J.Quondam
CR 1/8
No one "deserves" to be poor.Choices have consequences.
Taking a job at WOTC that does not pay enough so you will not be "poor" is a choice.
Period.
No one "deserves" to be poor.Choices have consequences.
Taking a job at WOTC that does not pay enough so you will not be "poor" is a choice.
Absolutely it is respectful. It is factual and it points out that people make choices in life, and those choices have real consequences. Some of those consequences are monetary compensation.Let's imagine, for a moment, that there's a teacher (cough, cough) participating on EN World who then reads this. Do you really think this is a respectful way to talk about other people? I deserve less money because I'm a teacher?
Yea, saying "period." does not prove you are right or make your argument any more impactful. All it does is indicate you refuse to listen to other's viewpoints. That you are set in your ways and obstinate. That you are not here to discuss, but rather to preach.No one "deserves" to be poor.
Period.
There's a difference though between saying someone chooses a job that pays poorly, and saying that they deserve to be paid poorly.Choices have consequences.
Taking a job at WOTC that does not pay enough so you will not be "poor" is a choice. If taking this job at WOTC will make someone "poor", as was alleged, and that person takes that job anyway, then yes they "deserve to be poor" .... they made a decision and a concious choice to be "poor".
One can come from the "lower class" in the U.S. and have a 4 year degree, people do it all the time. It involves a bit of debt, but people do it because it adds value in things like...job skills.
I would like to know who was fired to create these openings, and why. Now, that information will never be disclosed.