Instigator / Con
2
1598
rating
20
debates
65.0%
won
Topic
#1493

The Minimum Wage is Beneficial to the Poor

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
2
0

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Athias
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1554
rating
15
debates
73.33%
won
Description

Round One: Opening Arguments
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: Rebuttals/Rejoinders
Round Four: Rebuttals/Rejoinders
Round Five: Closing Arguments

Stipulations:

1. Definitions:

Beneficial - producing good results or helpful effects (Merriam-Webster.)

2. Moral arguments (in addition to the Economic arguments) may be submitted since the topic solicits normative arguments.

3. The minimum wage itself, and not just juxtapositions of scale, will be included in the purview of this debate.

-->
@Nemiroff

"except i did substantiate the consistent correlation across decades within the debate. The gdp increase typically happened exactly 1 year AFTER min wage rises, and lasted for several years. "

Post hoc.

"Btw both advancing technology and any form of investing often require capital inflows... that would also likely be an accurate and logical correlation."

And that makes it your burden to prevent and/or dispel doubt. Your being unable to control for minimum wage makes it a moot point.

"In comparison, you have not provided any empirical data yourself"

But, I did. I even hyperlinked some of arguments so that the reference can be summoned upon clicking them. Perhaps, you didn't read my arguments in their entirety.

-->
@Athias

In comparison, you have not provided any empirical data yourself

-->
@Athias

except i did substantiate the consistent correlation across decades within the debate. The gdp increase typically happened exactly 1 year AFTER min wage rises, and lasted for several years. Years of min wage decrease or stagnation also never reach the highs achieved ONLY after a rise in min wage. *across decades* starting with the year it was introduced.

Btw both advancing technology and any form of investing often require capital inflows... that would also likely be an accurate and logical correlation.

-->
@Nemiroff

"Cum hoc ergo surely applies in any individual case. But when the correlation repeats itself *consistently* across *decades*, it is a completely different thing."

A different thing you are unable to substantiate. I could take almost anything else and argue the same "correlation" (e.g. capital inflows, advancing technology, human capital investment, etc.) Ultimately, you took two trends, put them together, and assumed they were related.

-->
@Athias

Cum hoc ergo surely applies in any individual case. But when the correlation repeats itself *consistently* across *decades*, it is a completely different thing.

-->
@Nemiroff

"There is no moment when minimum wage was isolated. But i did show consistent correlation across decades of its positive effects."

Then don't make arguments that suggest that the minimum wage lead to a boom in the economy epsecially low-skilled workers. Regardless of how you argue this "correlation," it'll fall into the trap of cum hoc ergo propter hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc.

"I do understand that i failed to reconnect it back to the poor in my quest to respond to every quote."

How was it your quest to respond to every quote, when I had the first rebuttal? Who invoked the irrelevant subject of the industrial revolution? If you wanted to connect your argument to this debate's resolution, you should've done so in the beginning. Neither response, nor order was the reason for your poor argument.

"More spending is obviously good for the poor who need to fix the car, get rid of mold, a new fridge or ac..."

This is the reason you lost our debate. You make claims while failing to either explain or substantiate them. Scrutinize my anecdote all you want, but I clearly lay out the reasoning--soundly rendering conclusions from established premises--as well as lay out the "how's?" and "why's?" You just make statements and expect them to register. You haven't once in our debate considered "how does the minimum wage shore up demand?" "Why does the minimum wage shore up demand?" "Are there any examples that illustrate the minimum wage's effect on demand among a poor consumer base?"

Technicalities weren't the reason you lost; your poor use of reasoning was. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter much now. Good luck in your future debates.

-->
@Nemiroff

"The relevancy was clearly stated."

Where?

"I showed what happens when the government is hands off and people "negotiated" their own terms. "

No you didn't. You cited a particularized snapshot of history, which I demonstrated was a product of government sanctioned workhouses. This "invisible hand" of which you speak wasn't there.

-->
@Nemiroff

"Meanwhile my intuitive conclusion that rising wages will increase spending demanded empirical data, which was provided, but was not "empirical enough"."

You provided no data to that effect. Go ahead an look. You had the "intuition." You just didn't have sound reasoning.

-->
@Nemiroff

"Thus you provided no data to back up the anecdote."

Redundant. I already stated as much. If you're implying that I did not provide quantifiable data that serves as an example of my anecdote, then that implication is categorically false.

-->
@blamonkey

Didnt come across that way at all. 🍻

-->
@Christen

I dont understand what you mean by "what they are trying extra hard at".
I do understand what you are implying but with automation threatening everyone from warehouse and drivers to surgeons and accountants, what should they be trying at? Do you think ai cant code or repair other machines? Automation is a revolution which will require massive rethinking of our entire system.

But it isnt here yet, and their labor is still needed. Im talking about today's paycheck, not 20+ years in the future. What they are doing today is very necessary, they should be properly compensated for the value of their work, not devalued cause of the supply of their work or the tight margins with little wiggle room underwhich they live.

"Economics is reasoning whether it be propositional, "intuitive," tautological, etc. That's the reason my opening argument was constructed in that manner. My intention was not to create a contest over cited "data" but to rigorously challenge the consistency of our reasoning."

Thus you provided no data to back up the anecdote.

Meanwhile my intuitive conclusion that rising wages will increase spending demanded empirical data, which was provided, but was not "empirical enough".

Baloney

The relevancy was clearly stated. You claimed government involvement ruined prospects and people would be better negotiating or agreeing to their own wages. I showed what happens when the government is hands off and people "negotiated" their own terms.

There is no moment when minimum wage was isolated. But i did show consistent correlation across decades of its positive effects.

I do understand that i failed to reconnect it back to the poor in my quest to respond to every quote. However that technical error does not make any claim against the validity of my arguments.

More spending is obviously good for the poor who need to fix the car, get rid of mold, a new fridge or ac. All of which can boost savings and or productivity, just to name a few. Perhaps they may even be able to save for the future for they will age. This is, in addition to being benefitial to them, benefitial for all of us.

Increases to costs will be minimized by competition over their increased demand which will demand more hiring. And large portions of their costs will not rise, such as rent or medical which do not rely on low wage labor. I did mention these.

-->
@blamonkey

I appreciate the vote. I actually had no intention entering this debate of citing quantification of any sort. Economics is a social science. While mathematics can be a useful tool to illustrate examples, it does not "inform" Economics. Economics is reasoning whether it be propositional, "intuitive," tautological, etc. That's the reason my opening argument was constructed in that manner. My intention was not to create a contest over cited "data" but to rigorously challenge the consistency of our reasoning. That perhaps explains the scant data. I provided the data only at the end to soundly refute Nemiroff's claims that without the minimum wage, wages would, as you put it, precipitously fall, and that the minimum wage led to a boom in the economy (boost in GDP) especially among low skilled workers. The rest of the data served as a rebuff to any redundant negation--if the reasoning of the anecdotal evidence didn't sink in, I thought that quantifiable examples would help.

I agree with you about your third point. The mention of the Industrial Revolution and Nemiroff's failure to argue its relevance to the debate's resolution could have been excised without issue. With all that said, your participation was most certainly welcomed, blamonkey, and your RFD was to say the least an interesting read.

-->
@Nemiroff

"wouldn't you expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability? Trying hard should attain class growth and/or wealth! So shouldnt *full time* work doing necessary but simple tasks earn you a stable living without extra frills?"

Depends on what exactly you're trying "extra hard" at. This is because our world is rapidly changing and evolving. In the past, doing assembly line monkey work may have been enough to "earn you a stable living," but nowadays, more and more employers are looking for resilient people who can adapt to sudden changes, be creative, think critically, invent valuable things, and do more practical useless stuff than assembly line monkey work.

Nowadays, nobbing "A into slot B all day every day" won't cut it. That assembly line monkey work is becoming obsolete, with more and more people starting to use robots to do that assembly line monkey work instead of employees. If all you're doing is nobbing A into slot B all day every day, and you're making very little money off of that, then no, "trying" "harder" to nob A into slot B all day every day, "harder," won't help you much.

Back then, employers valued people who could "nob A into slot B all day every day" and they valued people who could it "hard" and "try hard," nobbing "A into slot B all day every day," but that was only because robots either did not exist back then, or were not very popular or advanced back then. Now, employers can have robots do that since robots are now much more popular and much more advanced, so you can no longer get paid much to do what a robot does, better, and for a cheaper price.

Trying hard is pointless if what you're trying hard at is becoming obsolete and being rapidly replaced by cheap robots.

So to answer your question... no. I do not "expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability" if they're rapidly being replaced by robots and not looking for better careers that employers want nowadays.

-->
@Nemiroff

No problem! I'm glad you took something from it. By the way, I hope I don't sound to bitter in my RFD, I wrote it after having a bad day.

-->
@blamonkey

Thank you for your vote!

I completely agree with #2. Its a trap i try to avoid, but when it is used, its hard to not respond. Will try to avoid.

Your data criticism is very noted. My responses were disorganized, i did have a relatively short window to frame them in.

My only note would be that i did not intend to rely on the idea that the increased demand would completely outstrip price increase, but that it would at the least minimize it. Although surpassing it is a possibility. This was supplemented by the fact that a very substantial portion of costs (rent, also some others like medical) dont rely on wage labor for value and will not increase. This will also help wages outweight any price increases.

And thank you again!

Whoops, part of my post got cut off.

The top half was:

Me: Ive already said, in these comments, for people to please leave reviews even outside of the voting period for this exact reason. Ive been upfront since the start."

Athias: No you haven't. You complained; denied you complained; then continued to complain--even to the point of insinuating that a vote in my argument's favor was a possible "conspiracy." (Neglecting the fact that another vote was made in my argument's favor, but was dismissed on a "technicality.")

Me from post 23:
> @Ragnar, @bmdrocks21

Even if it's after the voting time, i would appreciate any reviews, reactions, or judgements of this debate. I know it wont score us or you any points... but isnt it all about the arguments and truth in the end?"

So... yes i have

-->
@Athias

> @Ragnar, @bmdrocks21

Even if it's after the voting time, i would appreciate any reviews, reactions, or judgements of this debate. I know it wont score us or you any points... but isnt it all about the arguments and truth in the end?

Thank you, and cheers!

As for the subject of the debate. You being right in a single, super welfare state situation still leaves minimum wage as benefitial in every other situation.

That aside, the fact that you had to betray your ideals to support your case shows how strong your actual beliefs are.

-->
@Nemiroff

"As for the subject of the debate. You being right in a single, super welfare state situation still leaves minimum wage as benefitial in every other situation."

You haven't substantiated this; and you can't substantiate this. But, it's another mere claim.

"That aside, the fact that you had to betray your ideals to support your case shows how strong your actual beliefs are."

We're not debating our "beliefs;" we're debating over that which we can argue and substantiate. If we were discussing beliefs, I wouldn't engage a platform where arguments are subject to vote; not that these votes in and of themselves inform much on our arguments' veracity anyway. All these votes essentially do is tally those who think you or I argued better in service to this debate's resolution.

When you implicated that the minimum wage was necessary to prevent "third world wages," you left your argument open to attack. I simply needed to provide a substantiated counterexample. That's not to state that I believe in the policies of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Singapore, etc. My beliefs don't matter; the argument matters. If we were arguing over a subject that allowed for more subjectivity, or perhaps a more broad topic, my responses would be different. Because the resolutions would be different.

Your insistence of the notion that I've somehow "betrayed my ideals" or "sold out" is puerile.

-->
@Nemiroff

"Wanting reviews is not the same as selling out to score points. Do *you* really think we should raise taxes and pump up welfare as an alternative to minimum wage?"

No. But that's not the subject of this debate. This debate is about neither my philosophy nor your philosophy. It's about the argument. When creating these formal debates, I'm obligated to my burden of proof, not my political/economic philosophy. It's not "selling out"; it's focus, something you clearly lack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be throwing this fit of sort at the prospect of your loss.

"Ive already said, in these comments, for people to please leave reviews even outside of the voting period for this exact reason. Ive been upfront since the start."

No you haven't. You complained; denied you complained; then continued to complain--even to the point of insinuating that a vote in my argument's favor was a possible "conspiracy." (Neglecting the fact that another vote was made in my argument's favor, but was dismissed on a "technicality.")

Ive already said, in these comments, for people to please leave reviews even outside of the voting period for this exact reason. Ive been upfront since the start.

-->
@Athias

Wanting reviews is not the same as selling out to score points. Do *you* really think we should raise taxes and pump up welfare as an alternative to minimum wage? Lol.

-->
@Nemiroff

"The only thing you taught me is to be more careful of the technical wording and rules of a debate due to the existence of dishonest people who simply want wins."

You're projecting. This debate was conceived in your attempt to acquire a "win." It makes no difference to me either way. Remember, I'm not the one "hoping" for votes, or going to the thread where this debate was conceived asking for votes. You enjoy your day, too.

-->
@Athias

The only thing you taught me is to be more careful of the technical wording and rules of a debate due to the existence of dishonest people who simply want wins. Thank you.

Ill leave the rest to the voters/mods. Have a good day.

-->
@Nemiroff

"That is, if you win. Im still hoping for more voters."

That much is clear.

-->
@Nemiroff

"So you wanted me to go on another tangent "demonstrating" common knowledge that you will then blame me for going off topic... are you trolling me?"

As the kids say, "get out of your feelings." I've told you several times that I don't care about how you feel. If I were "trolling" you, I'd have to care. And it's not a tangent. All you had to do was focus on the subject: the minimum wage's being beneficial or not to the poor.

"Existence of alternatives doesnt negate this alternative."

No it doesn't. But it's still up to you to inform its merits since you're arguing in its favor.

"f you want to win based on technicalities, go ahead."

My "wants" don't matter.

"I tried to debate in good faith"

No you didn't. You were trying to win a contest.

"you ignored my invite"

I didn't. By the time I saw it, it was too late to accept. To reciprocate, I challenged you instead.

"then structured these very poorly chosen rules instead."

There's nothing "poorly chosen" about these rules. They're subject to preference.

"Were you hoping just your partner on the min wage thread would be the only vote by setting the minimum amount of time for a 5 round extremely technical debate?"

I do not know Christen very well, much less have the capacity to conspire with him to rig the votes of a debate you yourself suggested. I "hoped" for nothing. Hope is irrelevant.

"Thats sad."

Your feelings once again are irrelevant.

"In america, in our current situation, a min wage is necessary."

You've neither demonstrated nor substantiated this.

"A max welfare state is a valid alternative, but the laissez faire economics you believe in is not."

You've neither demonstrated nor substantiated this.

"Enjoy your technicality win."

Trivializing a loss rather than learning from it will not serve that which you allege you seek. But at this point, it no longer matters.

That is, if you win. Im still hoping for more voters.

-->
@Athias

Existence of alternatives doesnt negate this alternative. A welfare state can be an alternarive to a min wage, but an inferior one imo. The min wage can accomplish everything without raising taxes.

If you want to win based on technicalities, go ahead. I tried to debate in good faith, you ignored my invite and then structured these very poorly chosen rules instead. Were you hoping just your partner on the min wage thread would be the only vote by setting the minimum amount of time for a 5 round extremely technical debate? Thats sad.

In america, in our current situation, a min wage is necessary. A max welfare state is a valid alternative, but the laissez faire economics you believe in is not. Enjoy your technicality win. You know these votes will be so consequential in the long term (sarcasm). Knowledge will be.

-->
@Athias

So you wanted me to go on another tangent "demonstrating" common knowledge that you will then blame me for going off topic... are you trolling me?

-->
@Nemiroff

"That is a pathetic technicality. We may as well be arguing that people need to eat food to live and you say "they dont need food when they are full".
If they are already paid a living wage, or gov takes care of them then obviously they are full and ok. When they are not full on adequate wages, they need a minumum wage."

That's not a technicality; it's not the argument. When you argue that people need apples for nutrition, then it is your fault, and your fault alone, that you do not consider alternatives.

-->
@Athias

That is a pathetic technicality. We may as well be arguing that people need to eat food to live and you say "they dont need food when they are full".

If they are already paid a living wage, or gov takes care of them then obviously they are full and ok. When they are not full on adequate wages, they need a minumum wage.

-->
@Nemiroff

"Out of 1st world nations, which nations are MOST socialist... the nations you used for your no minimum wage (a form of government regulation) examples."

Don't just state; demonstrate.

-->
@Nemiroff

"Min wage is needed when people are underpaid.
Min wage is not needed when people make a living wage. Or when the governmeny handles most of their living expenses."

That doesn't matter. Look at the title of this debate. Is it, "Minimum Wage is needed when people are underpaid"? Is it, "Is Minimum Wage law needed when people make a living wage?" Or "the effect of minimum wage when government handles living expenses"? No. The debate we were having was "The Minimum Wage Is Beneficial to the Poor." Take a minute to grasp what that means.

-->
@Nemiroff

but I was also able to demonstrate with references a counterfactual that minimum wage increases were associated with decreases in productivity among low skilled workers.

"he didnt establish at all his BoP of how min wage harms the poor considering almost no new jobs will be created with a lower wage..."

I most certainly did. With the use of economic reasoning, anecdotal evidence, as well as empirical evidence, I was able to substantiate all of my points. Your concept of a "rebuttal" is to merely "state" that I'm wrong, rather than "demonstrate" that I'm wrong. Furthermore, my argument has never been that the minimum wage "harms" the poor. My argument is that the minimum wage IS NOT beneficial the poor. My language always reflects the onus demanded.

"I made several economic arguments regarding supply and demand"

You made no arguments about supply, and just one argument about demand, albeit uninformed.

"which is an actual economic policy,"

No, it's not.

Out of 1st world nations, which nations are MOST socialist... the nations you used for your no minimum wage (a form of government regulation) examples.

-->
@Athias

Key word. MOST socialist. Not socialist.

Min wage is needed when people are underpaid.
Min wage is not needed when people make a living wage. Or when the governmeny handles most of their living expenses.

Not rebutted. Ignored. I was referring to the voters. Not you.

You didnt substantiate much of anything.

-->
@Nemiroff

"I didnt call those nations socialist."

Yes you did.

"I said they are the *most* socialist out of the *1st world nations*."

No, you said they were the "most socialist first world nations," which is tantamount to categorizing them as socialist.

"They dont have a minimum wage because their citizens are already paid a living wage. And if anyone is underpaid the government takes care of them with welfare policies."

None of that matters. You've being arguing against a strawman this entire time. No one is arguing socialist policies vs free-market policies; or welfare and entitlements. We were arguing the minimum-wage and the minimum wage alone. You lost focus of that (and I honestly don't know whether you had any from the start) and decided to pedal uninformed economic platitudes.

"My opponents only argument is the wage floor pricing out workers"

That is not true. My arguments were listed in round one.

"yet my lowest unemployment argument is completely ignored."

Not ignored; rebutted.

"(Unemployment obviously not counting many people, mostly children, elderly which are a giant chunk of our population, + handicapped/injured)."

You haven't substantiated that at all; you merely claimed it.

"Even if he refuted my BoP, which he didnt,"

Yes, I did. Quite decisively, actually. Only two of your arguments can be related to the topic: "minimum wage lead to a boom for the american economy and especially unskilled workers..." and "By raising the min wage, people are able to afford biscuits. That shores up demand and creates an opportunity for the business to make profit by satisfying that demand..." You weren't able to substantiate either of these arguments; instead, you complained how it was impossible for one to control for the minimum wage and it's relation to GDP growth, yet had no concern issuing arguments which implicated the impossible. Not only was I able to counterargue this by highlighting the issues with causality... (to be continued)

-->
@Christen

I didnt call those nations socialist. I said they are the *most* socialist out of the *1st world nations*. As you said, all western nations have some socialist policies. Those nations have the most socialist policies. They dont have a minimum wage because their citizens are already paid a living wage. And if anyone is underpaid the government takes care of them with welfare policies.

Combined with my previous posts about your reply it doesnt seem my arguments were considered at all. You certainly copy and pasted many of my points, but a long analysis isnt by default a comprehensive analysis.

My opponents only argument is the wage floor pricing out workers, yet my lowest unemployment argument is completely ignored. (Unemployment obviously not counting many people, mostly children, elderly which are a giant chunk of our population, + handicapped/injured). Anyone not looking for a job isnt going to suddenly jump for one with lower pay. Even if he refuted my BoP, which he didnt, he didnt establish at all his BoP of how min wage harms the poor considering almost no new jobs will be created with a lower wage... we dont have many more unemployed workers available.

I made several economic arguments regarding supply and demand but those are ignored in favor of supposed loaded words like trickle down... which is an actual economic policy, how is it loaded? Just because its an embarassing failure that contiues to be pushed doesnt.mean it cannot be mentioned.

Only 2 days of voting left. Voters needed!
Only 1 week window for votes provided. All votes appreciated!

-->
@David
@Harleygator

"Fair enough; I didn't recall that particular rule on this or the handful of other debates I've voted on. Apologies."

Neither did I. It must be a fairly recent rule. Nevertheless your contribution is still appreciated.

-->
@Harleygator

Why did you read sarcasm in my greatest country in the world claims?

-->
@David

Fair enough; I didn't recall that particular rule on this or the handful of other debates I've voted on. Apologies.

-->
@Harleygator

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Harleygator // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to con

>Reason for Decision: See below

>Reason for Mod Action: In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts. Any user who attempts to vote without having these criteria met will have their vote removed. If a user repeatedly attempts to vote without having these criteria met, their voting privileges may be suspended until they meet this criteria. In this case, the voter has not yet completed both debates. A debate is considered completed when it is in the voting period.
************************************************************************

-->
@Harleygator

CON set out a precise and consistent introduction, using a sound understanding of economics to detail the solid logic underpinning of their case; in particular, their acknowledgement of the "microcosmistic" (not a word; I don't care) nature of the blackboard analogy presupposed a later objection from PRO regarding the limited scope of the scenario - specifically, that the logic did not carry forward with situational relevance to workers pursuing the provision of their means, with what I felt wasn't sufficient explanation why given that CON set this not as circumstantial, but as explanatory of a more general economic principle. CON addressed this mistake in Round 4, and PRO's response was simply to restate it. To go further, PRO introduced not a rebuttal per se of the logic set out in the introduction, but instead presented a related but independent case for considering this through a demand-side analysis - like their treatment of causality in the matter of GDP in Round 3 (cleanly debunked by CON in Round 5), I felt that PRO failed to properly address the original economic logic as explained, while also failing to properly sustain a justification for a new frame of analysis. CON tackled the biscuit analogy in Round 4 with some pertinent questions; yet again, PRO's defence of this point relied mostly on incredulity and what I feel was an unsubstantiated and largely inaccurate understanding of demand, and especially of the role of money.

-->
@Harleygator

PRO's opening case set the tone for much of what I felt was problematic with their debating style more generally - largely rhetorical, derisory, and emotive, as evidenced by repeated sarcasm towards "the greatest nation on Earth", use of the loaded terms "trickle down economics" and "wage slavery", and multiple tangential references to power and/or wealth imbalance (with no proper connection to the motion). While there is nothing wrong with holding a particular ideology, I felt it granted the cases made a more rhetorical than substantive effect, though this is merely personal preference, with more substantive reasoning for my decision presented above.

-->
@Christen

"one could also argue that this “Introduction of regulations” let to those people who did “assembly line monkey work” becoming lazy and less motivated to find a better paying job in the future, since they could just keep doing the monkey work instead of looking for better options"

Your missing 2 concerns.
1. The monkey work was necessary and needed to be done.
2. (More important) wouldn't you expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability? Trying hard should attain class growth and/or wealth! So shouldnt *full time* work doing necessary but simple tasks earn you a stable living without extra frills?

I often find conservatives divide everyone into those who try hard and those who don't try at all with no middle ground for people who just want a stable family life. They don't want wealth enough to try barred, but they do want to eat and maybe feed their dependents. Is it not ok to want a middle life?

-->
@Christen

It is impossible to isolate the single variable of minimum wage from the rest of the economy and policies. We do not, and will not anytime soon, have the computing power to handle such a complex simulation + variable control. A consistent correlation using hindesight shows that every time min wage went up, gdp boomed. When it fell, gdp stagnated.... can you please explain how one could form a stronger connection between the 2 within reason?

-->
@Christen

I appreciate your diligence, as well as your vote.

-->
@Athias
@bmdrocks21

I fixed my RFD and all of the links.

-->
@Christen

Done