No incentive to work

Forums › Off topic › No incentive to work

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1480530 28-Jan-2016 10:45

sir1963:

dickytim:

mattwnz:

Work hierarchy, and big pay scale differences, is such a contradiction to the PC world we live in. Supposedly everyone should be treated equally, no matter what their status. But in the work environment, this is is totally different. Some progressive companies in the USA mainly, are removing hierarchies, and paying everyone the same. I suppose that is where a living wage comes in.

This is bordering on communism, the biggest downfall of paying everyone the same, is you take that incentive to improve out of the mix.

I am not saying some people wont improve for self improvement sake, but the fair majority will plod along day in and day out doing the bare minimum to keep their jobs, much like a lot do now but now they are paid the same as someone who strives to do the best they can for their boss and the company they work for. There needs to be a shift in thinking, but don't reward the slack at the expense of the hard working!

The US top tax rate from about 1930-mid 1960's was over 90%

It did not discourage people from working harder/longer

It did not stop people from building huge amounts of wealth (eh howard hughes)

It did not damage the economy (in fact that period was probably the most vibrant)

The trickle down theory has failed to work, in the USA wages in real terms are less then they were in the 1970's

Management is often never held accountable for their actions, they make decisions that can take years before the damage shows, but they have moved on a year or more before and never suffer the consequences

"Hard Work" is grossly misused , try seeing how many managers can cope with a day in a coal mine, digging post holes, lifting the elderly. There are a LOT of jobs that are VERY hard, but pay minimum wage.

Research has shown the wealthy are generally less honest less generous, less sympathetic than the average worker

Also

Raising the minimum wage has no negative impacts

http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

All very good points! But I suspect that some here who have personal belief systems they are not even aware of, will dismiss and minimalise them. And so they will pretend there is no solution to societies problems, all the while benefitting from the very problems themselves at the expense of others.

That is the REAL problem here. Not that there isn't enough resources, or that people will "have no incentive".

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1480581 28-Jan-2016 12:05

JimmyH:

sir1963:

"Hard Work" is grossly misused , try seeing how many managers can cope with a day in a coal mine, digging post holes, lifting the elderly. There are a LOT of jobs that are VERY hard, but pay minimum wage.

Again, you need to understand economic value. As I have tried to point out before, value is extrinsic not intrinsic, and markets set prices at the margin.

Top grade managerial talent and experience, capable of running say a top-50 company, is very, very scarce. Hence the market rate is high.

Semi-skilled young people with strong backs capable of swinging a shovel are relatively abundant, as are people capable of stitching the soles onto shoes (which can also be outsourced to pretty much anywhere in the world), and hence the market rates for people with these skills are comparatively low. They pay minimum wage because that's as low as the price is legally allowed to fall, and the excess supply of low-skill labour results in unemployment instead.

It is pretty much irrelevant how "hard" you consider the two jobs are, or whether you consider one is more socially worthy than the other. That's not how things work.

A very pretty argument until you look at the actual facts on the ground.

"Top grade managerial talent", lol, recent examples of the "top grade" make it look like "first grade".

If your argument held water, and it does not, you would find the top scientists, researchers and inventors would be the most highly rewarded people on the planet. Nikola Tesla, or his estate, would be worth a trillion dollars. Because under your argument, his talents were exceeding rare and the economic benefits of his genius are felt in every wire in every country of the world. Instead, he died a pauper.

And there are countless other examples. Infact, it is typical for world changing inventions to be TAKEN from the inventor and to profit one on your "rare managerial talents". I call it parasitical. And it makes a lie of your assertion.

sir1963:

The US top tax rate from about 1930-mid 1960's was over 90%

It did not discourage people from working harder/longer

Personally, although I don't earn huge sums, I know what my response would be if you put my tax rate to 90%. It wouldn't discourage me from working harder or longer.

It would, however, encourage me to nostalgically look in on NZ online news from time to time to see how the country was doing, from whatever country I had emigrated to. You wouldn't get more money from me for your pet causes, in fact you would go from whatever I pay now to zero. It would be good for Aussie and the UK though, as they would pick up a lot of skilled labour (business owners, plumbers, electricians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, actors, etc) as they fled en masse.

The labour market is global. You can't make a tax change like that without consequences.

And yet there are countries with very high tax rates in the range of what has been said, and they have no problem with retaining rich people. The wealthy flock to them. As has been stated, the 1920's in the USA was one such, and it was the place to be at the time. The Rockerfellers and Hughes we not running off to take their millions to europe or asia, and neither would the Gates nor Buffets today.

No, your argument is simply a transparent attempt to justify the status quo.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1480635 28-Jan-2016 12:58

I guess all those bankers with their multi-million dollar bonuses who led us into the abyss and cost many genuinely hard-working people their jobs were just rare talents deserving of disproportionate compensation. I wonder what they would have done to the world if they had only been paid ordinary salaries?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1480645 28-Jan-2016 13:13

Rikkitic:
I guess all those bankers with their multi-million dollar bonuses who led us into the abyss and cost many genuinely hard-working people their jobs were just rare talents deserving of disproportionate compensation. I wonder what they would have done to the world if they had only been paid ordinary salaries?

The Financial sector was an example of incredible ineptitude and talented criminal activity mixed with greed. They are also like demented reef fish. The global crises was clear evidence that the industry should be regulated.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1480665 28-Jan-2016 13:55

MikeB4:
Rikkitic:

I guess all those bankers with their multi-million dollar bonuses who led us into the abyss and cost many genuinely hard-working people their jobs were just rare talents deserving of disproportionate compensation. I wonder what they would have done to the world if they had only been paid ordinary salaries?

The Financial sector was an example of incredible ineptitude and talented criminal activity mixed with greed. They are also like demented reef fish. The global crises was clear evidence that the industry should be regulated.

Ah but quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1480667 28-Jan-2016 14:00

Brendan:

JimmyH:

sir1963:

"Hard Work" is grossly misused , try seeing how many managers can cope with a day in a coal mine, digging post holes, lifting the elderly. There are a LOT of jobs that are VERY hard, but pay minimum wage.

Again, you need to understand economic value. As I have tried to point out before, value is extrinsic not intrinsic, and markets set prices at the margin.

Top grade managerial talent and experience, capable of running say a top-50 company, is very, very scarce. Hence the market rate is high.

Semi-skilled young people with strong backs capable of swinging a shovel are relatively abundant, as are people capable of stitching the soles onto shoes (which can also be outsourced to pretty much anywhere in the world), and hence the market rates for people with these skills are comparatively low. They pay minimum wage because that's as low as the price is legally allowed to fall, and the excess supply of low-skill labour results in unemployment instead.

It is pretty much irrelevant how "hard" you consider the two jobs are, or whether you consider one is more socially worthy than the other. That's not how things work.

A very pretty argument until you look at the actual facts on the ground.

"Top grade managerial talent", lol, recent examples of the "top grade" make it look like "first grade".

If your argument held water, and it does not, you would find the top scientists, researchers and inventors would be the most highly rewarded people on the planet. Nikola Tesla, or his estate, would be worth a trillion dollars. Because under your argument, his talents were exceeding rare and the economic benefits of his genius are felt in every wire in every country of the world. Instead, he died a pauper.

And there are countless other examples. Infact, it is typical for world changing inventions to be TAKEN from the inventor and to profit one on your "rare managerial talents". I call it parasitical. And it makes a lie of your assertion.

sir1963:

The US top tax rate from about 1930-mid 1960's was over 90%

It did not discourage people from working harder/longer

Personally, although I don't earn huge sums, I know what my response would be if you put my tax rate to 90%. It wouldn't discourage me from working harder or longer.

It would, however, encourage me to nostalgically look in on NZ online news from time to time to see how the country was doing, from whatever country I had emigrated to. You wouldn't get more money from me for your pet causes, in fact you would go from whatever I pay now to zero. It would be good for Aussie and the UK though, as they would pick up a lot of skilled labour (business owners, plumbers, electricians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, actors, etc) as they fled en masse.

The labour market is global. You can't make a tax change like that without consequences.

And yet there are countries with very high tax rates in the range of what has been said, and they have no problem with retaining rich people. The wealthy flock to them. As has been stated, the 1920's in the USA was one such, and it was the place to be at the time. The Rockerfellers and Hughes we not running off to take their millions to europe or asia, and neither would the Gates nor Buffets today.

No, your argument is simply a transparent attempt to justify the status quo.

You might want to go and look at just how poor the poor were in the glorious 20's and 30's when they were resorting to selling their children for food money...! More than 60% of Americans in the 20's were living below the poverty line.

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1480670 28-Jan-2016 14:07

Geektastic:

MikeB4:
Rikkitic:

I guess all those bankers with their multi-million dollar bonuses who led us into the abyss and cost many genuinely hard-working people their jobs were just rare talents deserving of disproportionate compensation. I wonder what they would have done to the world if they had only been paid ordinary salaries?

The Financial sector was an example of incredible ineptitude and talented criminal activity mixed with greed. They are also like demented reef fish. The global crises was clear evidence that the industry should be regulated.

Ah but quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Thats the benefit of graduated taxes, it gets to a point where other things (reputation, work/home balance , etc) take precedence over simple greed and reckless behaviour.

Wall street should have had a massive liability/criminal investigation, but the government was too scared and instead bailed them out with tax payers money which they used to pay themselves bonuses.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1480674 28-Jan-2016 14:14

Geektastic:

Brendan:

JimmyH:

sir1963:

"Hard Work" is grossly misused , try seeing how many managers can cope with a day in a coal mine, digging post holes, lifting the elderly. There are a LOT of jobs that are VERY hard, but pay minimum wage.

Again, you need to understand economic value. As I have tried to point out before, value is extrinsic not intrinsic, and markets set prices at the margin.

Top grade managerial talent and experience, capable of running say a top-50 company, is very, very scarce. Hence the market rate is high.

Semi-skilled young people with strong backs capable of swinging a shovel are relatively abundant, as are people capable of stitching the soles onto shoes (which can also be outsourced to pretty much anywhere in the world), and hence the market rates for people with these skills are comparatively low. They pay minimum wage because that's as low as the price is legally allowed to fall, and the excess supply of low-skill labour results in unemployment instead.

It is pretty much irrelevant how "hard" you consider the two jobs are, or whether you consider one is more socially worthy than the other. That's not how things work.

A very pretty argument until you look at the actual facts on the ground.

"Top grade managerial talent", lol, recent examples of the "top grade" make it look like "first grade".

If your argument held water, and it does not, you would find the top scientists, researchers and inventors would be the most highly rewarded people on the planet. Nikola Tesla, or his estate, would be worth a trillion dollars. Because under your argument, his talents were exceeding rare and the economic benefits of his genius are felt in every wire in every country of the world. Instead, he died a pauper.

And there are countless other examples. Infact, it is typical for world changing inventions to be TAKEN from the inventor and to profit one on your "rare managerial talents". I call it parasitical. And it makes a lie of your assertion.

sir1963:

The US top tax rate from about 1930-mid 1960's was over 90%

It did not discourage people from working harder/longer

Personally, although I don't earn huge sums, I know what my response would be if you put my tax rate to 90%. It wouldn't discourage me from working harder or longer.

It would, however, encourage me to nostalgically look in on NZ online news from time to time to see how the country was doing, from whatever country I had emigrated to. You wouldn't get more money from me for your pet causes, in fact you would go from whatever I pay now to zero. It would be good for Aussie and the UK though, as they would pick up a lot of skilled labour (business owners, plumbers, electricians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, actors, etc) as they fled en masse.

The labour market is global. You can't make a tax change like that without consequences.

And yet there are countries with very high tax rates in the range of what has been said, and they have no problem with retaining rich people. The wealthy flock to them. As has been stated, the 1920's in the USA was one such, and it was the place to be at the time. The Rockerfellers and Hughes we not running off to take their millions to europe or asia, and neither would the Gates nor Buffets today.

No, your argument is simply a transparent attempt to justify the status quo.

You might want to go and look at just how poor the poor were in the glorious 20's and 30's when they were resorting to selling their children for food money...! More than 60% of Americans in the 20's were living below the poverty line.

You mean the great depression.Where as the 1950/s and 60s has the largest growth inspire of the high taxes. The Middle classes boomed.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1480675 28-Jan-2016 14:14

bazzer:

Geektastic: I wouldn't get in, the required score is 150.

Don't sell yourself short. They take the top 2% (i.e. 1 in 50), you could probably get in.

Unless the scores you're quoting are from a test with s.d. of 24 points (which seems likely) in which case, no, you're probably right. I don't know if there are any lesser societies you may be able to join, if you're interested in socialising with like-minded people.

Don't remember the test type - it was administered by Hudson Recruitment as part of an executive head hunting approach.

I do recall the Myers Briggs result - INTP.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1480680 28-Jan-2016 14:31

sir1963:

Geektastic:

Brendan:

JimmyH:

sir1963:

"Hard Work" is grossly misused , try seeing how many managers can cope with a day in a coal mine, digging post holes, lifting the elderly. There are a LOT of jobs that are VERY hard, but pay minimum wage.

Again, you need to understand economic value. As I have tried to point out before, value is extrinsic not intrinsic, and markets set prices at the margin.

Top grade managerial talent and experience, capable of running say a top-50 company, is very, very scarce. Hence the market rate is high.

Semi-skilled young people with strong backs capable of swinging a shovel are relatively abundant, as are people capable of stitching the soles onto shoes (which can also be outsourced to pretty much anywhere in the world), and hence the market rates for people with these skills are comparatively low. They pay minimum wage because that's as low as the price is legally allowed to fall, and the excess supply of low-skill labour results in unemployment instead.

It is pretty much irrelevant how "hard" you consider the two jobs are, or whether you consider one is more socially worthy than the other. That's not how things work.

A very pretty argument until you look at the actual facts on the ground.

"Top grade managerial talent", lol, recent examples of the "top grade" make it look like "first grade".

If your argument held water, and it does not, you would find the top scientists, researchers and inventors would be the most highly rewarded people on the planet. Nikola Tesla, or his estate, would be worth a trillion dollars. Because under your argument, his talents were exceeding rare and the economic benefits of his genius are felt in every wire in every country of the world. Instead, he died a pauper.

And there are countless other examples. Infact, it is typical for world changing inventions to be TAKEN from the inventor and to profit one on your "rare managerial talents". I call it parasitical. And it makes a lie of your assertion.

sir1963:

The US top tax rate from about 1930-mid 1960's was over 90%

It did not discourage people from working harder/longer

Personally, although I don't earn huge sums, I know what my response would be if you put my tax rate to 90%. It wouldn't discourage me from working harder or longer.

It would, however, encourage me to nostalgically look in on NZ online news from time to time to see how the country was doing, from whatever country I had emigrated to. You wouldn't get more money from me for your pet causes, in fact you would go from whatever I pay now to zero. It would be good for Aussie and the UK though, as they would pick up a lot of skilled labour (business owners, plumbers, electricians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, actors, etc) as they fled en masse.

The labour market is global. You can't make a tax change like that without consequences.

And yet there are countries with very high tax rates in the range of what has been said, and they have no problem with retaining rich people. The wealthy flock to them. As has been stated, the 1920's in the USA was one such, and it was the place to be at the time. The Rockerfellers and Hughes we not running off to take their millions to europe or asia, and neither would the Gates nor Buffets today.

No, your argument is simply a transparent attempt to justify the status quo.

You might want to go and look at just how poor the poor were in the glorious 20's and 30's when they were resorting to selling their children for food money...! More than 60% of Americans in the 20's were living below the poverty line.

You mean the great depression.Where as the 1950/s and 60s has the largest growth inspire of the high taxes. The Middle classes boomed.

That's more complex than taxes. At least in the USA. In the 50's and 60's, America found itself gifted with vast industrial capability as a result of WW2. That capability was re-purposed into a booming economy not really seen since. The USA had the advantage of not having suffered the Blitz or land conflict like Europe, which destroyed huge amounts of industrial capability which meant the USA was in a unique position to claim market dominance aided and abetted by the decline of the British Empire in the same period. They lent a lot to the UK and in fact the last part of the Marshall Plan was repaid to the USA by Margaret Thatcher, it was that recent.

America historically has also had it's high rate of tax cut in much higher up the scale - at the moment, you don't pay 39% until you hit about US$415,000. You can also deduct your mortgage costs, property taxes and so on from your gross salary before you calculate tax. Thus, Americans have always been able to earn more before serious taxes begin: for example the NZ highest rate would not be paid in the USA until you earned over NZ$200,000. Up to US$100,000 you are paying no more than 25% so they tax their poor and middle classes somewhat less than we do although they forgo a national health service which is directly comparable.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1480683 28-Jan-2016 14:42

Geektastic:

Ah but quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I don't think this is an issue. Regulation works reasonably well in other areas. Are you suggesting that the financial sector is so overwhelmingly corrupt (and corrupting) that it cannot be effectively regulated without the regulators becoming part of the problem?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1480684 28-Jan-2016 14:44

Geektastic:

sir1963:

Geektastic:

Brendan:

JimmyH:

sir1963:

"Hard Work" is grossly misused , try seeing how many managers can cope with a day in a coal mine, digging post holes, lifting the elderly. There are a LOT of jobs that are VERY hard, but pay minimum wage.

Again, you need to understand economic value. As I have tried to point out before, value is extrinsic not intrinsic, and markets set prices at the margin.

Top grade managerial talent and experience, capable of running say a top-50 company, is very, very scarce. Hence the market rate is high.

Semi-skilled young people with strong backs capable of swinging a shovel are relatively abundant, as are people capable of stitching the soles onto shoes (which can also be outsourced to pretty much anywhere in the world), and hence the market rates for people with these skills are comparatively low. They pay minimum wage because that's as low as the price is legally allowed to fall, and the excess supply of low-skill labour results in unemployment instead.

It is pretty much irrelevant how "hard" you consider the two jobs are, or whether you consider one is more socially worthy than the other. That's not how things work.

A very pretty argument until you look at the actual facts on the ground.

"Top grade managerial talent", lol, recent examples of the "top grade" make it look like "first grade".

If your argument held water, and it does not, you would find the top scientists, researchers and inventors would be the most highly rewarded people on the planet. Nikola Tesla, or his estate, would be worth a trillion dollars. Because under your argument, his talents were exceeding rare and the economic benefits of his genius are felt in every wire in every country of the world. Instead, he died a pauper.

And there are countless other examples. Infact, it is typical for world changing inventions to be TAKEN from the inventor and to profit one on your "rare managerial talents". I call it parasitical. And it makes a lie of your assertion.

sir1963:

The US top tax rate from about 1930-mid 1960's was over 90%

It did not discourage people from working harder/longer

Personally, although I don't earn huge sums, I know what my response would be if you put my tax rate to 90%. It wouldn't discourage me from working harder or longer.

It would, however, encourage me to nostalgically look in on NZ online news from time to time to see how the country was doing, from whatever country I had emigrated to. You wouldn't get more money from me for your pet causes, in fact you would go from whatever I pay now to zero. It would be good for Aussie and the UK though, as they would pick up a lot of skilled labour (business owners, plumbers, electricians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, actors, etc) as they fled en masse.

The labour market is global. You can't make a tax change like that without consequences.

And yet there are countries with very high tax rates in the range of what has been said, and they have no problem with retaining rich people. The wealthy flock to them. As has been stated, the 1920's in the USA was one such, and it was the place to be at the time. The Rockerfellers and Hughes we not running off to take their millions to europe or asia, and neither would the Gates nor Buffets today.

No, your argument is simply a transparent attempt to justify the status quo.

You might want to go and look at just how poor the poor were in the glorious 20's and 30's when they were resorting to selling their children for food money...! More than 60% of Americans in the 20's were living below the poverty line.

You mean the great depression.Where as the 1950/s and 60s has the largest growth inspire of the high taxes. The Middle classes boomed.

That's more complex than taxes. At least in the USA. In the 50's and 60's, America found itself gifted with vast industrial capability as a result of WW2. That capability was re-purposed into a booming economy not really seen since. The USA had the advantage of not having suffered the Blitz or land conflict like Europe, which destroyed huge amounts of industrial capability which meant the USA was in a unique position to claim market dominance aided and abetted by the decline of the British Empire in the same period. They lent a lot to the UK and in fact the last part of the Marshall Plan was repaid to the USA by Margaret Thatcher, it was that recent.

America historically has also had it's high rate of tax cut in much higher up the scale - at the moment, you don't pay 39% until you hit about US$415,000. You can also deduct your mortgage costs, property taxes and so on from your gross salary before you calculate tax. Thus, Americans have always been able to earn more before serious taxes begin: for example the NZ highest rate would not be paid in the USA until you earned over NZ$200,000. Up to US$100,000 you are paying no more than 25% so they tax their poor and middle classes somewhat less than we do although they forgo a national health service which is directly comparable.

They also lack a universal pension, maternity leave, paid holidays, ACC.

Medical expenses cost more than twice as much as in NZ with no better outcomes.

The infrastructure is degrading, roads, bridges, dams, schools, power grid.

The USA used to make up about 60% of the worlds GDP, nows its about 40% and falling (because China, India, Brazil etc economies are growing)

Chinas economy will soon be bigger than the US (Hence the PPTA which was more about shoring up the US economy and influence than anything and why those 3 countries are excluded)

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1480687 28-Jan-2016 14:49

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

Ah but quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I don't think this is an issue. Regulation works reasonably well in other areas. Are you suggesting that the financial sector is so overwhelmingly corrupt (and corrupting) that it cannot be effectively regulated without the regulators becoming part of the problem?

Go watch a few Michael Moore Doco's such as

Capitalism: A Love Story

Sicko

Bowling for Columbine

Fahrenheit 9/11

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1480688 28-Jan-2016 14:51

Geektastic:

That's more complex than taxes. At least in the USA. In the 50's and 60's, America found itself gifted with vast industrial capability as a result of WW2. That capability was re-purposed into a booming economy not really seen since. The USA had the advantage of not having suffered the Blitz or land conflict like Europe, which destroyed huge amounts of industrial capability which meant the USA was in a unique position to claim market dominance aided and abetted by the decline of the British Empire in the same period. They lent a lot to the UK and in fact the last part of the Marshall Plan was repaid to the USA by Margaret Thatcher, it was that recent.

Are you saying what the world needs is a good war? You are not the first to suggest that.

On a separate note, there seems to be a growing tendency by many posters to quote massive blocks of text. This may be more convenient for the poster, but it is a hassle for anyone who comes after who just wants to do a partial quote as a reference. Don't let it grow too big, people.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1480695 28-Jan-2016 15:04

sir1963:

Go watch a few Michael Moore Doco's such as

Capitalism: A Love Story

Sicko

Bowling for Columbine

Fahrenheit 9/11

I have seen most of those. I enjoy Michael Moore but I also like to see other perspectives. It has been suggested that the biggest problem with the financial sector is that both regulators and regulated come from the same small crony pool and that one way to tackle this might be to look for regulators completely outside the financial sector. Of course that gives rise to the problem that they might not understand what they are regulating. Who has a better answer to this?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9