# So does the board skew left? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 25, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457 "2005-05-25T17:23:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/441 "2005-06-07T20:21:46Z")
You’re kidding us, right? How is asking people who have the money to give out more than they’d freely choose, wealth redistribution? No idea… ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/442 "2005-06-07T20:29:19Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You’re kidding us, right? > > How is asking people who have the money to give out more than they’d freely choose, wealth redistribution? No idea… Guess we’ll have to wait for someone who can handle an actual discussion. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/443 "2005-06-07T20:34:21Z")
You’re right. Anybody else want to take this guy’s spot? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/444 "2005-06-07T20:44:45Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Anybody else want to take this guy’s spot? Doubtful…I think s/he managed to pretty much alienate everyone who tried to engage him/her on this hijack (IIRC John Mace and Bricker both tried but gave up in frustration). The amount of ignorance about what Libertarians are/are not in IDCAYC’s last ‘substantial’ post is staggering. In addition, why would anyone want to ‘debate’ with an obviously hostile poster in the Pit for gods sake? IDCAYC is perfectly capable of creating a new thread on this subject in GD instead of trying to keep a hijack going on the 6th page after most posters have bowed out. Maybe Shodan will try to engage her/him…it actually is an intersting debate, though its been done several times in GD already. I’m just kicking back and watching the hands flail about. ‘Now that I’ve pissed everyone off by throwing tantrums, won’t someone debate this with me??’. Its to laugh. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/445 "2005-06-07T20:45:51Z")
Er, make that the 9th(!!) page of this thread. Gods and devils. -XT ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/446 "2005-06-07T20:49:38Z")
Well, Shodan - in answer to your question, “Are we past that point?”, it would appear that we are. I’ll still wait, though… ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/447 "2005-06-07T21:04:48Z")
**Finn** : > [@](#): > > \*You’re kidding us, right? > > How is asking people who have the money to give out more than they’d freely choose, wealth redistribution? No idea…\* Well, after the money has been made, before wages have been paid….who’s money is it? Does it belong to the boss, or to the workers? At that point the money hasn’t even been “distributed” yet, let alone “re-“ distributed. A welfare program is rightly considered wealth redistribution because the money used to pay it comes from the pockets of people who pay taxes. The economic system (market) distributes the money; the government then intervenes and _redistributes_ some of that wealth from upper to lower class. Hence the term redistribution. You might be able to argue that minimum wage laws are _wealth distribution_ programs, because they insure that low skill labor is guaranteed a certain percentage of the company earnings, but I have a hard time seeing it as a redistribution scheme. Labelling it as such would seem to imply that, by default, all company earnings belong to the company’s legal owners. But that doesn’t make any sense, because the owners wouldn’t earn money in the first place without workers. Your default assumption stacks the deck. It’s almost as if you’re arguing that wages are themselves an example of wealth redistribution, a notion which makes the concept of wealth redistribution so broad as to be meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/448 "2005-06-07T21:06:29Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Well first, that’s what I _have_ been doing, so I’m not sure what you mean by “am I willing?” Second, as to whether I want to continue, I guess that depends on whether we can do this without rancor, posturing, and arrogance, whether people are going to feign ignorance as to the obvious meaning of words and phrases, and whether people are more interested in harping on trivialities and name-calling rather than honestly addressing points. > > The problem with such discussions is that Libertarianism appears to be set up as unfalsifyable. You say, “X will happen in a free market, so we don’t need to have regulations for X”. But if I give examples of societies where X doesn’t happen, they are immediately dismissed because “it’s not a free market”. Since a utopian Libertarian society has never existed, it’s impossible (if real-world examples are disallowed) to prove or disprove the tenets of Libertarianism. Yet they continue to be held as immutable truths by Libertarians. How does one have a discussion about that? > > So why isn’t a minimum-wage law an attempt at “wealth redistribution”? The phrase “weath redistribution” implies a _taking_ of money by government, and a giving of that money to other citizens. That’s most certainly an accurate description of what occured in communist Russia and China, but it’s a little heavy-handed to describe minimum-wage laws. I wouldn’t object to classifying welfare as such, either. But minimum-wage? Nah. > > What does a minimum-wage law do? It prevents ruthless employers from abusing workers. Assuming that the MW is not excessively high (which it most certainly is not in the U.S.), an employee is EVERY BIT ENTITLED to the money that he/she earns. They are not being _handed_ the money; they are _working_ for it. See, Libertarians make the assumption that there is some _natural_ rate of pay to which “the market” will gravitate, and that employees are not entitled to anything above this “natural” rate, unless they negotiate for it. But I submit that, in the real world, conditions will naturally gravitate to “whatever people can get away with”. This is human nature. And unfortunately, what people can get away with is often unacceptable from a humanitarian point of view. > > Now, you can argue that the employer _could_ pay workers less if not for the law, and that therefore the law is taking money from them, but I find such arguments to be specious. If we disallowed any law that resulted in business owners making less money, the public good would be in serious jeopardy. And here’s where the discussion is going to break down, because I will give an example, and you will dismiss it because it’s not precisely the same situation as minimum-wage. But I’ll give it anyway: Public businesses are required to have fire exits. Sometimes fire exits result in considerable extra expense for the business. Given the horrific things that can happen when a crowded building with inadequate exits catches fire, the greater public good is served by having these laws. Is the government unfairly taking money away from business owners? I don’t believe so. Regulatory laws certainly may have the _effect_ of reducing profits for businesses, but I think it’s unfair to characterize this as the government “taking” their money. > > The Libertarian argument seems to be that the law is unfair because it forces employers to do something that they may not have to do if they were completely unfettered. But in the real world, it is IMPOSSIBLE for citizens to be completely unfettered. And here again is where the discussion is going to break down, because any example I use is going to be immediately sneered at because it’s not coming from a “free market” (which is a hypothetical construct that has never existed in the real world). If I give examples of ruthless employers who have taken advantage of workers in sweat shops, you will try to dismiss my examples: “Oh, THAT was in the past”, or “THAT wasn’t a free country like ours.” But IMO such dismissals miss the point, which is that it’s HUMAN NATURE that the strong will prey on the weak. > > The failing of the Libertarian ideal is that it makes 2 erroneous assumptions: (1) That all people will be naturally benevolent, and that nobody will ever take unfair advantage of anyone else, and (2) That all citizens have unlimited choices and opportunities. Libertarianism would work like a charm if we had 100% employment and anyone could just go down the road and get a new job at a moment’s notice. But that’s not the case _in the real world_. People _have_ found themselves in situations where they had to work to survive, and _did_ have limited options, and _were_ forced to accept brutal and dehumanising conditions of employment. In such situations, the employee is not freely consenting to the conditions, but is doing so under duress, and I believe this DOES occur in the real world, and COULD occur in the U.S., were we to allow businesses to operate completely unfettered. > > I guess what it comes down to is whether an employee is always “freely” accepting the conditions of employment. And when you get down to the bottom rung of society (and those are the ones who will be affected by MW laws), I don’t believe such is always the case. I suspect you would agree with me that laws against fraud are not “wealth redistribution”, wouldn’t you? - even though such laws result in the potential purpetrator having less money, and the potential victim having more money. But what’s the difference? The difference is that with fraud, one person deceived the other, and therefore the other person wasn’t freely entering into the agreement. Well it’s my belief that an employee who accepts a job for extremely low wages, in the real world, is often not freely entering into the agreement either. > > Is that enough description of my position for you? 😉 That’s all just bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/449 "2005-06-07T21:21:04Z")
Well, that certainly settles that! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/450 "2005-06-07T21:26:18Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Well, after the money has been made, before wages have been paid….who’s money is it? Does it belong to the boss, or to the workers? At that point the money hasn’t even been “distributed” yet, let alone “re-“ distributed. If the labor costs for a certain good/service are X without any government intervention (decided by the dreaded market and mutually agreed upon by employeer and employee), but are set artificially at Y due to an attempt to regulate minimum labor costs by fiat (without reguard to the market value of that labor with reguard to the good or service being provided), and if setting said cost to Y costs consummers of that good or service extra…then doesn’t that mean you’ve ‘re-distributed’ money from those buying said service? > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > A welfare program is rightly considered wealth redistribution because the money used to pay it comes from the pockets of people who pay taxes. The economic system (market) distributes the money; the government then intervenes and redistributes some of that wealth from upper to lower class. Hence the term redistribution. True. MW is more a backdoor tax, where consummers pay the added cost for the labor. Its a hidden way to re-distribute wealth from consummers to laborers by setting artificial minimums on the cost of labor. > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > It’s almost as if you’re arguing that wages are themselves an example of wealth redistribution, a notion which makes the concept of wealth redistribution so broad as to be meaningless. Not the wages themselves, but the artificial setting of a minimum which causes the price of the good or service being offered to rise, thus costing consummers more. Now, you can certainly argue that this is a good thing and that consummers should be willing to pay more to privide those laborers with more money (and to a certain point I might even agree, though I think there are down sides to this also…such as actually preventing more folks from working at the low end), but its hard for me to see how you could argue that this isn’t wealth redistribution. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/451 "2005-06-07T21:33:29Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Well, Shodan - in answer to your question, “Are we past that point?”, it would appear that we are. I’ll still wait, though… Well, actually I was going to express my gratitude for your substantive response. However - This is the Pit, not Great Debates, and it does sometimes happen that the expected snarkiness will derail a genuine discussion. And I am on my way out the door, unfortunately, and also the ninth page of a thread. How would it be if I started a thread in Great Debates? If you are willing to participate, I can do so later this evening. I can be just as big an asshole as anyone else hereabouts, but I don’t have to be. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/452 "2005-06-07T21:46:33Z")
Thanks, Mr. S, for another great explanation of why MW is not wealth redistribution. Still waiting for someone on the other side to explain why it _is_. I guess I’m still optimistic that someone will do something other than snipe here. > [@xtisme](#): > > MW is more a backdoor tax, where consummers pay the added cost for the labor. Its a hidden way to re-distribute wealth from consummers to laborers by setting artificial minimums on the cost of labor. I wouldn’t call it a tax either. A tax is a fee levied by the government. Not really an accurate description of MW. And I think Mr. S made a very good case for why it’s _not_ re-distribution. > [@Shodan](#): > > Well, actually I was going to express my gratitude for your substantive response. > > However - No, no - Shodan. My comment was directed at FinnAgain’s completely un-helpful snipe. I was still waiting for your response, which I was hoping would be geniune. I was hoping you’d respond in this thread, especially after your entreaty for me to address the issue, which I went to considerable effort to do. If you feel you must start a new thread, I hope that you will include an explanation of why MW _is_ wealth redistribution as part of your initial post. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/453 "2005-06-07T22:26:18Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **Finn** :Well, after the money has been made, before wages have been paid….who’s money is it? Does it belong to the boss, or to the workers? At that point the money hasn’t even been “distributed” yet, let alone “re-“ distributed. It belongs to the owners of the company. They have expenses that they must pay: electricity, supplies, taxes, leases, and salaries. But each of those are debts. The money received as income is not some sort of shared pool, owned equally by the workers and the owner. Indeed, if the company loses money, are the workers out of luck? No - they must be paid their agreed-upon salary even if the company has a losing week. > [@](#): > > A welfare program is rightly considered wealth redistribution because the money used to pay it comes from the pockets of people who pay taxes. The economic system (market) distributes the money; the government then intervenes and _redistributes_ some of that wealth from upper to lower class. Hence the term redistribution. I agree. > [@](#): > > You might be able to argue that minimum wage laws are _wealth distribution_ programs, because they insure that low skill labor is guaranteed a certain percentage of the company earnings, but I have a hard time seeing it as a redistribution scheme. Labelling it as such would seem to imply that, by default, all company earnings belong to the company’s legal owners. But that doesn’t make any sense, because the owners wouldn’t earn money in the first place without workers. Your default assumption stacks the deck. That’s exactly how it is: all the company earnings belong to the owners. They couldn’t earn money without the electricity being turned on, either, but that doesn’t give the electric company some sort of participatory share in the company’s earnings. The electric company gets paid their fee regardless of how well the company does. If it earns a huge amount one month, and loses money the next month, the electric company gets paid only what’s on the meter. So, too, with the employees: if the company is wildly successful one month, are the employees entitled to a raise? If the company loses money one month, can they refuse to pay the employees? No. The comapny earnings all belong to the owner. The owner has debts he must satisfy. Employee salaries are among those debts. But the earnings and the debt are unrelated. > [@](#): > > It’s almost as if you’re arguing that wages are themselves an example of wealth redistribution, a notion which makes the concept of wealth redistribution so broad as to be meaningless. No. “Redistribution” implies a third party. Wages are wealth distribution: an employee adds value to the company in exchange for his salary. As long as it’s the employee and the employer entering into an agreement, there’s no re-distribution. When the government forces an employer to pay more than he wishes, that’s the government taking money from the employer and giving it to the employee. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/454 "2005-06-07T22:40:46Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **Finn** :Well, after the money has been made, before wages have been paid….who’s money is it? Does it belong to the boss, or to the workers? At that point the money hasn’t even been “distributed” yet, let alone “re-“ distributed. Come on. The money belongs to the owners of the company the instant it is paid to the company. The owners then pay the bills they owe, to suppliers, contractors and workers, etc. Are you seriously implying that the money is up for grabs until somebody happens to grab it? > [@](#): > > It’s almost as if you’re arguing that wages are themselves an example of wealth redistribution, a notion which makes the concept of wealth redistribution so broad as to be meaningless. Nope. Wages are contractually agreed upon payments from one person to another. What’s wrong with calling the MW wealth redistribution, btw? The government redistributes wealth all the time. If we said wealth redistribution = bad, then you’d have to argue to end wealfare, which I for one am not doing. Farnkly, I think there are better ways to redistribute wealth than the Min Wage, but that’s another issue altogether. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/455 "2005-06-07T22:43:52Z")
Imagine the country the day before and the day after min wage laws were enacted. What was the net result? Some people had more money, and others had less. There is one and only one purpose of Min Wage laws-- to put more money in the hands of low skilled workers. Other laws have economic impacts, too, but few can be said to have solely an economic impact, by design, as do Min Wage laws. ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/456 "2005-06-08T01:58:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When the government forces an employer to pay more than he wishes, that’s the government taking money from the employer and giving it to the employee. No it’s not; it’s the government making regulations for how employers do business. To borrow Libertarian logic, nobody is _forcing_ anyone to be an employer. But if you _are_ an employer, you must pay at least minimum wage. The government did not take your money _away_, you paid it to your employee. The government _did_ make a regulation that prohibits you from paying a less-than-fair wage, but then let’s call it what it is. Again, if you want to say welfare is wealth redistribution, I would agree. But minimum wage - no. You are confusing the net effect with the process. ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/457 "2005-06-08T02:15:27Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Imagine the country the day before and the day after min wage laws were enacted. What was the net result? Some people had more money, and others had less. There is one and only one purpose of Min Wage laws-- to put more money in the hands of low skilled workers. Other laws have economic impacts, too, but few can be said to have solely an economic impact, by design, as do Min Wage laws. Well sure they can. Anti-theft, anti-fraud, anti-trust, etc. laws certainly are designed solely to have an economic impact. (Remember that I’m not saying that’s analogous in every way; only refuting your statement.) But that’s not the point anyway. The point is, as I said to Bricker, that the net result is not the equivalent of the process. It may very well be _designed_ to result in workers having more money, but that doesn’t mean you can call it wealth redistribution. Traffic laws are designed to prevent people from causing automobile accidents - that doesn’t mean the government is driving my car. The net result is that my car is driven differently, but it doesn’t mean the government is driving it. Honestly, I really really do understand what you’re trying to get at; I just disagree with your nomenclature. You may find it a subtle distiction between _taking my money away and giving it to someone else_, and _creating a regulation that partially controls how much money I can pay employees_, but then if the distinction is meaningless, why are all of you so insistent on maintaining the nomenclature that you’re using? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/458 "2005-06-08T02:59:00Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > No it’s not; it’s the government making regulations for how employers do business. To borrow Libertarian logic, nobody is _forcing_ anyone to be an employer. But if you _are_ an employer, you must pay at least minimum wage. The government did not take your money _away_, you paid it to your employee. The government _did_ make a regulation that prohibits you from paying a less-than-fair wage, but then let’s call it what it is. > > Again, if you want to say welfare is wealth redistribution, I would agree. But minimum wage - no. You are confusing the net effect with the process. Let’s suppose the following law is passed: Instead of welfare paid from the government, funded by tax revenue, every employer must hire one additional person for every fifteen people they already employ, and pay them just to sit around and do nothing for eight hours per day. Is that wealth redistribution, or not? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Black\_Hand\_Gang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@The\_Black\_Hand\_Gang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Black_Hand_Gang)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/459 "2005-06-08T03:21:17Z")
The United States has the third greatest wealth disparity of any developed nation. Only South Africa and Mexico have more. Personally, I think we can top them. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/460 "2005-06-08T04:11:47Z")
> [@The Black Hand Gang](#): > > The United States has the third greatest wealth disparity of any developed nation. But we [LEAD THE WORLD in mental illness](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/08/content_3056856.htm)! It’s all a matter of keeping our priorities straight. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457.md?page=24)