No, Capitalism isn't a system designed to exploit the workers. You're thinking of Crony Capitalism

>No, Capitalism isn't a system designed to exploit the workers. You're thinking of Crony Capitalism
lmao

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000219
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

That's actually a very funny picture, OP.

Good job.

>im a dumb faggot that cant save his money and buy his own land and hire his own workers so ill blame the people who are willing to hire me and give me an opportunity

Wow, the left actually created a meme.

>give me an opportunity
>minimum wage
They pay you just enough to live and no more.

>im so dumb that I can only get a minimum wage job even though menial labor jobs are available at 20 dollars an hour with no experience
If the government didn't protect worthless lifeforms like yourself then natural selection would have killed you long ago.

>i'm too stupid to market myself better, or use the minimum wage job to gain experience and demand greater compensation or seek higher positions due to it

You deserve to starve.

>implying feudalism is bad
>implying you deserve to be free
>implying the freedom of the worker/consumer automatically leads to a better society because their useless lives have "value"
>implying the plebeian class will not spend his freedom jerking off to BLACKED and Anime in his moms vasement like the useless specimen he is
>allow that specimen to breed for something else than continued manual labour in a system designed to give said specimen the only value it deserves, to be a cog in the machinery created and maintained by superior ruling races
Back to the fields, thrall.

>implying capitalism is strictly right-wing

too long, didn't fucking read

No actually you are free to not do annything in capitalism.
You are free go do nothing.

You simply wont have any money, but you are allowed to do it.

Oh so you want somebody to give you some money to for food and housing?
Well then how about you do something for them then like work or some service?

Alternatively you are free to go hog wild, eat grass and berries in the forest, hunt woth a stick and be the beast you want to be.

No compulsion.

>Well then how about you do something for them then like work or some service?
What if I want to do that but they refuse to pay me a fair amount because the economy structurally provides for more people looking for work than there is work to do?

>They pay you just enough to live and no more.
If you are of any value and do benefit your company somebody else would offer you more so they could get you olinstead of your greedy boss.

If you are of no value then get fucked lol, nobody needs a worthless nigger, natural selection is good for the gene pool

>If you are of any value
Nothing has intrinsic value. Value is determined by the market. I could be the best in the world at painting cocks but unless people want them I have no value. But if people DO want pictures of cocks I am of inestimable value.

You're essentially defending a system where people's livelihoods depend on random chance. Unless you're a farmer growing staple crops you are of just as much intrinsic value as a janitor or a bum. Deluding yourself into thinking that your market value is equivalent to your intrinsic value is a recipe for disappointment.

"That's not real communism"
"That's not real capitalism"

desu the problem with the pic is that he's not going after the (((lords))) and is attacking the business owners

>because the economy structurally provides for more people looking for work than there is work to do?

By what structure?
Find some growing field with high demand and lack of specialists and get in there.
People always need something.

Underwater wrlders are paid sky high, Australia is ob the wrons side of the planet I bet you have fuckloads of seafloor cables and pipes to weld.

Shit nigger there are people who roll a bank by being good at painting WH40 miniatures.
Somebody would pay you from one to two grand to hand paint an anime figure kit (picrelated) if you can do it well.
Some niggers just make their own unique cool things and sell them.

There are all sorts of shit that people want, anything, buy a Laythe become s machinist make spare parts for vintage colletor's car. I bet somebody with an original Mustang cant find any parts to fix it, he would blow you if you made them for him.

Get good at something and sell it.
If you cant - you dont deserve to.

>They pay you just enough to live and no more.
Try getting some skills that make you more desirable. You know that's the entire point of university, right? Or go into a trade. I guarantee you Plumbers and Electricians aren't earning min wage if they operate as sole traders

>tfw we do live in a world where people want paintings of cocks

>But if people DO want pictures of cocks I am of inestimable value.

Go see what banks do furry degenerate artists roll.

>intrinsic value
If you are a high quality high intelligence person you can figure out what the people want, study it, get good at it and offer people the services they are willing to pay for.

If you cant then you suck lol.
>anime figure kit (picrelated)

Forgot picture.
Somebody has handpainted it like this and i bet for masterful work on two chatacters he got paid like 3k$ or more.

It doesn't matter how much "value" you have as a person or worker, if you work for someone else, whose primary motivation in business is profit in order to survive against other businesses, there is always pressure to cut into worker's wages. It's structural.

Leftists don't realize they have to provide value to other people. They think a jobs just exist and there is a certain amount of slots each business has for people to do some busy work then collect their stipend. They have no fucking idea how business works hence the attitude of "Why does the owner get all the profits when the employees do all the work!?!"

>the king protects the lords with military
>feudalism
>the king take it away for not paying taxes
>lords
>paying taxes
>lords
>not being military leaders, supplying forces to the king and being lords over the serfs due to being the military caste with their knights/subservient warriors

But... that's just fucking wrong. This has nothing to do with feudalism, which is the delegation of "state powers" to local warlords in exchange for loyalty from the perspective of the king. And feudalism was a very good, primitive and natural, organic social structure in an era of small-scaled local conflicts, tribal raids and banditry.

I used to be an ancap.
I almost pissed myself laughing at this pic.

Also workers had a relatively stable station in life and did not need to incessantly "market" themselves as individuals.

You can't cut the wages of people who actually have skills that are hard to come by though, otherwise they just move elsewhere. If you're a hospital and you have talented surgeons you can't slash their wages because they'll move to another hospital and you're left with no skilled surgeons.

It all comes back to having something you can provide that is difficult to get otherwise. If you're a burger flipper then yeah you're going to earn min wage because literally anyone can flip burgers and you're 100% replaceable. If you're a systems analyst who is the only person who knows how the network of a large business works then you're irreplacable and that business can't afford to lose you so your wages are rock solid.

Provide value that other people don't, it's really that simple.

If you are a valuable specialist/expert or a very skilled worker like 12axis robot milling laythe operator or a laser space welder with 15 years of experience of welding ISS and Space Shuttle together the companies will fight to get you, be the man they need.
>profits
Profits = YOUR VALUE - YOUR VAGES.
If you can make them a lot of money then they will fight to get you.

Does australia have aerospace companies?
Go lern welding totanium alloys, you will be making and fiing things that cost tens of millions and you will get paid accordingly.

>capitalism is bad because the opposite of capitalism is bad

>Does australia have aerospace companies?
No

Ahahah BULLSHIT find me one job posting paying 20$ an hour requiring no experience

>By what structure?
Look up structural unemployment. It's an extremely basic, introductory concept.

I'm done trying to discuss advanced economics by someone who hasn't bothered doing any reading whatsoever before sharting his thoughts out online.

Why do you think that your uninformed, zero-research opinion on this topic is even worth mentioning? How arrogant can you possibly be to think that it's worth anyone's time to consider? Do you think surgeons just walk into an operating theatre and "give it a go?" No? So why do you think you'll be able to make anything approaching a valuable contribution through just running your mouth until you accidentally get something right?

They'll fight to get the skilled workers they need at the lowest price possible, which fluctuates with demand. I think you're good at coping with an economic system with labor laws and organized labor/collective bargaining in place. Congratulations if you're a welder, it's a good trade (there will probably be a shortage of welders in the US in the near future)

Then find something else. There certainly is something.

AADG mason city ia 15 to start and 21 at 3 years,

>If you are a high quality high intelligence person you can figure out what the people want, study it, get good at it and offer people the services they are willing to pay for.
If we're talking about hypothetical utopias where everything always works out and goes according to plan why not just dream up jobs that grow on trees and skip the middleman, you fucking retard?

profit = revenue - expenses (your wages/salary included)

The way to increase profit (primary motive of firm) is to decrease expenses.

> Fascism isn't socialism cuz the joos aren't in control
throwing stones in glass houses etc.

>hypothetical utopia
Except it's not. It's reality. I think the problem is you've got a bit of the old dunning kruger and probably consider yourself a little bit more intelligent than you actually are. You reason "If it's this hard for me to find a decent job it must be because of the system" when in reality it's just because you're one of the many, many average and not really outstanding in any way candidates businesses have to choose from.

Truly intelligent people are almost always successful. Bill Gates sat in on classes in Harvard that he wasn't enrolled in for fun. Let that sink in.

If you want to earn money the Russian guy is 100% right. Find something people want, and provide it. It is that simple.

Id be mad if i was stuck renting and working minimum wage too.

>at the lowest price
At the highest profitable price.

If you are good amd make them a lot of money losing you would be a net loss. The other compsny would offer you more because they want to get the money you mske for them.
So if you tell your boss "The other company offered me more, raise or I leave" he will have to raise you all the way to the level at which it becomes cheaper to let you go.

You will be paid what you are worth unless your profession is saturated.
In which case go learn somethig else OR be the best in your field.

>feudalism
>bad
Lords housed the serfs, gave them the tools, allowed them to also have products of the produce of the land, had tight-knit communities and had the serfs 1/3 of the year off. Since the communities were also tight, there was no room for women to whore around, cucks weren't existent and deviants were driven off the land since these were met with shaming and punishment for the betterment of their communities. Serfs under feudalism, while not having the material abundance of capitalism led carefree and simple lives free of worries and depression plaguing society today.

>If it's this hard for me to find a decent job it must be because of the system
But I have a decent job.

>Truly intelligent people are almost always successful
This is a blindingly transparent no true Scotsman fallacy. "If he wasn't successful that means he wasn't truly intelligent." And you're telling me that I'm the one with Dunning-Kruger?

>Except it's not.
Except it is. Retraining takes time and money. The only reason you think it's easy is because the Commonwealth has things like Newstart and HECS-HELP to make it easy - because the past five centuries of social progress have led to an understanding of how society works best. You don't see all of the massive expenditure that goes into ensuring that high quality high intelligence people have the opportunity to succeed. Imagine all of the peasants living in the 1400s who would have made great airline pilots.

>If you want to earn money the Russian guy is 100% right. Find something people want, and provide it. It is that simple.
Simple =/= easy you fucking retard.

Why do I subject myself to this stupid fucking website?

Industrialization was a mistake. Chinese rulers were right not to proceed with industrialization. They saw the effects firsthand on their society with products becoming worthless because of mass production and workers losing stability in jobs because they become disposable cogs in the machine. The only reason industrialization took off in Britain is because they had colonies where they could dump their mass produce to and plunder the coffers of the colonized country. Chinese had no such luxury when industrialization was about to take off in their society during the 11th-12th centuries.

>Simple =/= easy
Who ever told you anything in life was easy?
This difficulty is the selective pressure that separates society into the classes that very strongly correlate with IQ.
>high IQ people are almost alway rich and well off
>ok people are doing ok
>retards are hobos, in prison or dead
Thats metitocracy.

How dare you speak to me.

>implying there is a clear delineation between "left-wing" and "right-wing"

>This is a blindingly transparent no true Scotsman fallacy
Not really. It's simply a decent explanation for why you might not be as successful as you think you deserve to be.

>except for all the times the pigs have come to force hermits off "government-owned" land
fucking statist scum

You ok there?
Need an ambulance?
Emergency trigger service?

>Not really
So if I showed you an objectively intelligent person that wasn't successful what would you say?

>"no such person exists"
Laughable.

>"i said 'almost'"
So you admit that environmental factors and circumstance affect people's ability to succeed - i.e. that intelligent people are enabled to rise to the top, not entirely masters of their own destiny - which cedes the argument to me.

>"he's not truly intelligent because blah blah blah"
Thus showing the fallacy.

You're essentially stating that peasants deserved to be subjugated by the aristocrats because they weren't smart enough not to be.

>"n-n-n-no well m-my ethics aren't u-universally applicable across t-time and space"
Meaning they're pathetic.

And this is why China will soon own the planet.

>people without merit hate system where merit is rewarded
wew

And with that the world will crumble. Industrialization and capitalism is just unstable by nature. It's great for owners of industries but not so for the common man. Serfs didn't constantly market themselves just to have "jobs" and support the family.

>So if I showed you an objectively intelligent person that wasn't successful what would you say?
I'd say that's unusual but not unheard of, luckily it doesn't impact my argument at all since if you go back and read I never said once that ALL intelligent people are ALWAYS successful. I said they almost always are, meaning there is quite a strong correlation between intelligence and financial success. Are there going to be poor smart people? Of course there are but it's like pointing at an African millionaire and claiming it's proof that all Africans are actually incredibly rich. Statistical outliers are just that, outliers and shouldn't be used to prove any points other than there are always exceptions to the rule

So you admit that environmental factors and circumstance affect people's ability to succeed - i.e. that intelligent people are enabled to rise to the top, not entirely masters of their own destiny - which cedes the argument to me.

This is especially relevant because in all societies other than the Enlightenment democracy in which you now reside opportunities were extremely limited based on caste or birth or any number of other things wholly unrelated to intelligence.

You can only make the argument you're making precisely because you live in a society that rejects it, and that amuses me greatly. Things like Centrelink and HECS-HELP exist precisely because without them there are people all over this great land with potential that would never be realised due to mere circumstance. You are wrong to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.

>So you admit that environmental factors and circumstance affect people's ability to succeed
Please quote the part of my post that made you believe that. Putting words in my mouth doesn't make your argument stronger, it just makes you look desperate and you dig your hole deeper.

Anyone that makes minimum wage is literally bottom 3% wage wise, and is literally to stupid to do anything with their life.

That's not even a claim, these are the people who win the lottery and then end up bankrupt and worse off than they were. They don't know how to save, they don't know how to improve themselves. They just don't know anything.

>So if I showed you an objectively intelligent person that wasn't successful what would you say?
Statistical outlier.
Some people just get hit by lightning and die. There's a factorof randomness.
Perelman just chose to be poor for example.
>So you admit that environmental factors and circumstance affect people's ability to succeed
THAT IS MY POINT!
Everybody is fighting external circuimstances, If you are better than the other guys you go further and win the game.
The smarter you are the better chances you have in any field.

I'm a giant faggotry obsessed cuck who has zero reading comprehension

Feel free to provide an alternate explanation for the objectively "truly" intelligent person who nevertheless is unsuccessful other than that he was kept from success by factors beyond his control.

You love correlation, so let's talk about the correlation between urban public transport and socioeconomic mobility. Did you know that areas with greater access to urban public transport also have greater socioeconomic mobility? But how can this be? According to you success is a product of true success to the exclusion of all else. Is it then just random chance that the universe has arranged itself so that truly intelligent people tend to live around areas with superior urban public transport?

>"but i never said to the exclusion of all else"
No, but you did object when I said that "you admit that environmental factors and circumstance affect people's ability to succeed" which necessarily means you are attempting to exclude environmental factors and circumstance, which form part of "all else" that you are excluding.

Your argument can be demolished from so many different angles it's laughable.

>success is a product of true success
true intelligence*, obviously.

> spending 3 years on one occupation to have a 21 dollar job
The absolute state of the American economy.

STEM fag here. Even the aerospace companies treat you like shit and barely pay you anything. I have to invest using my 80k a year to get anything decent. Capitalism doesn’t reward hard work anymore.

You're just not truly intelligent, mate.

> stem fag
> hasn't figured out that going into industry is a shitty life choice
Stay poor and mad.

Ah, don't worry, I have a canned retort for this: "You just have a shitty personality and can't market yourself. Make yourself stand out from the rest and actually produce more value than the other guy. Otherwise you probably don't have a high IQ and deserve what you get anyway."

>Your argument can be demolished from so many different angles it's laughable.
And yet you haven't actually managed to do anything other than knock over strawman after strawman in a vain attempt to try and counter. Really makes you think. Point out where I said that intelligence is the sole determining factor in whether someone is successful.

Also I can't help but notice you didn't quote my post like I asked and instead tried some "Well...I can't understand your argument at all so I decided to fill the blanks in my head with what I want you to be arguing so I can make my pre-canned points against it". No, friend. Address my points directly. Not what you make up in your mind. Please quote my posts directly and argue against them directly, none of this "So are you saying...*proceeds to argue against something I never said*" nonsense.

Ah, the old "I refuse to actually state my argument and just sit back and say that all your guesses are wrong," trick.

Go ahead then. If I'm misquoting and misinterpreting you why don't you actually correct me and lock yourself into a position. Tell me exactly what your argument is in your own words.

>you didn't quote my post like I asked
Fine, quote your own post. Point me to exactly where you have previously stated your argument.

The more sociopathic and vicious you are the better your chances.. Bad luck is bad luck, you can sometimes mitigate bad luck, but only someone who is a danger to the whole species can use their own bad luck to come out ahead..

Not that I know or anything.

Indeed.

>Thinking capitalism was EVER about rewarding hard work, as if "hard work" were the thing that was supposed to be rewarded.

You are rewarded based on how effectively you provide things that other people are willing to pay for or how effectively you leverage resources in investments. Society is under no moral obligation to reward you based on how much time you invested. Your time is not inherently valuable.

Nice of you to admit you're just wildly guessing, at least you're honest enough to admit you're having trouble following and understanding whats going on.

>Tell me exactly what your argument is in your own words.
My only argument so far is that intelligent people tend to be more successful in society because they are able to learn important skills that others can't. I never said that ALL intelligent people are successful. I never said that intelligence is the ONLY factor in success. There are very intelligent people who lack the social skills to actually leverage their intelligence for example. Shame for them but that's life.

If you're not getting the wages you think you deserve. Learn new skills, get a better job, be the best at what you do. If you can't do that? Then the likely answer is that you're average, you're in the middle of the bell curve. No shame in that at all, but whining about how it's the SYSTEM that's responsible for your mediocrity isn't very graceful. It's your fault. Own it. It's not the system. It's you. The cream rises to the top in capitalism, the people earning the most money are almost always the smartest among their peers. If you don't find yourself amongst them then it's not time to flip tables about how the system is against you, that's nigger behavior. It's time to engage in self reflection and think "Am I really as good as I think I am? If I am then why am I not in greater demand"

...

Why would you think I’m mad? I still get about 80k from my job and I still invest to bring that higher. Lucky for me I know someone who’s been doing it for decades and I take his advice whenever I can. Altogether, I do considerably better than most people and I’m not even 27 yet. I just hate what’s happening to my industry in regards to wage suppression. We do more and more work while we get less in return. And being good doesn’t mean shit. You just get abused more because the boss knows you can do your work faster so he throws everything at you. Your only form of compensation? You’re not first in line when the next round of layoffs come.

You are paid what you a worth.Clearly you are paid the minimum amount that a human being can be worth.

It's more a reflection of you than of the system

>My only argument so far is that intelligent people tend to be more successful in society because they are able to learn important skills that others can't
What an excellently constructed argument. Truly I cannot defeat it, because it provides unlimited semantic wiggle room.

For example, if I point out that the correlation between IQ and wealth is extremely weak you can just reply that you define intelligence more expansively than mere IQ and success more broadly than wealth. You will think that you have argued excellently by being able to avoid what appears to be a fatal blow, and not realise that such semantics are utterly irrelevant in the eyes of everyone except you.

Tell me again about Dunning Kruger?

Nail. Head.

Oh shit an unsourced graph. I am defeated. How can I possibly argue against a random graph this guy furiously googled and cherry picked to "support" his point without bothering to link the actual study?

Except industrialisation (and resultant productivity boost) results in MORE, not less, jobs over the long term.

No, that isn't how colonialism worked. Colonialism was about resources, not markets and certainly not about extracting capital from a developing market. Are you honestly so fucking retarded that you think capital flowed from the Colonies to their owners? If so, you clearly have no idea about how primary and secondary industries work. I cannot over-emphasise how retarded it is to think that capital is generated (and not consumed) by resource extraction.

Finally, the only "colonial market" which saw capital outflows was China, and idk if you know, but China was never colonised.

I hoped you'd ask.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000219

Double down again, I beg you. Ask me to provide other studies that support this one. PLEASE. It will give me further room to demonstrate how fucking stupid and out-of-touch you are.

>How important is intelligence to financial success? Using the NLSY79, which tracks a large group of young U.S. baby boomers, this research shows that each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after holding a variety of factors constant.
>Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth.
>Financial distress, such as problems paying bills, going bankrupt or reaching credit card limits, is related to IQ scores not linearly but instead in a quadratic relationship. This means higher IQ scores sometimes increase the probability of being in financial difficulty.

How much can one man take? Can I look forward to "Melbourne man commits suicide by hanging himself in his basement" in the news tomorrow?

The thing is - they crank out 200 new engineers at my uni every year. Most of those guys (and the odd girl inbetween) go straight into industry, without any questions asked.
There are other branches that may not be as prestigious as building aircraft etc. but those are starving for people with basic math skills.
We're doing this to ourselves.

Obviously there's going to be less of a correlation between IQ and wealth than there is between IQ and income when the state steals the income of high IQ earners and redistributes it to the low IQ poorfags.

Obviously there's going to be less of a correlation between IQ and wealth than there is between IQ and income when income is distributed largely meritocratically (assuming that market value = merit, which I am prepared to assume) but wealth is not due to structural deficiencies in our economic system.

>Except industrialisation (and resultant productivity boost) results in MORE, not less, jobs over the long term.
And due to this your own elites and capitalists are importing people foreign to your own all in the name of profit, materialism and "progress". Nice work.

Feudalism also guarantees jobs without all the constant job hopping and instability inherent in industrialized markets if the number of jobs open is your concern. Ordinary rank and file white and blue workers are disposable cogs in the machine in capitalist societies considering any worker can replace them. The amount of jobs was never the issue in the first place but stability of society.

You are objectively wrong. Reality itself is against you and your socialist ilk. In fact, people getting more money than what's enough to survive IS THE REASON there will never be a revolution.

Oh it's the Zargorsky one. It was discredited a while ago. Strange that it still shows up at the top of the google searches but I don't really expect you to know that. Awful methodology.

Buy his own land from whom? If he owns that land without buying it why does he own it? If he bought it then the same questions apply to that guy. Capitalism btfo

>It was discredited a while ago.
Oh shit an unsourced claim. I am defeated. How can I possibly argue against a totally unsupported random allegation this desperate blubbering retard furiously hammered out on his keyboard in an attempt to save face before quietly exiting the thread.

>Boomers
>Holding a (((variety of factors))) constant
Wow how could it possibly come to the wrong conclusion? The sad thing is that you scraped it as the first result off google and are clinging to it for dear life. IQ and income are strongly correlated.

>hunts with stick
>gets fined for poaching
>can’t pay fine
>gets thrown in jail
>free food and housing
Guess it all works out in the end.

>Wow how could it possibly come to the wrong conclusion?
Why don't you tell me how it did instead of just asking? Is it perhaps because all you have left are spurious allegations made without evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't even read the study. What's wrong, too dumb to bother paying for alumni access to journals? You did actually go to university, right? You know that tertiary education and IQ are strongly correlated, right?

>IQ and income are strongly correlated.
Yes, that's what the Zargorsky study says. You're the one who said that it was wrong. I'd assume that you meant to say IQ and wealth but you yelled at me for putting words in your mouth so instead I'll just assume that you're a fucking retard. The "strawmen" I set up for you were a better argument than your actual argument. I'm better at making your case than you are.

>The sad thing is that you scraped it as the first result off google and are clinging to it for dear life
It amuses me how absolutely desperate you are to distract from the fact that you literally cannot refute it. You will say ANYTHING to try and disguise the fact that when you asked me to source my claims I did it immediately and confidently, and when I asked you to source your rebuttal you threw a fucking shitfit.

I also find it amusing how you think it's impossible that someone interested enough in economics to bother posting in a thread like this would have read requisite material before doing so. Undoubtedly it's because in your world first comes the opinion and then comes the research. Not all of us operate like that. I actually do my reading before I do my posting. That's why I was able to reference this study immediately, and why you're still scrambling around on Google Scholar (a website you seem to know well) for someone else's rebuttal to copy-paste.

You're done, user. Pack it in.

Tell me the one about Dunning-Kruger again.

>I did it immediately and confidently
Yeah with a discredited study from 2007. Good job.

>discredited
Oh shit an unsourced claim. I am defeated. How can I possibly argue against a totally unsupported random allegation this desperate blubbering retard furiously hammered out on his keyboard in an attempt to save face before quietly exiting the thread.

P.S. I've actually been Googling for this rebuttal that you claim exists and can't find it. I'm currently looking through all the papers that cite Zagorsky's and there is no repudiation that I can see. I'm doing this because I, unlike you, value intellectual honesty. Nevertheless I can't find shit. I think that in fact you are full of shit, and the only thing discredited in this thread is right here.

Now I'll ask again - explain Dunning-Kruger to me, please. I beg you.

That pic makes more sense when you substitute feudalism with communism.
Why can't the left meme?

>fair amount
Any wage that is agreed upon and available in the free market is, by definition, a fair wage.

>samefagging

I mean, you can just admit that your station in life is because you're a brainlet. The smarter you are the more likely it is that you can offer better skills that increase your incomes, that's simple fact. If you're this upset about having a low wage it's because you have a bit of dunning kruger and unable to accept you're just worse at things than you think.

Basically all your angst comes down to you not being able to live up to your own expectations. It's not the system holding you back, it's you. If you accept that you'll be much happier in the long run. Or you can keep clinging to the idea you're the victim of an unjust world and it's just coincidence everyone smarter than you is better off than you financially, your choice.

Volunteerism is important for healthy economics.
Stop supporting kikes!

>And being good doesn’t mean shit. You just get abused more because the boss knows you can do your work faster so he throws everything at you.

Let HIS boss know that so he promotes you to his position.

"My only argument so far is that intelligent people tend to be more successful in society because they are able to learn important skills that others can't"
Nothing that you just posted is relevant to this argument.

It's just a bad ad-hominem.

>you're passionate therefore you're bitter
>you're bitter because you're personally suffering
>your arguments are biased because your suffering clouds your judgement
Transparent. Especially bad because my rebuttal of the argument rests on empirical evidence, not my personal judgement, which so far is yet to be rebutted with the same.

>If you're this upset about having a low wage
I don't. But you won't believe me, because despite having zero real evidence (inb4 "you disagree with me and that's all the evidence I need") either way it's far more convenient for you to assume a certain thing.