actually happens is that process improvements actually change the market demand function itself, and act to balance out the equation.

And even if the same number are not employed making furniture, the same processes in place can employ them making new things that couldn't be made by hand previously. That's how progress doesn't destroy jobs, it increases prosperity. When we can make more "stuff" for the same hours of labor, we all win.

Quote:
Quote:
That would fly in the face of everything I've seen or heard...

So you're ignorant. This should come as a surprise to no one. I work in construction. This might "fly in the face of everything you've seen or heard" but construction isn't really limited by how quickly people can draw a picture. How quickly people can put together a design is probably one of the most irrelevant parts of the time or number of projects involved.


Um. Sure. But as I pointed out earlier, technological improvements don't just occur in one single field at a time. They tend to happen in multiple fields in parallel. You're also limiting your thinking to a single place of work, and not the entire field as whole. You conveniently ignored where I said that those jobs aren't lost and never replaced or recovered. The implication being that while firmA may decide to reduce its workforce because they can meet the same construction demands with fewer drafters, but in the meantime, the implementation of CAD software may mean that 2 other firms open up and start doing CAD work because the entry cost into the industry has lowered because of the software. Perhaps the same skills learned drafting stuff for building construction can be used for designing other things, and now there's increased demand for those other things.

There are a host of ways that labor will be utilized. But if there's one thing that does seem quite constant here, is that said labor will be utilized. That does not at all mean it'll be employed for the full lifetime of the employee doing the exact same job the exact same way. That sort of job "security" just doesn't work in a world where things change as rapidly as they do now, and frankly attempting to force it to work that way actually makes the jobs less secure over time, not more.

Edited, Mar 25th 2016 6:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#155 Mar 25 2016 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sigh. And you failed to understand what I just wrote. Having one person able to do things 3x as quickly is not the same as hiring 3x as many people. Thus, the fact that you didn't just hire 3x as many people before is not indicative that you can't take advantage of the same number of people who can now work 3x as quickly.

You asked about a specific field. I get that you erred in doing so since it's not only a field you know nothing about but also a field that doesn't work to prove what you wanted but if you have three designers, you've hired them to design. They either have projects that need designing, or they don't.

Honestly, I have no real interest in having to explain the field to you just because you made a stupid example proves my point better than it does yours. You were wrong. Sorry that makes you feel sad and defensive but what it doesn't make you is correct.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#156 Mar 25 2016 at 8:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Part of my argument is that it's a bad idea to try to protect jobs in that manner since as the jobs become less efficient, the workers lose their negotiating power in the job market while at the same time, employers will look for less expensive methods of achieving the same business end.
Employers will almost always "look for less expensive methods of achieving the same business end" hence the jobs going out of country to vastly less expensive labor pools.


If cost of labor were the only consideration, you might have a point. You're also failing to grasp that if you make the workers more efficient, then they become worth employing domestically instead of moving the jobs elsewhere.

If you try to protect jobs making dolls by hand, the employer is going to look at the cost of doll makers in the US, and the cost in China and realize he'll make more money if they're made in China. If you allow for the use of a doll making machine, in which one worker can make 10x the number of dolls per hour, he'll keep that job in the US where the cost and consistency to maintain that machine is much cheaper. And he might just realize that now his new process can out produce the Chinese dolls for a lower volume cost, so he expands his business, bringing low cost high quality dolls to market, and thus maintaining the other 9 employees.

Or... The mere existence of such automated construction equipment makes it possible to make other things than dolls, and those other 9 people are employed using that equipment making those other new things. Again, there are many ways this happens. But it does tend to happen pretty consistently.

Quote:
Do you think the stockholder care where the employees are? Really?


No, they don't. Which means that instead of pursuing a course of action which requires that they do, we should pursue one that makes that cost calculation benefit US workers rather than punish them. Adopting technology that increases the per hour productive output of a worker is how you make continuing to employ them in the US more economically viable.

What's your alternative proposal? We all sit around being mad that greedy stockholders are greedy? That seems monumentally unhelpful.


Quote:
The attitude of the stockholders is "gimee the highest possible profit". If it means less profit for them to keep Americans working, their collective decision is "I don't care, as long as I get mine".


Yes. Great. We agree.

Quote:
For you to think otherwise confirms my suspicions that you:

1.) lost a chuck of you grey matter at some point.

2.) are inherently evil.

Pick one.


I don't have to, because I don't "think otherwise". Our disagreement isn't over the notion that people who invest money in a company kinda expect the maximum return on that investment and will thus pressure the company CEO to make decisions that maximize profits. Our disagreement is over whether process improvements in the workplace is good or bad for the workers. My argument is that if we accept the premise about profits above (and we both do seem to be in agreement), then process improvements that increase the per hour efficiency of each worker, are good for the workers in the long run. Because otherwise, they can't compete at all with offshore labor sources.

That they also make the entire economic pie bigger while bringing more and better commercial products to our lives for the same cost, is just another massive benefit. The only "downside" is a purely made up one. That those who own the businesses will take a larger share of that economic pie than the workers. But in the end, the workers are also still massively better off as a result. We all get richer. The fact that some get more richer shouldn't really matter.

Edited, Mar 25th 2016 7:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Mar 25 2016 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sigh. And you failed to understand what I just wrote. Having one person able to do things 3x as quickly is not the same as hiring 3x as many people. Thus, the fact that you didn't just hire 3x as many people before is not indicative that you can't take advantage of the same number of people who can now work 3x as quickly.

You asked about a specific field. I get that you erred in doing so since it's not only a field you know nothing about but also a field that doesn't work to prove what you wanted but if you have three designers, you've hired them to design. They either have projects that need designing, or they don't.


But you're still ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room. I'll ask again:

Are you seriously arguing that since the introduction of CAD software for design, that the total demand for people to design stuff has decreased (and yes, you can adjust for population numbers if you want). We hire fewer people to design stuff (not just buildings) now that it's faster and cheaper to get a design done? That seems... unlikely.

So now that we have compute power and high level programming languages to design those old 8bit games in no time at all, the market responded by just reducing the total number of programmers in the world to keep up with the demand for 8bit games, right? Oh wait. It didn't. It took advantage of these new tools and now could bring many hundreds of times more games to market in the same time, each for far less relative time and money, and now employs probably thousands of times more programmers as a result. Just in the gaming industry alone. But oh noes! Those super skilled programmers who could sling assembly commands around like the ******* were all driven out of the industry! Not!

Quote:
Honestly, I have no real interest in having to explain the field to you just because you made a stupid example proves my point better than it does yours. You were wrong. Sorry that makes you feel sad and defensive but what it doesn't make you is correct.


Again. Your field of view is too narrow. The introduction of CAD software opened up many times more job opportunities than it eliminated.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#158 Mar 25 2016 at 8:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sure, man, whatever you want to say. You obviously know tons more about the field than I do and I don't even want to bother with your "Well, my theory is more accurate so logically,..." spiel so we'll just go with your storyline. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#159 Mar 25 2016 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
If cost of labor were the only consideration, you might have a point. You're also failing to grasp that if you make the workers more efficient, then they become worth employing domestically instead of moving the jobs elsewhere.


"We have a vastly more efficient method of making widgets, gentlemen!"

"Great, we can keep those jobs in the US!"

"Well, if we use that method in China, we can get stupid rich!"

"China, it is!"



If you think otherwise....brain damage, etc.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#160 Mar 25 2016 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Ya'll have so much more patience than me if you bothered to read all of that.
#161 Mar 25 2016 at 9:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If cost of labor were the only consideration, you might have a point. You're also failing to grasp that if you make the workers more efficient, then they become worth employing domestically instead of moving the jobs elsewhere.


"We have a vastly more efficient method of making widgets, gentlemen!"

"Great, we can keep those jobs in the US!"

"Well, if we use that method in China, we can get stupid rich!"

"China, it is!"


"Except that the new widget machine requires highly trained people to maintain it. And there aren't any in China. And it requires parts that will cost 10x as much to ship to China. And it requires that we build a new factory in China, complete with power and transportation infrastructure, which will cost 10x more than it would to simply install in our existing facility. So we could save a million dollars a year in labor costs, but will have to pay a billion dollars in start up costs to realize that. So yeah, we'll make our investment in this China deal in about a thousand years. Oh, and sir, the design for the new widget machine is proprietary and worth 100 thousand times more than the labor savings will ever be, and if we put one in China anywhere, they'll just steal it and we'll be dealing with their own companies using our equipment to out produce us in a year or so".

"Oh! Let's not do that then".

I just freaking finished saying that if labor costs were the only consideration, you'd have a point. But it's not. You do understand that the very factors in an area that make the labor dirt cheap, also make installing, maintaining, and operating expensive high tech equipment very very expensive, right? Well, no, you obviously don't. So consider this me informing you of this fact.

Do you know how long it takes to get a freaking forklift in India? Or how long it takes to run electricity to a building? Or how hard it is to keep wild monkeys out of your data center (no, I'm not making this up).

Quote:
[If you think otherwise....brain damage, etc.


In this case, thinking otherwise shows that I understand the realities of attempting to operate high tech devices in "cheap labor" areas of the world far better than you do. This is where the US has a massive economic advantage in and which can be utilized to create jobs in the US, but this is the one thing that pro-labor folks keep trying to attack. Which I find completely insane. The only thing that makes the US worker a more viable economic choice in many industries is that we can take advantage of tech and infrastructure here in the US that is not economically viable elsewhere. Certainly, not in the super low labor markets that most pro-labor folks complain about.

The brain damage approach is thinking that we can compete with cheap labor by using the same exact processes they do, only paying our labor 10x as much. I'm not sure how that makes any sense at all to anyone. We must continue to make process improvements in how we use labor. Otherwise, we *will* lose to the "pay them a few pennies a day and a bowl of rice" labor markets. If we're making products the same way that cheap labor guy somewhere else does, with the same equipment and same overhead, we lose. Period.

I get that this doesn't match the simplistic narrative most pro-labor folks want to use, but it is a fact. We win by having better workers who produce more per hour of labor, and thus can support a higher labor cost. And workers are made "better" in this context by one of two methods: Better training/skill, and/or better equipment that acts as a labor output multiplier. Arguing that we should not utilize the second method because some of the older less productive jobs might be lost is a terrible idea. Those jobs will be lost over time anyway. Better to replace them with more productive jobs that can compete, then just lose them and get nothing in return.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#162 Mar 25 2016 at 9:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The irony here is that I have some very direct experience with what passes for "high tech" in China. To say it's laughable would be to offend all of those involved in the humor industry. Without saying too much, let's just say that if what you think is true was actually true, China (the government) would not have to actually force companies to operate on their soil as a requirement to allow them to sell product in their country. Trust me. No one is opening up facilities in China to take advantage of cheap labor. No. One. Well, maybe some really really really dumb people. Maybe.

The reality is not remotely like what you think.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#163 Mar 25 2016 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
The irony here is that I have some very direct experience with what passes for "high tech" in China. To say it's laughable would be to offend all of those involved in the humor industry. Without saying too much, let's just say that if what you think is true was actually true, China (the government) would not have to actually force companies to operate on their soil as a requirement to allow them to sell product in their country. Trust me. No one is opening up facilities in China to take advantage of cheap labor. No. One. Well, maybe some really really really dumb people. Maybe.

The reality is not remotely like what you think.
Yes, dude.

No high-tech companies, say, cell phone manufacturers, whould ever open shop in China, because they make tech items from sticks and pig carcasses.Smiley: dubious
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#164 Mar 25 2016 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The irony here is that I have some very direct experience...

Hey, if you have direct experience with a field, that's all the proof anyone needs! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#165 Mar 26 2016 at 12:54 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Your highly trained people come from India, silly.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#166 Mar 28 2016 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The irony here is that I have some very direct experience with what passes for "high tech" in China.
Is it ironic because you insist people with experience are bias and untrustworthy on various topics?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#167 Mar 28 2016 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The irony here is that I have some very direct experience with what passes for "high tech" in China.
Is it ironic because you insist people with experience are bias and untrustworthy on various topics?


Kinda. I normally question the whole "appeal from authority/experience/whatever" type of arguments because they lend themselves easily to simply accepting something, not because it makes sense, but because someone perceived to be an "expert" told you. And it also lends itself to limiting yourself to only taking the opinions of experts who agree with your starting opinion, or even defining people as experts based on whether the agree with said starting opinion.

So yes, even when I do have direct an applicable experience and knowledge of something, I try to avoid using an argument of the form "X is true because I have direct experience in X, and know better than you". I prefer to attempt to make my case based on logic that does not require accepting someone else's word on the subject, but rather what makes sense from a motivation point of view. Hence, my arguments about how companies choose to employ labor in an international market revolve around costs to operate facilities that labor works in around the world, and not just "I know this because I work for an international corporation and thus know better than you". I just find the latter approach to result in dueling experts, and isn't terribly productive.

If I can start with the basic premise that businesses are in the business of making money, and then show how labor costs alone are often outweighed by other operational costs, I can avoid that process. So yeah, it's ironic that I also happen to know this directly. Um... But that does not change my actual argument at all. I've made the point many times that with some exceptions, most of the operating cost of any facility isn't the labor cost. It's actually one of the smaller costs. There are a host of factors that a business will consider when deciding where to build a plant, or an office, or whatever. Labor is one factor. But there are many others. I think far too many people just assume that low cost of labor means that jobs will flow in that direction. But that's simply not true.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#168 Mar 28 2016 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
I normally question the whole "appeal from authority/experience/whatever" type of arguments because they lend themselves easily to simply accepting something, not because it makes sense, but because someone perceived to be an "expert" told you.
So, in a discussion of astrophysics I should geve equal weight to what you say as compared to, o say, Neil deGrasse Tyson?

Because he's a biased expert?

Huh.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#169 Mar 28 2016 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji rejects authority or experience when it hurts his argument and is the first to rely on friend-of-a-friend anecdotes when his argument needs a boost. It's not any more complicated than that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#170 Mar 28 2016 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Not to mention all the so called "friends" he has discussions with about whatever topic is being discussed on the forum.

Not that I doubt their existence, I doubt they would agree to the use of the term friend, in conjunction with Gbaji.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#171 Mar 28 2016 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I normally question the whole "appeal from authority/experience/whatever" type of arguments because they lend themselves easily to simply accepting something, not because it makes sense, but because someone perceived to be an "expert" told you.
So, in a discussion of astrophysics I should geve equal weight to what you say as compared to, o say, Neil deGrasse Tyson?


If he's speaking about something specific to and applicable to astrophysics, no. But if Tyson says something like "I think that space aliens have already invaded our planet and are secretly controlling everything", the fact that he's an expert on astrophysics should not lend his voice more weight.

Quote:
Because he's a biased expert?


No. Because far too many people don't know where a person's expertise actually ends within a given subject. In the case above we're still talking about "space stuff", right? But no one should place more weight about the possibility of alien invasion based on whether someone is trained in astrophysics. More importantly, if he does make such a claim, you should look at the evidence he has (and evidence opposed) and make up your own mind. If you're just saying "he's right because he's an expert", then you're not making a good choice.

Someone being an expert on something does not mean that they should not be required to provide explanation and evidence for something they say. In fact, they should be held to a higher standard of evidence and support precisely because they are an expert. If you or I have an idea about the life cycle of stars, we can get away with just saying "I think it works like this", because no one's going to put more weight on what we think than our professional training should afford. But Tyson (or any expert) in astrophysics is just as capable of making a complete wild guess about something as we are, so we should not treat it as anything more than a wild guess unless they can provide some sort of explanation. The weight we afford to their ideas should only come about because they are knowledgeable enough to actually explain their theories and support them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Mar 28 2016 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji rejects authority or experience when it hurts his argument and is the first to rely on friend-of-a-friend anecdotes when his argument needs a boost. It's not any more complicated than that.


It's even less complicated than that. I rely on logic and reason when making decisions. If someone presents me with a good sound logical argument, I'll give what they say weight. If they just say "I'm right because I'm an expert", I put more or less zero weight in what they say. My assumption is that an expert should be able to provide a good sound logical argument for any position he takes with regard to his own field. If he can't, then there's a problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#173 Mar 28 2016 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
If someone presents me with a good sound logical argument, I'll give what they say weight. If they just say "I'm right because I'm an expert"


Being an expert doesn't prevent one from being a pompous ***.

In fact, I would say that the odds are higher that an expert is likely to be a pompous ***.

Of course, it could also be that they judge their time too valuable to waste on explaining something to you.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#174 Mar 28 2016 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Of course, it could also be that they judge their time too valuable to waste on explaining something to you.


Sure. And if it's some astrophysicist talking about his latest theory about the formation of galaxies, the rightness or wrongness of which affects me more or less not at all, then I'm not particularly worried about him spending time explaining said theory. If it's an economic theory that is being used to support an economic policy that directly affects me, then yes, I can and should expect a better explanation than "because I'm an expert". And I especially should expect a better political argument in support of said economic policy than "this expert says so!".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#175 Mar 28 2016 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
You should note that that is an extension of the "Pompous ***" theory that I posited above what you quoted. Just a variation on the mindset.

Hey, look, my time isn't too valuable (Obviously!)
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#176 Mar 28 2016 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji rejects authority or experience when it hurts his argument and is the first to rely on friend-of-a-friend anecdotes when his argument needs a boost. It's not any more complicated than that.
It's even less complicated than that. I rely on logic and reason when making decisions.

I'm sure you believe that you do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 410 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (410)