Wild Capitalism

Benjamin Johnson7 said:While his premise might hold some weight, I find it rather debatable; as our friend above pointed out, top-tier education and medical care often seem reserved for a select few. Furthermore, that little jab about the iPhone feels like it perfectly encapsulates the darkest side of capitalism—that relentless, unyielding hunger for profit. After all, "Designed in California, Made in China"—and we all know which political system governs that manufacturing hub, don't we?☕

The worst part? Well, that's really the only thing capitalism aims for. It's the sole logic behind it all: increasing capital.

gentlelynx11 said:The worst part? Well, that's really the only thing capitalism aims for. It's the sole logic behind it all: increasing capital.

Well, increasing capital is the point, obviously! But this specific, unbridled greed for profit—and I am speaking specifically about Apple products—is quite something.
As a social framework, capitalism grants an individual the right to own land, capital, and means of production through private ownership. You end up with private factories, hospitals, schools, mines, theaters, sports teams... essentially, everything becomes a commodity.
Take a look at a company like Rimac, for instance; it would almost certainly be more cost-effective and yield a higher profit margin if their manufacturing plant were located in Poland.
Not every capitalist is driven by such blatant avarice, and frankly, the system is undeniably superior to communism (or socialism). One assumes you didn't grow up living under the old regime in the South.

I don't think capitalism was actually the issue from back in the 1930s until maybe somewhere around 1975 or 1985—that’s when things just went off the rails because everyone stopped regulating everything.

I mean, any system needs some kind of guardrails, right? You can't just have investment banks out there being allowed to leverage themselves at a 33:1 ratio... I guess they just end up creating massive bubbles wherever they go.

There was this one documentary that explained it all really well, actually. It also talked about how much of a complete joke those credit rating agencies are.

But then again, looking at the big picture, neither capitalism nor communism or even socialism are really long-term solutions on their own, mostly because of just... well, human nature, I suppose. Most parts of capitalism are actually pretty good, but those few bad parts? They just ruin everything else.

And honestly, no system is ever going to be able to fix the oldest problems in human relationships—you know, stuff like stealing, lying, and corruption.

My take is that we're probably never going to solve those issues anyway, but I guess it doesn't even matter, since nothing is ever going to be perfect.

Benjamin Johnson7 said:Well, increasing capital is the point, obviously! But this specific, unbridled greed for profit—and I am speaking specifically about Apple products—is quite something.
As a social framework, capitalism grants an individual the right to own land, capital, and means of production through private ownership. You end up with private factories, hospitals, schools, mines, theaters, sports teams... essentially, everything becomes a commodity.
Take a look at a company like Rimac, for instance; it would almost certainly be more cost-effective and yield a higher profit margin if their manufacturing plant were located in Poland.
Not every capitalist is driven by such blatant avarice, and frankly, the system is undeniably superior to communism (or socialism). One assumes you didn't grow up living under the old regime in the South.

Have you ever actually held a job? Do you try to make your boss more or less money? Why on earth do you think one person earns more than another?

Besides, greed is just a fundamental human trait; it has nothing to do with any political system.

rowdypilot19 said:I don't think capitalism was actually the issue from back in the 1930s until maybe somewhere around 1975 or 1985—that’s when things just went off the rails because everyone stopped regulating everything.

I mean, any system needs some kind of guardrails, right? You can't just have investment banks out there being allowed to leverage themselves at a 33:1 ratio... I guess they just end up creating massive bubbles wherever they go.

There was this one documentary that explained it all really well, actually. It also talked about how much of a complete joke those credit rating agencies are.

But then again, looking at the big picture, neither capitalism nor communism or even socialism are really long-term solutions on their own, mostly because of just... well, human nature, I suppose. Most parts of capitalism are actually pretty good, but those few bad parts? They just ruin everything else.

And honestly, no system is ever going to be able to fix the oldest problems in human relationships—you know, stuff like stealing, lying, and corruption.

My take is that we're probably never going to solve those issues anyway, but I guess it doesn't even matter, since nothing is ever going to be perfect.

Well, that whole bolded part... honestly, you could only pull that off if you were sitting on a massive amount of private property. We're talking a huge amount of private ownership. 😁

If it’s state-run, I guess everyone in the company and the government just ends up looting the place. But if it’s private? Then it feels like everyone is just trying to bend the rules or score deals with the government through bribing politicians.

It’s honestly dangerous either way if things spiral out of control, and let's be real, they usually do. 😁

"Quote:"

Timothy Robinson78 As Timothy Robinson78 points out: I find myself wondering if anyone here has actually navigated the complexities of being an employee. When you find yourself in such a position, do you find your internal compass nudging you toward maximizing your employer's profits, or do you aim to minimize the value you provide to ensure they aren't getting too much for their money? It is a curious little moral dilemma, isn't it? Furthermore, I have often pondered the arbitrary nature of compensation. In your estimation, what truly dictates why one individual commands a substantial salary while another struggles with a meager one? Is it merit, luck, or perhaps just the sheer whims of corporate bureaucracy? One might argue that greed is simply an inherent facet of the human condition, a fundamental trait woven into our very nature that remains entirely indifferent to whatever political system happens to be in power.

I have been part of the workforce since well before I turned eighteen, having spent my youth working various odd jobs to make ends meet. For the past six years, I have operated my own company, which currently employs three full-time staff members. I make it a point to ensure they are compensated well above the national average, and I provide them with generous holiday bonuses as well. It would, of course, be quite easy to seek out employees willing to perform the exact same tasks for a lower wage simply to pad my own profit margins. However, I firmly believe that if one wishes to retain high-quality, diligent, and reliable professionals, one must pay them fairly and show genuine respect for their labor.

In my previous roles, I never viewed myself as working for "bosses"—because, frankly, people shouldn't have bosses. Rather, I regarded them as my clients or employers, and it was my personal mission to ensure that the work I delivered was nothing short of my absolute best.

Benjamin Johnson7 said:"Quote:"

Timothy Robinson78 As Timothy Robinson78 points out: I find myself wondering if anyone here has actually navigated the complexities of being an employee. When you find yourself in such a position, do you find your internal compass nudging you toward maximizing your employer's profits, or do you aim to minimize the value you provide to ensure they aren't getting too much for their money? It is a curious little moral dilemma, isn't it? Furthermore, I have often pondered the arbitrary nature of compensation. In your estimation, what truly dictates why one individual commands a substantial salary while another struggles with a meager one? Is it merit, luck, or perhaps just the sheer whims of corporate bureaucracy? One might argue that greed is simply an inherent facet of the human condition, a fundamental trait woven into our very nature that remains entirely indifferent to whatever political system happens to be in power.

I have been part of the workforce since well before I turned eighteen, having spent my youth working various odd jobs to make ends meet. For the past six years, I have operated my own company, which currently employs three full-time staff members. I make it a point to ensure they are compensated well above the national average, and I provide them with generous holiday bonuses as well. It would, of course, be quite easy to seek out employees willing to perform the exact same tasks for a lower wage simply to pad my own profit margins. However, I firmly believe that if one wishes to retain high-quality, diligent, and reliable professionals, one must pay them fairly and show genuine respect for their labor.

In my previous roles, I never viewed myself as working for "bosses"—because, frankly, people shouldn't have bosses. Rather, I regarded them as my clients or employers, and it was my personal mission to ensure that the work I delivered was nothing short of my absolute best.

The reality is, you couldn't have found a worker of that caliber for less; if such a person existed, you would have hired them already. As an entrepreneur, the burden of choice falls entirely on you. It is a matter of priority. Is it better for the long haul to hoard extra cash while alienating your staff and clients? Or is it wiser to accept thinner margins in exchange for loyal customers and a functional workspace? It comes down to individual philosophy. That is why entrepreneurs vary so wildly; we all approach the game through different lenses.

The narrative that corporations exist solely to chase profit is a common one, but it ignores a fundamental truth: companies can simply fail. They can vanish. Obsessing over profit is a short-sighted strategy. If you look only at the bottom line, innovation eventually starts looking like an unnecessary expense. And once growth stalls, death follows. Either a competitor emerges who does the job more efficiently—leaving you obsolete—or, even worse, your most talented people leave to start their own ventures, taking the institutional knowledge with them. Ultimately, people perform the work, not the corporate entity. A small business owner has to weigh these risks constantly, whereas a massive corporation often loses sight of the individual moving the gears within the machine.

Benjamin Johnson7 said:"Quote:"

Timothy Robinson78 As Timothy Robinson78 points out: I find myself wondering if anyone here has actually navigated the complexities of being an employee. When you find yourself in such a position, do you find your internal compass nudging you toward maximizing your employer's profits, or do you aim to minimize the value you provide to ensure they aren't getting too much for their money? It is a curious little moral dilemma, isn't it? Furthermore, I have often pondered the arbitrary nature of compensation. In your estimation, what truly dictates why one individual commands a substantial salary while another struggles with a meager one? Is it merit, luck, or perhaps just the sheer whims of corporate bureaucracy? One might argue that greed is simply an inherent facet of the human condition, a fundamental trait woven into our very nature that remains entirely indifferent to whatever political system happens to be in power.

I have been part of the workforce since well before I turned eighteen, having spent my youth working various odd jobs to make ends meet. For the past six years, I have operated my own company, which currently employs three full-time staff members. I make it a point to ensure they are compensated well above the national average, and I provide them with generous holiday bonuses as well. It would, of course, be quite easy to seek out employees willing to perform the exact same tasks for a lower wage simply to pad my own profit margins. However, I firmly believe that if one wishes to retain high-quality, diligent, and reliable professionals, one must pay them fairly and show genuine respect for their labor.

In my previous roles, I never viewed myself as working for "bosses"—because, frankly, people shouldn't have bosses. Rather, I regarded them as my clients or employers, and it was my personal mission to ensure that the work I delivered was nothing short of my absolute best.

Owning your own company actually makes this conversation more interesting. If you care about your business, your ultimate goal is maximizing profit—it's just basic math. This whole idea of "exploiting workers" is a misconception; most people are simply paid whatever the market rate dictates. Besides, I'm certain that keeping your staff happy isn't just throwing money away; it's an investment that yields higher profits than cutting corners on wages ever would.

Timothy Robinson78 said:Owning your own company actually makes this conversation more interesting. If you care about your business, your ultimate goal is maximizing profit—it's just basic math. This whole idea of "exploiting workers" is a misconception; most people are simply paid whatever the market rate dictates. Besides, I'm certain that keeping your staff happy isn't just throwing money away; it's an investment that yields higher profits than cutting corners on wages ever would.

Precisely; whatever capital you inject into the operation is what eventually returns to you. My philosophy is centered on long-term quality, and frankly, true quality is impossible to achieve if profit is your sole driver. Forumas @deer made an excellent point 👍. At the end of the day, everyone operates under their own set of priorities and unique business visions.
The moment this work ceases to be a passion for me, I intend to step away entirely.

rowdypilot19 said:If it’s state-run, I guess everyone in the company and the government just ends up looting the place. But if it’s private? Then it feels like everyone is just trying to bend the rules or score deals with the government through bribing politicians.

It’s honestly dangerous either way if things spiral out of control, and let's be real, they usually do. 😁

That’s exactly why my former colleague ended up losing everything:

I honestly think this whole debate about worker exploitation is a bit overblown. If a nation votes for capitalism instead of socialism, they are making a conscious choice to enter those kinds of dynamics. So, if a capitalist wants to pay a worker $0.50—well, that’s just their prerogative as a capitalist. I don't see the issue. It isn't their job to run the country's social welfare programs. A worker's right is simply to turn down that wage and find a better one, or just go out and start their own business. Even a worker will choose to buy detergent wherever it's cheaper. I really don't get how you can vote for capitalism and then complain when your boss isn't being "generous" to you. Capitalism is literally a system designed for the owner to look out for themselves, not you. And let's be real, workers look out for themselves too, not the company (at least 90% of them do). In capitalism, everyone grabs what they can, and once you actually hit it big, maybe you eventually share the wealth like Gates.

If a capitalist can't find anyone to take $0.50, they'll end up increasing the offer for $0.67, and so on. Can someone please explain what the problem is there? Just please, spare me the moralizing, because in capitalism, "morality" isn't really a functional category. If a capitalist sees that people working for $2,000 are doing a subpar job, they might bump that up to $3,000 or $4,000. If someone is truly indispensable and they can't find anyone else with that profile for $4,000, they might end up paying them $15,000. It's just basic math.

Why should there even be a minimum wage in a capitalist system? If someone is willing to work for $167, then let them work. That's essentially the engine behind the entire economic revolution in China—a country we love to criticize, yet we all love buying their cheap TVs and smartphones. We get annoyed that a worker there is working for peanuts, but none of us would pay double for that TV just so that specific worker could have a better life. So, what's the actual difference between a worker in China and a worker in the US? Why should an American capitalist care if a worker lives better?

Take me, for example. Today, I have to pay an average programmer three to five times more than I was paying seven or eight years ago. He doesn't give a damn whether it's profitable for me; he's looking out for himself. And I am doing the exact same thing—looking out for myself—and I'm forced to pay because I can't find anyone cheaper who actually does good work. If it stops being profitable for me, I fail in this industry and I have to try something else. That is just capitalism.

If the majority of people actually want workers to live better, then they should vote for a socialized version of capitalism, like they have in Sweden. But people don't complain, which means they're fine with the status quo. You just have to be honest with yourself and everyone else.

Michelle Davis15 said:I honestly think this whole debate about worker exploitation is a bit overblown. If a nation votes for capitalism instead of socialism, they are making a conscious choice to enter those kinds of dynamics. So, if a capitalist wants to pay a worker $0.50—well, that’s just their prerogative as a capitalist. I don't see the issue. It isn't their job to run the country's social welfare programs. A worker's right is simply to turn down that wage and find a better one, or just go out and start their own business. Even a worker will choose to buy detergent wherever it's cheaper. I really don't get how you can vote for capitalism and then complain when your boss isn't being "generous" to you. Capitalism is literally a system designed for the owner to look out for themselves, not you. And let's be real, workers look out for themselves too, not the company (at least 90% of them do). In capitalism, everyone grabs what they can, and once you actually hit it big, maybe you eventually share the wealth like Gates.

If a capitalist can't find anyone to take $0.50, they'll end up increasing the offer for $0.67, and so on. Can someone please explain what the problem is there? Just please, spare me the moralizing, because in capitalism, "morality" isn't really a functional category. If a capitalist sees that people working for $2,000 are doing a subpar job, they might bump that up to $3,000 or $4,000. If someone is truly indispensable and they can't find anyone else with that profile for $4,000, they might end up paying them $15,000. It's just basic math.

Why should there even be a minimum wage in a capitalist system? If someone is willing to work for $167, then let them work. That's essentially the engine behind the entire economic revolution in China—a country we love to criticize, yet we all love buying their cheap TVs and smartphones. We get annoyed that a worker there is working for peanuts, but none of us would pay double for that TV just so that specific worker could have a better life. So, what's the actual difference between a worker in China and a worker in the US? Why should an American capitalist care if a worker lives better?

Take me, for example. Today, I have to pay an average programmer three to five times more than I was paying seven or eight years ago. He doesn't give a damn whether it's profitable for me; he's looking out for himself. And I am doing the exact same thing—looking out for myself—and I'm forced to pay because I can't find anyone cheaper who actually does good work. If it stops being profitable for me, I fail in this industry and I have to try something else. That is just capitalism.

If the majority of people actually want workers to live better, then they should vote for a socialized version of capitalism, like they have in Sweden. But people don't complain, which means they're fine with the status quo. You just have to be honest with yourself and everyone else.

Most people don't truly grasp the nuances between capitalism and socialism... and frankly, they probably couldn't care less about it anyway.

I have a friend who is highly educated, a city kid through and through, and someone who has traveled quite extensively; he's even aligned himself with the Democratic Party. He pulls in a salary north of $2,500 a month, yet he can't seem to calculate simple interest or wrap his head around how basic economics actually functions. He tells me straight up that he isn't interested in any of it. He landed a great job at a firm with a massive market niche, so as far as he's concerned, whether it's capitalism or socialism doesn't matter as long as the direct deposit hits his account.

The general public, beyond being largely indifferent, stays quiet because they see the people on the "right side" of the wealth gap living incredibly well. They secretly harbor this hope that they might one day cross over to that side themselves, unaware that it's not something that happens just by chance—you don't simply drift into that lifestyle. So, they stay silent and don't complain, fearing that speaking up might somehow jeopardize their own slim chances, though they aren't aware that staying quiet won't suddenly grant them a lifetime of luxury.

It isn't that they are silent because they are satisfied; if anything, it is quite the opposite.

Timothy Robinson78 said:If you don't want to take my word for it, just look at the data available online; it all supports my point. Human civilization has never seen such rapid progress as it has during the era of capitalism. Countries under a capitalist system consistently outperform socialist ones, offering higher standards of living, more robust human rights, better social safety nets, higher education rates, and superior healthcare systems.

Maybe give those facts some thought before you continue criticizing capitalism using your iPhone. 😁

Capitalism is built on a fundamentally broken paradigm. Profit shouldn't be the primary engine driving human societal change. Progress should be rooted in things like solidarity, philanthropy, and the pursuit of discovery.

Because of capitalism, we're still stuck on fossil fuels, the Middle East is constantly at war, people's lives are reduced to mere labor, we deal with mass migration, homelessness, lack of access to water and food, social decay, and a collapsing biosphere. And all of this is happening while our technology is at an incredible level of development.

The year 2016 should have been about humanity. We have enough knowledge and sufficiently advanced tech to ensure every citizen in this country lives a dignified life while coexisting perfectly with the ecosystem. But no, apparently someone always wants power, and power equals money, and money dictates people's fates. We've had 40,000 years of evolution, yet we still haven't learned the basics.

Michelle Davis15 said:I honestly think this whole debate about worker exploitation is a bit overblown. If a nation votes for capitalism instead of socialism, they are making a conscious choice to enter those kinds of dynamics. So, if a capitalist wants to pay a worker $0.50—well, that’s just their prerogative as a capitalist. I don't see the issue. It isn't their job to run the country's social welfare programs. A worker's right is simply to turn down that wage and find a better one, or just go out and start their own business. Even a worker will choose to buy detergent wherever it's cheaper. I really don't get how you can vote for capitalism and then complain when your boss isn't being "generous" to you. Capitalism is literally a system designed for the owner to look out for themselves, not you. And let's be real, workers look out for themselves too, not the company (at least 90% of them do). In capitalism, everyone grabs what they can, and once you actually hit it big, maybe you eventually share the wealth like Gates.

If a capitalist can't find anyone to take $0.50, they'll end up increasing the offer for $0.67, and so on. Can someone please explain what the problem is there? Just please, spare me the moralizing, because in capitalism, "morality" isn't really a functional category. If a capitalist sees that people working for $2,000 are doing a subpar job, they might bump that up to $3,000 or $4,000. If someone is truly indispensable and they can't find anyone else with that profile for $4,000, they might end up paying them $15,000. It's just basic math.

Why should there even be a minimum wage in a capitalist system? If someone is willing to work for $167, then let them work. That's essentially the engine behind the entire economic revolution in China—a country we love to criticize, yet we all love buying their cheap TVs and smartphones. We get annoyed that a worker there is working for peanuts, but none of us would pay double for that TV just so that specific worker could have a better life. So, what's the actual difference between a worker in China and a worker in the US? Why should an American capitalist care if a worker lives better?

Take me, for example. Today, I have to pay an average programmer three to five times more than I was paying seven or eight years ago. He doesn't give a damn whether it's profitable for me; he's looking out for himself. And I am doing the exact same thing—looking out for myself—and I'm forced to pay because I can't find anyone cheaper who actually does good work. If it stops being profitable for me, I fail in this industry and I have to try something else. That is just capitalism.

If the majority of people actually want workers to live better, then they should vote for a socialized version of capitalism, like they have in Sweden. But people don't complain, which means they're fine with the status quo. You just have to be honest with yourself and everyone else.

The problem is that capitalism dictates the standard of living through the market balance of goods, labor, and services. And history shows us that the market is never in balance, nor does it ever seem to trend that way.

In this day and age, there really shouldn't be people digging through dumpsters, without a place to sleep, without time to raise children, or without free time for creative growth. We're in the 21st century. If we can't afford to ensure every citizen—at least in North America or the European Union—has a basic standard provided by the state in the form of clothing, footwear, education, housing, transport, and food, then we've seriously messed up somewhere.

Michelle Davis15 said:I honestly think this whole debate about worker exploitation is a bit overblown. If a nation votes for capitalism instead of socialism, they are making a conscious choice to enter those kinds of dynamics. So, if a capitalist wants to pay a worker $0.50—well, that’s just their prerogative as a capitalist. I don't see the issue. It isn't their job to run the country's social welfare programs. A worker's right is simply to turn down that wage and find a better one, or just go out and start their own business. Even a worker will choose to buy detergent wherever it's cheaper. I really don't get how you can vote for capitalism and then complain when your boss isn't being "generous" to you. Capitalism is literally a system designed for the owner to look out for themselves, not you. And let's be real, workers look out for themselves too, not the company (at least 90% of them do). In capitalism, everyone grabs what they can, and once you actually hit it big, maybe you eventually share the wealth like Gates.

If a capitalist can't find anyone to take $0.50, they'll end up increasing the offer for $0.67, and so on. Can someone please explain what the problem is there? Just please, spare me the moralizing, because in capitalism, "morality" isn't really a functional category. If a capitalist sees that people working for $2,000 are doing a subpar job, they might bump that up to $3,000 or $4,000. If someone is truly indispensable and they can't find anyone else with that profile for $4,000, they might end up paying them $15,000. It's just basic math.

Why should there even be a minimum wage in a capitalist system? If someone is willing to work for $167, then let them work. That's essentially the engine behind the entire economic revolution in China—a country we love to criticize, yet we all love buying their cheap TVs and smartphones. We get annoyed that a worker there is working for peanuts, but none of us would pay double for that TV just so that specific worker could have a better life. So, what's the actual difference between a worker in China and a worker in the US? Why should an American capitalist care if a worker lives better?

Take me, for example. Today, I have to pay an average programmer three to five times more than I was paying seven or eight years ago. He doesn't give a damn whether it's profitable for me; he's looking out for himself. And I am doing the exact same thing—looking out for myself—and I'm forced to pay because I can't find anyone cheaper who actually does good work. If it stops being profitable for me, I fail in this industry and I have to try something else. That is just capitalism.

If the majority of people actually want workers to live better, then they should vote for a socialized version of capitalism, like they have in Sweden. But people don't complain, which means they're fine with the status quo. You just have to be honest with yourself and everyone else.

Look, why don't you start by actually defining what "morality" means to you first? 🍿

I mean, is it really considered moral if someone who's actually killing it at work gets paid the exact same amount as the guy who spends his whole shift sleeping on the job? 🍿

rowdyorca said:The problem is that capitalism dictates the standard of living through the market balance of goods, labor, and services. And history shows us that the market is never in balance, nor does it ever seem to trend that way.

In this day and age, there really shouldn't be people digging through dumpsters, without a place to sleep, without time to raise children, or without free time for creative growth. We're in the 21st century. If we can't afford to ensure every citizen—at least in North America or the European Union—has a basic standard provided by the state in the form of clothing, footwear, education, housing, transport, and food, then we've seriously messed up somewhere.

Fair point... but then why the hell do people keep voting for raw capitalism instead of an arrangement like that?

rowdypilot19 said:Look, why don't you start by actually defining what "morality" means to you first? 🍿

I mean, is it really considered moral if someone who's actually killing it at work gets paid the exact same amount as the guy who spends his whole shift sleeping on the job? 🍿

Morality is one of those things people love to daydream about, yet they’ve never actually witnessed it in the wild.

What people have actually seen is just basic honesty from someone who lacks the guts to be different. It isn't driven by any sense of virtue, obviously—it's just a lack of courage.

The word "morality" itself has become such a loaded term that hearing a normal person use it almost triggers a sense of disgust. Why? Because most of the time, it's just a conscious lie—a cheap attempt to manipulate the person they're talking to. It's like saying, "I'm appealing to your sense of right and wrong so I can disarm you and grab an immoral upper hand."

Timothy Robinson78 said:Have you ever actually held a job? Do you try to make your boss more or less money? Why on earth do you think one person earns more than another?

Besides, greed is just a fundamental human trait; it has nothing to do with any political system.

Greed isn't some inherent human trait, and even if it were present in someone, it's clearly destructive.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:That’s exactly why my former colleague ended up losing everything:

First off, when it comes to running daily tourist charters, the Port Authority doesn't have much say in the matter. They’re basically just sitting on a gold mine, pulling in about $2 per mooring from those boats every single day. Or you could look at how things work over at the Marriott Marina near Manhattan. $2000 Monthly.

Parking along the waterfront is free for the first two hours. No catch.
If they had $100,000 burning a hole in their pocket for some boat, they can certainly afford to cough up a little more. $2000 Monthly summer vibes for the connection. Total downpour. $67 They always end up with their own way of doing things to avoid any unnecessary pressure. If they aren't dealing with that stress, they can actually put those two hours to good use—maybe getting guests boarded if there’s an open slot available.
Most of the time, that kind of work just isn't cut out for them.