A woman sits in the coffee house. She’s nice and neatly dressed, around 50 years old, but you can tell she doesn’t spend a lot of money on her wardrobe. Of course, it’s not clear whether it’s because she can’t afford it or doesn’t want to afford it. The fact that most people put her in the “she doesn’t have much” corner is a different story. The coffee house is busy and there is not a single table left when a lady appears whose wardrobe and demeanor are the exact opposite of the former. It seems expensive, from the toes of the shoes to the hairstyle. You notice the effect because the waiter who appears immediately is extremely submissive.
“Ma’am,” he says, “I’m heartbroken, but unfortunately we don’t have a single free table.”
“Can’t I just sit here,” she asks, “I really need a coffee.”
“Of course, if you don’t mind,” the waiter explains with a dismissive look at the woman sitting there and without asking her. Finally, he even points to her and says, “She’ll leave soon anyway, she’s already drunk.”
“Bring me another double espresso,” she says, much to the annoyance of the waiter, who would have preferred to get rid of the woman, who probably doesn’t fit his image of a decent guest. But something about her irritates him. He usually sees poor people as reserved and easily intimidated, but this one has a strangely understated authority that he doesn’t know how to define. “I want a latte macchiato and a Malakoff cake,” the other lady also placed her order, whereupon the waiter bowed briefly, but only to the obviously rich woman, before disappearing. Until what was requested was brought, there was silence at the table. Both of them looked around the room.
“So many people are sitting in the coffee house on a Wednesday morning. Why do they have time for this in the middle of the week? Don’t they all have a regular job?” asked the second woman suddenly.
“How come? You’re sitting here too. Are you starting from your own situation?” replied the first, amused.
“What nonsense. For me it’s something different. After all, I work on the management floor,” she explained with all the arrogance that is characteristic of the bourgeois, “But the rabble has work to do. No discipline. No more will to perform. And who is to blame for this? The social legislation, because as soon as people are doing well without work and have something to eat, they won’t work, that’s just how people are, i.e. the mob. They have no intrinsic motivation. What did our ancestors say? You can only pay workers enough to live on. If you pay them more, let’s say the wages they would normally earn for two days, on one day, then they wouldn’t work anymore on the second. This is purely an educational measure. At the very beginning, people had to be chained to the machines so that they could stay on. Imagine that they lived like cattle from one day to the next. Luckily, they quickly realized that if they stopped coming to work, others would take their place, so the problem solved itself. But until you got that far, it was bad. 16 hours of work a day, seven days a week, should be reintroduced. Then we wouldn’t have a problem and would pay just enough to live on. That’s how I see it. Then they won’t come up with stupid ideas. It is high time for these effete laws to be withdrawn for the people. Luckily, we have a strong conservative majority that is doing everything they can to ease this.”