The assertion in the title is one I saw in another member's signature line. The assertion struck me as a fine one for debating, and seeing as this is the Structured Debate Forum, I figured I'd create a thread that offers the opportunity do so in a, well, structured and well ordered manner. Thread Rules: Rule 1: Posters must choose to argue the affirmative or the negative. That is, choose one of the following two propositions and argue its veracity/legitimacy. You must argue for one, not against one or both. (The reason is obvious: the assertions themselves are opposite assertions.) When the smoke clears, the lack of adequate pay is the real problem for the middle class. When the smoke clears, the lack of adequate pay is not the real problem for the middle class. Note: If you choose this proposition as the one for which you argue, you must identify something as "the real problem." Rule 2: Your arguments may not contain any of the logical fallacies found here -- Arguments to avoid -- including any unlisted "subtypes" of the fallacy types found in the document. For example, there are about half a dozen types of ad hominem fallacy; however the linked document notes only two of them, so this rule, proscribes posters from using any form of ad hominem argument. To some of you, that list may seem exhaustive. I assure you it is not even the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Rule 3: Each member's first post in the thread must be the one in which they argue, in ~1000 words or more, for one of the two propositions offered in Rule 1. Only after you've presented your own argument may you attack/refute, remark upon, or defend someone else's argument. This thread is designed, as much as three rules allow, to resemble a blending of Lincoln-Douglas and policy debate; thus posters should think of this as a thread in which the quality of one's argument, not the actual position one takes, is what matters. One need not agree with the position one takes. FWIW, arguing for the with which one disagrees, while challenging to do, will surely do one a lot of good in other situations where one is of a mind to argue for what one truly believes. The best attorneys and other debaters can argue either side with equal aplomb.