On the High Cost of Living in the Third World

[AvanteRedGarde]

[Again on] The High Cost of Living in the Third World


(mccaine.wordpress.com (http://mccaine.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/on-the-living-costs-in-the-third-world/))


It is considered an intuitively self-evident idea among most people in the developed nations, whether they are intellectuals or otherwise, that the difference in income between those nations and the underdeveloped ones can be explained away by noting that the costs of living in the Third World are lower than in the First. This is generally seen as a truism, supported by the experiences of many a tourist from the developed world when visiting popular destinations in the underdeveloped parts, such as Egypt and Mexico, and then noting the extraordinarily low prices for basic products in these countries. Surely then with such low prices, the lower incomes must have been compensated for, so that the common people in such nations are not in terms of living standards that much poorer, according to the norms they are used to?


Yet this idea is wholly false, as can be demonstrated by some simple calculations. Indeed of course the relative costs of living vary much by nation and also within nations, and incomes vary much as well; yet it is possible to give some examples that will indicate how strong in fact the difference in incomes also translates into differences in living standards, because the living costs in the underdeveloped world are in fact higher than in the developed world.


The price of bread in Ghana is 0.6 Cedi (this is the minimum price guaranteed by the state), which is $0.46. The American price of bread is $1.28 (given as average price in an article (http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2008/03/09/surging_costs_of_groceries_hit_home/) in the Boston Globe, dated 09-03-2008.). The average daily wage in Ghana is $1. The minimum hourly wage in the United States is $6.55 (federal minimum); assuming eight hours of work, we get $52.40.


Now all you need to do is calculate how many local loaves of bread one local day of work is worth, to compare. We see that one day of work buys the American minimum income worker $52.40/$1.28 = almost 41 loaves of bread (40.94). One day of work for a Ghanaian average worker buys him $1/$0.46 = a little over 2 loaves of bread (2.17). Therefore, the cost of living (expressed in bread) is much higher in Ghana than in the US.
But, it will be objected, there is more to living costs than merely food prices. Bread may in the parts of the world where this is the common staple food serve as an acceptable proxy for the costs of food, but another major expense is the costs of housing. What of this? It must first off be noted that in terms of housing comparisons are much more difficult to fairly make. Bread is bread everywhere and everywhere essentially the same, but housing costs vary enormously. Not just because of the differences in amenities common in the housing units, but also because of the differences in land prices, due to the influence of land rent. This in turn is affected by a great many variables, from effects of crime to proximity to work and urban areas, as well as environmental factors and so on.


Yet we need not despair for our analysis entirely. The LA Timesfortunately has some information (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/26/local/me-trailerpark26) in their article of 26-03-2007 on the slum living of illegal immigrants near Los Angeles. They give the example of a family which earns $10.000 a year and pays $360 a month in rent. I’m not sure if this is household income, but I think so. Rent then is 43.2% of their income, monthly and yearly, for the equivalent of an illegal hovel. From Kenya we have info (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/development/42360) on slum living, assuming the source is accurate, from a Pambazuka News article of 03-07-2007 by Humphrey Sipalla. The cost of rent is here given as KES 2,693 monthly, which is at current exchange rates $34.26 (this just to give an idea). According to the article, this represents 22% of their income, I assume also applies to households. If this is accurate then, the housing cost in a Kenya slum is just under half of what it is for illegal immigrants in California (22% versus 43%). But it would have to be 1/20th, i.e. ten times as cheap, to remove the difference in living costs altogether. Of course rents account for differences in costs as mentioned, but comparing Nairobi to the Los Angeles area seems to me not so unfair as to undo that entirely.


We may conclude then from this example, comparing the expenses in major cities in the United States (for average people and poor people respectively) with the living costs in food and housing in Ghana and Kenya respectively, that the common idea of the living costs being much lower in the underdeveloped world is wholly false. Indeed it makes that appearance because the prices, when values are calculated according to exchange values on the market, are indeed significantly lower in the Third World - the bread in Ghana costs one-third of what it does in Boston. However, our naive friends in the developed world forget that the incomes in the underdeveloped world are so much lower than theirs, that 1/3rd of the price is for them over 20 times the relative cost.


On a final scientific note, it must be taken into account that there is good evidence that the currencies of underdeveloped nations are undervalued by exchange rates in comparison to their value in terms of purchasing power. The nominal exchange rate of 16-01-2009, which is the one that I have used, is likely (as any nominal exchange rate) to undervalue the currencies of underdeveloped nations compared to their purchasing power. This has no particular implications for the living cost comparison I have undertaken, but it does affect international trade between, say, Ghana and the United States, because it means Ghanaian wages as well as prices are undervalued compared to American ones in the exchange rate, causing the terms of trade to tilt strongly in favor of the United States. Gernot Köhler’s research, described in “The Structure of Global Money and World Tables of Unequal Exchange”, in: Journal of World-Systems Research 4:2 (Fall 1998), p. 145-168 (http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol4/v4n2a4.php), indicates in the appendix that the estimated loss as percentage of GNP (PPP) on the part of Ghana and Kenya is respectively 30% and 35%. If currencies were equalized according to PPP, the relative value of the Cedi would be much greater, increasing the relative price of food in Ghana compared to the United States, but also increasing the relative value of the wage. This would not of itself necessarily alter the proportion between wage and food costs within Ghana (aside from changes in the market caused by changes in international trade in the longer run, which are outside the purview of this article), but it would to a significant degree remove the false impression on the part of citizens of developed nations about the low costs of living, because they would experience the local prices as much higher.

[AvanteRedGarde]

The High cost of living in the Third World by


Serve the People of irtr.info


http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com


The following slightly edited text was posted to irtr.info by Serve the People on Dec 02, 2005:


Well, all right, let’s look at the cost of living in Ghana. Here’s a list of prices (a month or two old) in cedis: http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/economy/market.prices.php Some of these prices are hard to use because they are in vague units such as “bag” or “large basket,” and many prices are missing. Also, some of the commodities are Ghanaian things that I’ve never even heard of. Still, we have some useful data. I’ve converted them to U$ dollars using the current rate of 1000 cedis = $0.11.


First of all, the minimum wage is 13,500 cedis per day. That’s US$1.48. In hourly terms, that’s $0.19 an hour for an 8-hour day. Compare it to a minimum of $5.15 an hour (more in some cities and states) in the U$.


A live chicken (broiler) costs 60,000 cedis ($6.58). It would cost less in the U$, where a processed chicken would be less than $5 (and even a roasted chicken wouldn’t be $6.58). The minimum-wage worker in the U$ could buy that chicken in less than an hour. In Ghana, one would have to work for 4.5 days to buy it.


A bottle of beer (”Club”), 1 liter, is about 8000 cedis ($0.88). A comparable product might be 3 times as much in the U$. But we’re comparing half an hour to five.
You mentioned bread. The most recent price given at that site is 6,000-10,000 cedis in 2003, when the exchange rate was about 8500 cedis to the U$ dollar. Suppose that a loaf of bread costs about the same, $1 (9100 cedis at current rates), today. In the U$, it is about twice as much for bread of good quality. The U$ worker earns 2.6 loaves in an hour. In Ghana, about 2/3 of a loaf in a day.


This article claims that a decent lunch at a “chop bar” would cost 30,000 cedis ($3.30), which is more than twice the minimum wage for a whole day. It says that no one can afford to rent a room (not an apartment, a room) and eat on that low wage. The author calls for raising the minimum wage to 25,000 cedis per day, which still would not be enough for lunch at a chop bar. The U$ worker could have an extremely nice dinner in an elegant restaurant for his day’s wages of $41.20.


This article refers to the price of gasoline and the minimum wages in Ghana and the U$: http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=79434 A gallon of gas costs 30,000 cedis ($3.36). In the U$ it was $2.25 (20,250 cedi), but I’m going to make that $2.70 (24,300 cedis) because Ghana uses imperial gallons, which are about 20% larger than U$ gallons. A U$ worker can buy that gallon of gas in half an hour. A Ghanaian worker would have to work for more than 2 days to buy it.
http://monkeysmashesheaven.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/accra-street_thm.jpg?w=224&h=168 (http://monkeysmashesheaven.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/accra-street_thm.jpg)

Here’s a KKKhristian publication from the West that discusses the living conditions in Ghana and the cost of living: http://gnmagazine.org/issues/gn36/livemonth.htm



It speaks of rent as being $7/month. Sounds cheap? It’s for one room in a run-down old building. The kitchen and the bathroom are communal. Often even the room itself is shared. Such housing can hardly be found in the U$ (and I bet the condition of the building in Ghana would be enough to get it condemned in the U$), but let’s compare housing as a percentage of wages. That’s what a Ghanaian earning the average got for 30% of his or her salary. A U$ worker spending 30% of the minimum wage on rent would have $265, which is enough to rent a decent apartment with roommates in many places. Also, just paying tuition (even at a public school) for one child cost about $6, or some 25% of an average Ghanaian’s earnings. Tuition at the public schools is free in the U$.


I could go on. I’ve already spent too much time on this. But don’t you see that the cost of living in Ghana is not less than that in the U$? Maybe a few items are cheaper in Ghana. But the time needed to earn them is much greater. And we haven’t even talked about the cost of major items that people in the U$ easily buy. The site mentioned 10,000,000 cedis ($1100) for a Samsung air conditioner. I don’t know what sort of air conditioner they mean, but presumably it’s a small window unit, the kind that might cost $200 in the U$. The Ghanaian price is higher than the U$ price. In any case, you can bet that the Korean manufacturer isn’t selling those air conditioners to Ghana for less than the going rate.

[Devrim]

What is your point here though? It seems to me that all you are saying is people in Ghana are poor. I don't think that anybody here didn't know that.

Devrim

[AvanteRedGarde]

I've seen Marmot imply that they cost of living in Mexico is cheaper.

[Bilan]

The poor are poor, and the poorer nations are poorer, and the poor in the poorer nations struggle.
The articles aren't terribly written, except for the inane intentional mispelling, but I don't really see what the point of this is.
This made me giggle though:

I’ve converted them to U$ dollars using the current rate of 1000 cedis = $0.11.

Literally, that "U$ Dollars" translates to "United Dollars Dollars". :lol:

[Devrim]

The cost of living in Mexico, expressed in dollar terms, is of course cheaper. Of course that does not mean that people's living standards are higher. This is directly related to wages and purchasing power.

For example a loaf of bread in our country costs $0.38. This is cheaper than in the US.
Minimum wage is $408, which if you divide by 160 (four weeks of 40 hours) is $2.55. Therefore Turkish workers can buy bread at 30% of the US price ($1.28) but earn a minimum wage of 50% of the US minimum wage ($5.15). Therefore we are better off.

In real life it doesn't work like that though. It is possible for people to buy subsidised bread so we are even better off than we thought.

Also there are more than four weeks in a month so people are working more than 160 hours to get that, and I doubt that most people on minimum wage do a 40 hour week anyway.

Your statistics about the US seem confused enough;

The minimum hourly wage in the United States is $6.55 (federal minimum)

Compare it to a minimum of $5.15 an hour (more in some cities and states) in the U$.


Your idea about third world prices and expenses is, well what you would expect from a North America Maoist.

Also, it would be necessary to look at what minimum wage means. Is it something that is enforced? What percentage of workers are employed on it?

But at the end of the day what are you trying to prove? Workers in Ghana are poorer than those in the US. Well yes, I think we all knew that.

Devrim

[benhur]

Workers in Ghana are poorer than those in the US. Well yes, I think we all knew that.


Knowledge isn't the issue here, but what you infer from it. Because first-world workers are better off, they wouldn't identify themselves with proles, much less with third-world proles! This perhaps explains why unity among the workers is so hard to come by.

[Bilan]

Benhur, for heavens sake, for someone who is still learning, you sure do assume a hell of a lot about the workers movement.

[Devrim]

Knowledge isn't the issue here, but what you infer from it.

Which makes one wonder what the need for all of the confused arguments is.


Because first-world workers are better off, they wouldn't identify themselves with proles,

Workers are proletarians. What does is mean that workers wouldn't identify as proletarians?

One thing that I find intolerable though is these untold riches that Maoist assume that these evil Western workers have:


A U$ worker spending 30% of the minimum wage on rent would have $265, which is enough to rent a decent apartment with roommates in many places.

Having a 'decent home' is better than living in the street, but being forced to share because you can't afford to live on your own is hardly the height of luxury. What I infer from that is that a man on the minimum wage with a wife at home looking after a child would be in pretty dire poverty in the US.

Devrim

[AvanteRedGarde]

Most people who earn minimum wage are under 25 or in the service industry and may or may not have their income supplemented by tips.

Workers are workers. Proletarian are the class of workers with nothing to loose but their chains and everything to gain. Furthermore, Proletarians are by definition exploited (receive less than the full value of their labor) , something that may not be the case with all workers.

If "workers are proletarians," then "proletarian" is stripped of its revolutionary significance.

[Devrim]

Most people who earn minimum wage are under 25 or in the service industry and may or may not have their income supplemented by tips.

But the important point isn't the personal details of workers earning minimum wage, but whether it is enforced, and how many workers are on it, or below it.


Furthermore, Proletarians are by definition exploited (receive less than the full value of their labor) , something that may not be the case with all workers.

The overwhelming vast majority of workers recieve less than the full value of their labour. When they don't they tend to lose their jobs pretty quickly.


Workers are workers. Proletarian are the class of workers with nothing to loose but their chains and everything to gain...If "workers are proletarians," then "proletarian" is stripped of its revolutionary significance.

Marx used them interchangeably, not that that proves anything. Generally people who claim that there is some difference between 'workers' and 'proletarians' are people who deny that the working class is the revolutionary subject, like these sort of Maoists.

Devrim

[AvanteRedGarde]

But the important point isn't the personal details of workers earning minimum wage, but whether it is enforced, and how many workers are on it, or below it.

The important thing is the ratio of wages to the value of labor.


The overwhelming vast majority of workers recieve less than the full value of their labour. When they don't they tend to lose their jobs pretty quickly.

Why?? Isn't the basic premise of most economics that there are exploiting classes. Some of them, well almost of them, work. Maoism Third Worlidsm understands that the majority of First World workers in fact absorb, not create, surplus value.


Marx used them interchangeably, not that that proves anything. Generally people who claim that there is some difference between 'workers' and 'proletarians' are people who deny that the working class is the revolutionary subject, like these sort of Maoists.


Marx was operating under and writing about conditions of pure capitalism. Under such conditions, its safe to assume that almost all workers are proletarians. This is not the case today, under capitalist-imperialism. Generally people who fanatically rush to the defense of First World 'proletariats' become Social Democrats sooner or later.

Moreover, you keep on saying 'working class' but you haven't defined it very well. Are NFL players proletariats? Are pilots? College professors? Cashiers? What exactly are you talking about when you ambiguously say 'working class.'

[cyu]

Moreover, you keep on saying 'working class' but you haven't defined it very well. Are NFL players proletariats? Are pilots? College professors? Cashiers? What exactly are you talking about when you ambiguously say 'working class.'

I don't know about him, but personally I would say it's a spectrum. On the one end are people who own no stocks and go to work every day. On the other end are people who own stocks / bonds / land / buildings / have trust funds and do not go to work every day.

Of course, there is a range of people in between that own some amount of stocks. I would say if you wanted to draw a crisp dividing line would be when most of the income you get comes from the stocks / land you own (ie. off the backs of your employees / tenants).

[AvanteRedGarde]

Marxism, nor Anarchism, is about gray areas.

The point was on the 'proletariat' vs. 'working class,' the former being a revolutionary vehicle and the latter not always.

'Working class' aside, Engles called the proletariat the class which receives no income from the ownership of capital. By Engles definition, half of Americans who fall outside of a strict boundaries of what is the proletariat.

Additionally, there is always the concept of the petty bourgeoisie. And then the semi-proletarian and labor aristocracy most memorably talked about by Lenin.

However, all of these definitions are somewhat inadequate. Afterall, we are talking about workers, which despite having no ownership of capital, are still through a specific relation with capital able to absorb surplus value: a kind of petty class of workers whom are exploiters.

Of course, all these categories and function definitions are probably to constricting. It's a lot easier to just think of the 'working class' as one vast gray area I suppose.

[Bilan]

Marxism, nor Anarchism, is about gray areas.

Evidently, the goal of both is not to create them, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Anarchism has many gray areas and inadequacies, Marxism does too (In terms, of strict adherence to the original ideas of either).



The point was on the 'proletariat' vs. 'working class,' the former being a revolutionary vehicle and the latter not always.


The following features of Marx’s definition of the proletariat should be noted: (1) proletariat is synonymous with “modern working class"

Source. (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm)


'Working class' aside, Engles called the proletariat the class which receives no income from the ownership of capital. By Engles definition, half of Americans who fall outside of a strict boundaries of what is the proletariat.

You keep saying this, but have little beyond the confines of your brain to back it up. This is perhaps due to your detatchment from the class you feel at liberty to ridicule. Unless, of course, you too are an exploiter, AmeriKKKan.



Additionally, there is always the concept of the petty bourgeoisie.


1) The class of small proprietors (for example, owners of small stores), and general handicrafts people of various types.
...
2) Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers.
While these workers are a part of the working class (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat) because they receive a wage and their livelihood is dependent on that wage, they are seperated from working class consciousness because they have day-to-day control, but not ownership, over the means of production, distribution, and exchange.


source. (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm)


So far, little correlation between your bastardisations and reality.



However, all of these definitions are somewhat inadequate.

Correction: somewhat disprove you.



Afterall, we are talking about workers, which despite having no ownership of capital, are still through a specific relation with capital able to absorb surplus value: a kind of petty class of workers whom are exploiters.

Again, you keep saying that, but there is little to base this on beyond made up statistics and poor analysis (oh, and pointing out that workers in poor countries are poor, as if this was some sort of breakthrough in Marxist politics).
You've failed to prove anything. What you've done is asserted it over and over again, and then claimed this as an explanation.



Of course, all these categories and function definitions are probably to constricting. It's a lot easier to just think of the 'working class' as one vast gray area I suppose.

How does that make it easier? Less accuracy in something makes it more difficult to understand. Flimsy, anti-working class conceptions of the working class are not destroying any façades, only creating them.

[ls]

Your "Third Worldist" (it ends up being anti-third worldist in the end of the day) crap is so boring, honestly.

What's your conclusion in the end? That "First Worldist" workers/working-class/proletarians (whichever definition you feel like being pedantic about today) absorb surplus value and it is their fault they are exploited unlike third world workers? If you believe that to be true, what do you recommend they should do, I'm not too familiar with the "Third Worldist" point of view, moreover the whole thing seems disjointed and like every "Third Worldist" has entirely different opinions.

[black magick hustla]

I've seen Marmot imply that they cost of living in Mexico is cheaper.

This is a giant strawman. I claimed life is cheaper but I also claimed Mexico is poor. I was simply pointing out your ridiculous and racist assumptions that mexicans are donkey riding peasants.Or pointing the fact that if your theory was true the proletarians of the rich cities in Mexico would be exploiting the country side.

[ZeroNowhere]

Your "Third Worldist" (it ends up being anti-third worldist in the end of the day) crap is so boring, honestly.

What's your conclusion in the end? That "First Worldist" workers/working-class/proletarians (whichever definition you feel like being pedantic about today) absorb surplus value and it is their fault they are exploited unlike third world workers? If you believe that to be true, what do you recommend they should do, I'm not too familiar with the "Third Worldist" point of view, moreover the whole thing seems disjointed and like every "Third Worldist" has entirely different opinions.
To be fair, 'Third Worldism' generally claims that 'First World' workers are not exploited. Also, what do non-'Third Worldists' claim that capitalists "should do"? There's no single agreed response. I would expect the same would apply to 'TWists'.


2) Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers.
While these workers are a part of the working class because they receive a wage and their livelihood is dependent on that wage, they are seperated from working class consciousness because they have day-to-day control, but not ownership, over the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
Technically, I haven't really seen this definition of small-capitalist used, mainly because the 'petit-bourgeoisie' refers to small business owners and the like, and wouldn't really make sense otherwise, certainly not applied to proletarians.

[Bilan]

It comes from Marxists.org. I'm not going to debate that here and now, as this debate on the middle class and the like has been thoroughly addressed recently.
However, as a side note, you always seem to respond to my posts with the opening word being 'Technically'. :p

[bcbm]

despite having no ownership of capital, are still through a specific relation with capital able to absorb surplus value: a kind of petty class of workers whom are exploiters.

No, my boss exploits me because he pays me as little as he can while getting as much labor from me as possible. My being born here and doing what I need to survive in this society (ie, work) does not. The bosses are responsible for imperialist exploitation, not workers because they are the ones who control the system.

[ls]

To be fair, 'Third Worldism' generally claims that 'First World' workers are not exploited.

Which is completely wrong, that isn't even worth debating.


Also, what do non-'Third Worldists' claim that capitalists "should do"? There's no single agreed response. I would expect the same would apply to 'TWists'.

Don't be silly. This third worldism crap is very limited to maoists.


Technically, I haven't really seen this definition of small-capitalist used, mainly because the 'petit-bourgeoisie' refers to small business owners and the like, and wouldn't really make sense otherwise, certainly not applied to proletarians.

And this was my point in that opening part of my post, those kinds of things just aren't up for discussion.

[cyu]

The point was on the 'proletariat' vs. 'working class,' the former being a revolutionary vehicle and the latter not always... 'Working class' aside, Engles called the proletariat the class which receives no income from the ownership of capital. By Engles definition, half of Americans who fall outside of a strict boundaries of what is the proletariat.

If Engles wants to define himself out of a base of potential supporters, then sucks to be him. I would say if you really wanted to be a successful revolutionary, you would want as many people helping your movement as possible, even if they are only half-hearted supporters.

Here's the way I see it:

1. The core group of so-called "true revolutionaries" - possibly drawn mostly from those most hurt by the current system, with little left to lose or desperate for change.

2. Another group of "part time" revolutionaries - maybe composed of people who are willing to tolerate current conditions for now, but don't like it particularly much, and would love to see it change.

3. Another group of "fair weather" revolutionaries - perhaps they could live decently whether a revolution happens or not, but they support the cause because they believe it is just. However, that doesn't mean they won't cower or flee at the first sign of repression, so you can't always count on them - just make the most of their support while you can.

4. The indifferent - the goal of revolutionaries is to move as many capitalists into this category as possible (assuming you can't move them a step further into the "fair weather" category) - in other words, the system you are advocating should be good enough for everyone. If any can be convinced that they wouldn't mind living in either the present society or the post-revolutionary one, then you've just lost one opponent (not quite as good as converting him into a supporter, but good enough).


Additionally, there is always the concept of the petty bourgeoisie.

While the ruling class tries to co-opt small business owners because they both operate on the concept of living off the backs of their employees, I would emphasize the fact that many of them live middle-class lifestyles, and that they are in turn exploited by their bank, venture capitalists, and landlords.

Of course, you can't convince everyone. At some point, there will be critical mass, and change will happen regardless of what the last hold-outs want.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Which is completely wrong, that isn't even worth debating.



Great argument.

I take it you have never lived in a third or second world country.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Don't be silly. This third worldism crap is very limited to maoists.


Untrue.

[Devrim]

Great argument.

I take it you have never lived in a third or second world country.

I would expect that you haven't either. I don't think that not having lived there invalidates a person's argument, but if it invalidates his, it would also invalidate yours.

Also the 'Second' world traditionally meant the Soviet block.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/First_second_third_worlds_map.svg/800px-First_second_third_worlds_map.svg.png
I have lived and worked in all three of the areas defined on this map, though in the 'Second' world after the fall of the USSR. That doesn't make me right.

Devrim

[Bilan]

Ya devrim, but your politics are absolutely garbage and after x many of decades have yet to be at the head of any movement to overthrow a state or class. That should tell you something right there.

Sectarian drivel does not constitute an argument. If you continue with this sort of inane crap you will be given a warning.