We've posted for like 4 pages, and some of them are rather long posts. You can search anytime you want.
I did and did not find it. Further, as I said, I've had no problem doing this for you a number of times. My conclusion is either that you refuse to do so, because you know you didn't say that and are being dishonest, or you are too stupid to do so. I find both scenarios plausible so I won't venture a guess as to which one is correct for now.
However, I'll paraphrase - basically I stated that there are many individuals who have poor working conditions, and that these are the exceptions to the rule / [and I am not taking such into account with my argument as it's not measurable.
Wait, what? Lol, the fuck? Let's break this down for a second. First, "exceptions to the rule." Please substantiate that people in exceedingly poor working conditions are "the exception to the rule." What do you base this on? Do you think the majority of laborers live in wealthy countries with strong labor laws? Because I do not believe that is the case. Substantiate this assertion.
Second, the fact that it is "not measurable" (what exactly is not measurable?) is not a reason to not factor such into your argument. Qualitative data has value. And especially when...
...third, your assertion that executives "work harder than the average worker" is
at least as not measurable as the assertion that a great many laborers, perhaps the majority, work in poor conditions. In fact its even less measurable - we could define a threshold by which "poor working conditions" are established, and then take a look at the data and determine roughly how many working class laborers live in countries where such conditions are widespread and permitted via a lack of labor protections, if we had the will and resources to do so. The argument of who "works harder" is much more subjective than that in the way you frame this concept, since you frame it as largely a matter of subjective individual perception and experience rather than quantitative data.
