A Possible Solution for Wall Street Protestors?


Taken from digitalburg.com

The “Occupy Wall Street” protest is quite interesting to me. On one hand, I understand and agree that something is wrong with any nation where greed goes unchecked. At the same time, some of the solutions I’ve heard only take one tyrant (an oligarchic Wall Street) and replace it with another (an authoritarian Washington). If the movement is to achieve anything worthwhile and noteworthy of change, it should be towards creating a more stable economy while also furthering freedom, not in taking one dictator and replacing him with another dictator.

With the above in mind, rather than sitting and complaining about the greed in Wall Street (or Washington for that matter), I’d like to offer a few practical solutions for CEOs to follow as well as a few idealistic solutions. First, with the practical solutions:

  1. For employees with a minimum of 6 months employment, offer them a profit share in the company – this is best accomplished via buying or giving employees stock. While I’m not sure on the laws, giving employees stock in the company for achieving certain goals makes them part owners and spreads the wealth of the company to those working for the company. For instance, if you have a store that is performing at 40% guest satisfaction, you could promise every employee x amount of stock if they increase that to 50% guest satisfaction. This would allow employees to take ownership of the company and give them something more than an hourly wage or the promise of a raise. While this cuts into the take-home profits for CEOs (temporarily), it creates a happier workforce, which in turn could actually increase profits; after all, no one works harder than a business owner, so if you can turn your entire workforce into co-owners of your company, then why not?Let us also not forget that not every employee will be enticed by the above offer. Yet, this shows the strength of the suggestion – if an employee is still lethargic after being offered a co-ownership of the company, then he’s probably not fit to work at your company. Thus, the above program offers a way to weed out employees who could potentially bring down your business. You end up receiving a workforce who wants to be there, who is motivated to be there, who is qualified to be there, and who shares in the successes of the company.
  2. Celebrate a “jubilee-type” income (give away your income every 7 years). Many executives make upwards to a million dollars after benefits; many others make far more than that. Thus, it isn’t too much to ask them to show some frugality in saving up their income for 6 years and on the 7th year donate every penny of income that year to charity, to employees who need help, or back to the company. For those who make quite a bit of income this charitable spending goes a long way towards helping those who are less fortunate. At the same time, on the practical level, it elevates one to near sainthood in the media and among the masses; who can complain about corporate greed if you’re giving away your income every 7 years, especially if you’re giving that back to your employees as a bonus?
  3. Always give away more than 50% of your income after tax (this is for those bringing home a substantial income). While you could give away your income every 7 years, another thing to help dispel the belief in corporate greed is to give away 50% or more of your net income. Again, not all CEOs of all corporations will be able to do this (some corporations are small, thus some CEOs really do not make that much). But for those who are bringing home well above half a million dollars, living off half the net income isn’t asking that much; it’s still much more than what the average American has to deal with. Again, by giving away your personal income, who can protest you or call you greedy?
  4. Give back to the company, especially to help the most underprivileged of your employees. When giving back your personal income, one thing to look at is possibly setting up a charitable program within your own company to help your employees. One company – Darden – has set up a program called “Darden Dimes” where employees can donate as little as 10 cents of each paycheck towards the program. If an employee within the Darden company needs help, they can receive a prepaid gift card to help them through a troubled time. If all companies did this, with CEOs pumping hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars into it every year, this would increase employee satisfaction and faith in the company. This, in turn, would increase guest satisfaction (because guests would walk into a happier environment), which in turn would increase overall profit.
  5. Give back to the community, especially in education ventures. Imagine if the richest of Americans offered to help people with medical bills, or finding jobs, or building up lower income housing to help those in the area. We complain about welfare, government spending, and the like, but what if the richest of Americans took their money and invested it into private ventures that addressed issues related to the poor. It would render the government to a secondary role for those in extreme poverty; in other words, the government wouldn’t have to spend as much, meaning they wouldn’t have to tax people as much, meaning the whole debate about cutting spending or raising taxes could cool down a bit. While there isn’t enough money in the world to fix these problems (there will always be those in poverty), if every American who makes over half a million dollars a year donated to these private organizations in a substantial fashion, perhaps it could help alleviate and reduce the problem.If one were to choose where the money would go, I would argue that it should go into reshaping and reforming our educational system. Put money into programs that actually teach students rather than prepare them to take a government-issued test. Put the money into programs that help us reform education so we’re producing thinkers and not test-takers. Remember, all of these students aren’t just future consumers, but future employees; if they don’t know how to think now, they’ll make for bad employees in the future, which will ruin profits in the future. Thus, it makes sense to invest in them now so you can make more later.

Along with the practical solutions (ones that are driven by profit motive), there are some idealistic solutions I would offer. These, of course, are harder to obtain, but would naturally cause greed to disappear.

  1. Recognize that you will be held accountable for your actions, in this life or the next. Though a belief in God exists for the vast majority of Americans, acting as though God exists seems to be passé. However, God does exist and He will hold you accountable for how you’ve spent your money. One can look to the Scriptures and see that there are over 1,000 verses concerning poverty; half of those condemn those who do nothing to help it or make money off the impoverished. For the richest Americans, especially those who attend church on a regular to semi-regular basis, do understand that how you treat the poor will weigh heavily in the coming judgment.
  2. Recognize that the happy life is one of virtue, not one of vice. All humans pursue happiness, of this there is no doubt. What we define as “happy,” however, differs amongst humans. In our modern world, we tend to think of material things as being happy, and it’s true they can bring temporary happiness, but they do not resemble true happiness. Think of it this way – when you were younger you wanted that cassette player so you could be happy. If you got that same cassette player now, would you be just as happy? Of course not, because it’s out of date. Thus, happiness based on material items is constantly in flux, never satisfied, and always seeking; one is never truly happy because one is always seeking after the next change. Rather, true happiness is found in the pursuit of virtue and the obtaining of virtue. True happiness is found in the things that do not change, not in material wealth, which is always in flux.
  3. Recognize that material wealth will bring you nothing. The world has lost many millionaires to death; in fact, to date, every single millionaire or billionaire that has lived has also died. We can think of the recent tragic death of Steve Jobs, who in spite of his millions, still passed away (as a side note, Jobs serves as an example of a CEO who had a giver’s heart). Your wealth will not follow you, nor will it follow your children, nor will it follow your children’s children. At some point, your wealth will run out; and no matter what, it cannot save you. It may prolonge your life, but it will never prevent its inevitable end. So why pursue that which is temporary? Why not use that which is temporary for eternal gains? Why not build a legacy of giving, or helping people, of helping a community, of helping a society, and in so doing establish an eternal legacy that will never end?
  4. Recognize that living a good life is far more important than living a material life. The best things in life are so expensive that they can’t be bought. Having a big screen TV or the best car is nice and makes life easier, but it’s not nearly as good as having a family to come home to. Living in a multi-million dollar mansion is wonderful, but it’s minuscule compared to helping out someone who is desperate for help. The good life is the one lived in pursuit of true happiness, of a happiness that is good in and of itself; the good life is the one lived in service to others.

It is my hope that someday we’ll live in a society where these principles are put into practice. It is my hope that the problem will fix itself. But from what I’ve studied in history, it seems rather sad that in order to fix the problem of our current oligarch, will turn to a different type of tyranny and suffer all the more for it. 


Advertisements

3 thoughts on “A Possible Solution for Wall Street Protestors?

  1. Joel,
    There is no one in my mind that is more equipped in philosophy, theology, history and ethics than you. With that said, when it comes to economics, and how capitalism works, or should work, you are not as understanding of economics as you may think. That is not an insult because as it compares to most people, you are miles down the road, but some of your views, while noble, are not realistic nor are they biblical, to a degree.
    Let’s look at what we do agree on and which is realistic and doable:
    1. Virtue capitalism- Agree, the fact that the wealthy be they individuals or corporations, should look to ways to help the widows, orphans and “legitimate” poor. I say legitimate as I personally would not wish to give to the poor who are either lazy, use their funds for substance abuse, or hope to live off others or the government. Scripture does say if you do not work you do not eat and there is scripture about the sluggard, etc.
    2. Wealth is allowed by God- Whether one is a Christian or not, I think ultimately God is the one who allows a person to become wealthy. Bill Gates is a billionaire and also a self-proclaimed agnostic. Nonetheless, God gave him the mental capacity to develop a program (Microsoft) and that took off, as history has shown. Though Bill Gates has pledged to give away most of his money when he dies, some of that will go to causes that have nothing to do with people.
    3. People come first- If one is going to share their wealth you give contributions to help a person that is great. When they give away money to causes like save the whales, baby seals, environment, etc, that I have a problem with.
    I am sure that we agree on a few other points but let’s move onto where we disagree or that I think you are wrong.

    1. “For employees with a minimum of 6 months employment, offer them a profit share in the company – this is best accomplished via buying or giving employees stock. While I’m not sure on the laws, giving employees stock in the company for achieving certain goals makes them part owners and spreads the wealth of the company to those working for the company” There is a vast difference between stock in a company and profit sharing. Neither stocks or profit sharing provide a person with any ownership in a company. If you have stocks in Wal-Mart, if you own 1000 shares of stock in Wal-Mart and they sell for $65.00 dollars a share, you have a value of stock worth $65K. It does not mean you own any percentage of Wal-Mart, you own a percentage of the value of their stock. Before you can own this stock, you have to invest. Therefore, as an investor, you want the company’s stock value to rise. The only way for the stock value to rise, is for the company to increase their net earnings. If, you are slapped with higher than normal wages, higher than normal health-care costs, increased cost of product and or operations, the less you earn in net earnings. The less you earn in net earnings, the less value of the stock. Ironically, stocks are offered to every Wal-Mart employee and trust me when I tell you that they all pray that the stock value rises. The stock, for the most part, will be used as part of their retirement program.
    Profit sharing, which has greater value to making sure the employee performs, is not ownership. If a company has a net profit of 1 million dollars and the employees are offered a percentage as a group of the profits, then that is what they get, there is no title to ownership passed over to the employee. Here again, the employees are going to keep the overhead costs down as much they can, the less overhead and cost of good (COG’s) there are, the more net profits they (the company) have to share with the pool of employees. Also, profit sharing is usually doled out as a percentage and normally “suits” executives get more than hourly for various reasons. I personally think that with profit sharing, it should be based on performance, not on percentage for a group. What if you worked your butt off and in fact saved the company money and old Johnny over here works his 40 and no more, does not go out of his way to help the company grow and become more profitable. He is an okay employee but nothing like you. When profit sharing checks go out, he gets the same as you, you are not going to be too happy, and you shouldn’t be. It’s the same concept of you getting an A in class and everyone else getting a C, but to be fare that equal the grade out because of you’re a. In other words, you carried the class and helped them get a better grade off your hard work and their laziness.
    2. Celebrate a “jubilee-type” income (give away your income every 7 years). Okay, I’ve struggled for 9 years now. I have poured many hours into the company and idea that I designed and it has finally taken off. Let’s say it is a 500 million a year company, I provide profit sharing, I pay great salaries or wages, I have great benefits and I am a Kingdom company and I practice virtue capitalism and give to as many godly missions and services that I can. I also pay myself 2 million a year, have a nice home, a really good retirement for my wife and me, and even have set up trust for my sons. Now according to you, after seven years, you want me to give away all of it? Why, what did my employees, or needy individuals do to warrant such a thing and why then am I working only to support them and not my family or the areas of kingdom work that I care to do? Why should I then again start from scratch and in seven years, give away all that I have earned for that year. That’s like beating your head against a wall and stopping only for a moment because it feels good when you stop. Okay, that year 7th year, I will reduce my salary down to $1.00 and do that every 7 years. Why should I work so hard, or take something that I created and I sweat over and I lost sleep and vacation and time with family to create nurture and grow, why should I then give all in one year for the work I have done. That makes no sense.
    3. Always give away more than 50% of your income after tax (this is for those bringing home a substantial income) so now you are advocating that I give away 50% of my income (after tax). So again, using the 2 million a year salary form a company that I started and took the risk to do and labored to make it is what it is, now at the end of the year, I am to give away 50% of my net earnings. Why? What have I done to warrant such a request. Why am I being compelled to give away 50% of my income to serve what purpose. Keep in mind that when you give away, 2 things happen; 1. People become expectant of the gift and 2. It takes away any incentive for them to try to do better or work harder.
    4. “Recognize that material wealth will bring you nothing” I could not disagree with you more————-The Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation is a foundation based in West Palm Beach, Florida. According to the Foundation Center, as of 2004 it had over $404 million in assets and in that year made grants of $28.8 million. [1]] The foundation is a generous contributor to the Religious Right and other evangelical Christian causes. The foundation was created in memory of Arthur DeMoss, who was the founder, president and chairman of the board of the National Liberty Corporation, a life insurance company which mass marketed policies via television ads hosted by Art Linkletter.
    DeMoss died on 1 September, 1979, at the age of 53. Of his estate, valued at over $350 million, approximately $200 million was used to establish the National Liberty Foundation which was later renamed the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation. [2]
    Purpose of the Foundation
    In its 2004 annual return to the IRS the foundation states that grants are restricted to organizations that match the mission of the foundation, which it states is to:
    to promulgate the Christian Gospel throughout the world by any and all proper means, including, but not by way of limitation, the technical assistance of missionaries and missionary groups, the support of pastors, evangelists, missionaries, preachers and others engaged in the promulgation of the Christian Gospel, the printing and distribution of Christian literature, Bibles and tracts, and the support and operation of audio and audio-visual means of communication …” [3] (Pdf)
    The total grants given to other organisations in 2004 amounted to $23.5 million.
    In its 2004 annual return to the IRS the foundation also sets out that it has three main program areas that that it directly funds. These programs, account for $5.2 million in 2004, are:
    Power For Living : Power For Living is a project which has as its objective to acquaint as many people as possible throughout the world with the biblical account of how people can get right with God. This is done by a multi-media campaign promoting the free book, Power For Living, which is advertised on radio, television, newspapers and magazines throughout a country. The book is translated from the English edition and adapted culturally, according to the respective country. ($4.7 million in 2004)
    Executive Ministries: This ministry has as its objective winning and discipling business and professional executives to Jesus Christ. A small staff carries on this ministry in the following ways: evangelistic luncheons and dinner parties at which testimonials from Christian executives are given; individual follow-up counseling is conducted; small and large group men’s, women’s and couples’ Bible studies are held; individual follow – up counseling is conducted. ($3,435 in 2004)
    Literature for Little Ones: This is a literature and book distribution ministry designed primarily for children. Bibles, New testaments, story books and other Christian literature are given away without charge by our staff. The ministry is conducted in various ways such as in prisons, hospitals, orphanages and schools. The purpose of the project is to give children an opportunity to hear about Jesus the Savior and to help them learn biblical stories and teaching. ($556,200 in 2004). [4] (PDF, page 93).. And the National Coalition for the Protection of Families and Children, an anti-pornography group based in Cincinnati, received $2 million in 1996 and nearly $400,000 in 1997. Several anti-abortion groups have also received DeMoss money.” [5]
    Major 2004 Recipients
    In 2004 grants were made totaling $14.4 million to a wide range of U.S.-based organisations but the largest ones were to:
    • the Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) 279,020 as well as for other specific CCC projects including
    o CCC Asia Impact Campus Expansion $649,103
    o CCC Eastern Europe $2.35 million
    o CCC Haennssler $430,000
    o CCC Romania $263,162
    • Fellowship of Christan Athletes, Kansas $75,000
    • Free Congress Foundation $75,000
    • Human Life Alliance of Minnesota $96,290
    • Josh McDowell Ministry, Alpine California $530,969
    • Life Action Ministries, Niles Missouri $1,134,333
    • Moody Institute, Chicago $1,255,600
    • Prison Fellowship Ministries, $3,300,000
    • Samaritan’s Purse, Boone North Carlina ($975,495)
    • Servant Group International, Nashville Tennessee ($245,500)
    • World of Life Fellowship, Schroon Lake, NY $329,985
    • World Impact, Los Angeles $300,000
    • World Sports, Inc, Bonito Springs Florida $196,096
    The DeMoss foundation also contributed $9.1 million to a number of overseas projects comprising $956,166 to “Southeast Asia Ministries”, $1.68 million to Africa Ministries and $6.47 million to Confederation of Independent States Ministries.

    And there Joel is virtue capitalism. Yet, Arthur lived in a very expensive home, had tremendous wealth all allowed by God. Note too that he did not give away all of his money, a good portion yes, it went to a foundation that controls how the money is spent.
    Joel, your heart is in the right place and your values are without exception, but wealth and the wealthy is not as bad as you make it out to be. Remember Jesus said we will always have the poor among us. My point is this
    There are companies that took advantage of the tax payers, without a doubt. I was very much against the bail out of most of the companies, this includes some of the TARP money, but the truth is that had some of the banks not been bailed out, we would have seen a total global meltdown in the economy that would have been catastrophic. And by the way, beating up some banks I understand, but let’s leave the communities banks alone. The folks down protesting Wall Street are overwhelming Marxist and anti-capitalist, that is irrefutable. As I said before, they do not share your values other than taking from the wealthy and redistributing that wealth to everyone, whether they have earned it or not or worked for it or not. This is why we have generations, yes generations of people that have lived on government hand outs and your hard earn dollars because…… they can and do and no one has stopped it. My father had seven kids, working as a shoe store manager used to write on his check when paying income taxes, “please send me a picture of the family or families I am supporting outside of my own.”
    You are a noble person Joel, but your proposal is not rational.

    1. A few points:

      1) Profit sharing is a form of ownership because it allows the employees to take home a percentage of how well the company does. While it doesn’t make them full owners or legally co-owners (in that they cannot make certain decisions for the company), it does give them a type of ownership in that the success of the company can greatly benefit the employees. Secondly, I handled the situation of an employee who isn’t working; if he’s not working, the company can fire him. Regardless, pointing out specifics doesn’t ruin the rule, it just means the rule would need to be adjusted to each unique business. There’s no need to take a generalized rule or a broad idea and try to find the loopholes or to treat it as an absolute, when that’s obviously not my intention.

      2) If you re-read the paragraph, you’ll see that I wrote that people can keep their wealth or save up their wealth for 6 years, but anything they make on the 7th year they give it away. In other words, you keep 6 years worth of wealth, and give away an extra year. For 6 years you bring in income, and any income you bring in on the 7th year, you give it away. If you’re making $2 million a year in personal income (not business profit, so your employees aren’t touched by what happens to your personal income) and can’t afford to go one year without making that, then either you’re being irresponsible with your funds (which is unethical) or you’re giving so much away already that a 7th year “give away” would be superfluous. Either way, there’s no reason you can’t go one year without income if you’re making a 7 figure income every year.

      As for why you should, my question is why not? Yes, you’ve worked for it; but millions (billions actually) of people around the world are not in a situation where they can work for an income. They live in countries where the economy is totally collapsed, thus they rely on charity; not because they’re lazy, but because they have to. But I’ll deal with that in my next response.

      3) The reason you should give away that income is because, as Christian, it’s not your income. It’s not your money. You may have worked for it, but it doesn’t belong to you (you already acknowledged this). It belongs to God and if there is anything that is completely indisputable about Scripture, it’s that the poor are very close to the heart of God.

      Regardless, you make a poor argument against giving away 50% of your income after tax (assuming you’re not also doing a jubilee; one would not have to do both). You say that people would end up relying upon the income; to that I say, “so what?” Only two times in Scripture is a caveat created concerning the poor and those who are lazy. Every other time, however, Scripture tells us to give to the poor. In other words, there are poor people who exist who are poor because they can’t help it; in fact, that’s the vast majority of the world’s poor.

      Do you really think the farmer in South Sudan who is trying to recover his land after years of a brutal civil war in which his tribe was murdered off by Muslim invaders is poor because he hasn’t worked hard enough? Do you think the child in India who is part of the Kshudra (Untouchable) class can work his way up, but your intervention will just make him lazy? There’s an entire world out there – perhaps in America some of our poorer folk are poor because they are simply lazy. Or perhaps some of them have looked for jobs but couldn’t get them. Or they couldn’t afford the education to in turn get a higher paying job. But do you really think that by giving 50% of your net income (if you’re making a seven figure income) to charities to help battered women, single mothers considering an abortion, orphans from any number of war torn nations, homeless children in our inner cities, nations suffering from famine, or any other major issue facing this world is going to somehow harm them?

      As for why you should do it; because Christ gave you so much more, and He never took on the attitude of, “Why should I help when…” Christ gave everything and we are to imitate Christ, certainly 50% of over a million dollars after tax isn’t asking for a lot.

      4. If you re-read the paragraph, I explain quite explicitly that I’m talking about people who use their material wealth for personal gain. There are millionaires and billionaires who will give a few thousand to charities, but spend millions upon millions for a yacht. No one is saying they can’t have nice things or can’t have a yacht, but in the end what does it gain them if they “gain the world, but lose their soul”? Why not put the vast majority of our income into charities to help those who can’t help themselves?

  2. I think it’s funny when people speak about economics confidently. All of language is full of assumptions, but language about people and their money is almost nothing BUT assumptions. That’s why the government is never correct when they project how much a certain tax cut will “cost” them or how much revenue a certain program will generate. Nobody knows. And then we make further assumptions, like how we would have had a global financial meltdown if the banks weren’t bailed out. And then we assume that a global financial meltdown would be a bad thing. No clear, reasoned arguments. They’re not even possible. Just assumptions.
    That said, I think a handful of things, and they may align with some of what has been said previously, or not.
    1) Wealth is not bad. I’m not saying anybody said it was bad. I’m just saying it’s not. Or, not necessarily. Wealth means productivity. Productivity is not essentially bad either. It’s a poor word, though. If productivity means “A more thoughtful, responsible cultivation of the earth, resulting in greater yields of goods for labor” then it’s a good thing. If it means an exploitation of the soil (because all economies are ultimately about the soil) without regard for the future or the past or anything else but quarterly profits, that’s bad.
    2) Marx was right. And it’s useless to argue against him. And Nietzsche was right, too. All of history is the story of men lording over one another. The will to power is ever-present, and few are the times when men have failed to give themselves over to the will to power when they find themselves in a position to take the advantage over others.
    3) Jesus was right, too. And I don’t think he disagreed with Marx and Nietzsche (well, that’s an anachronistic way of putting it) in his evaluation of how men ARE. But I think he sets forward a different way of how men OUGHT to be. He has very harsh words for the powerful and the rich. We immediately think of the rich young ruler. “Go and sell all your possessions and give them to the poor, and come, follow me…” We might object that this instance was Jesus’ specific prescription for this specific man in this specific instance, and that such a spirit need not dwell in all wealthy men. But Jesus’ comment after the man walked away is a bit more broad, “Only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.” So wealth is not bad. But it makes entering into the kingdom of heaven very difficult. The thing to notice here is that Jesus isn’t talking about the heaven that has mansions and streets of gold that exists in the imaginations of most wealthy American Christians. He’s talking about the KINGDOM.
    4) I can’t handle when people talk about Jesus’ statement that “the poor will always be with you.” That’s contextual. It’s a rebuke to those men who still didn’t realize WHO Jesus was and WHAT he was about to do. He was not imparting some cavalier attitude about poverty; he was explaining that what the woman who anointed him had done was a good thing.
    5) Maybe we have presupposed that bigger is better to our own detriment. Ask it this way: To what end do we pursue technological and economic advancement? In a large sense this may be hard to answer. Individually, we may answer, “Well, I’m just trying to take care of my family and enjoy myself a little bit. You know, have a nice retirement, a modest home, send my kids to college.” It’s a shame that happiness and pleasure aren’t quantifiable. I don’t mean that. It’s a shame they’re not quantifiable for just a few minutes here so I can make a point, and then they would cease to be quantifiable for all of time. Ah, wish granted. Maybe the aforementioned life (house, kids, retirement, college, etc.) imparts a happiness level of 68. What if a life lived in a hut on a dirt floor, where two of your eight kids died young, and you work in the fields to scrape by a living, without electricity, but with community, love, and faith imparts a happiness level of 74? What if the Amish are happier than the “Wall Street Fat Cats”? I daresay they are. Which brings me to my last thought.
    6) A Jeffersonian economy would be better than the current Hamiltonian one with which we are almost certainly stuck. An economy with a national bank (the Fed) and which encourages primarily industry and manufacturing is an economy more likely to grow large and rich and then collapse, leaving all but the rich and powerful in its wake (including the soil). A Jeffersonian economy – one built around small agrarian communities (not large industrial cities) – may not generate quite as many dollars or billionaires, but it is more resilient, and more lasting. It doesn’t blow up the Appalachian mountains looking for coal; it doesn’t make a dust bowl by over-farming the land; it doesn’t need to bail out General Motors. The more Jeffersonian and agrarian we become as a nation, the better off we’ll be. The problem is, a Jeffersonian/agrarian economy requires hard work and its frivolous pleasures are less variegated. So I doubt we’ll ever get there.

Comments are closed.