So what is your argument? Are you saying motivation for change comes only from injustice? So only those people directly affected by horrid conditions are motivated to advocate for change? Say you see someone being treated unfairly, are you motivated to help them, or since you are not directly in the situation you lack the motivation to change the situation?

I do not see the connection or your logic with pedophiles. What argument are you trying to support, defend, or dispute with this question? I'd like to see the data that supports your statement that politicians are smarter than janitors and wal-mart cashiers - what is your baseline? Have you conducted extensive tests to prove this theory? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just that you don't have data to support this statement. I know janitors that can repair fuel injection engines and a wal-mart cashier that rewired her entire house - tasks that require skill and aptitude. I also know a janitor that has a patent for an aerosol delivery system and a home depot cashier that sits on the Board of Directors for a non-profit organization...it would be fun to test your theory with some debates - politicians against janitors and wal-mart cashiers...I think you are on to something...

Your argument does not explain the fact that the great change makers in history worked for humanity, not a paycheck. Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Harriet Tubman, the suffragettes; I would argue that Martin Luther King wasn't after a pay check - you can look to history to discover a diverse population of human beings that have shown us the way to accomplish change, social justice, and equality. People that are driven to make a difference do not need money to be motivated, just ask our teachers. In addition, your logic seems flawed: no smart person will run for office to work for minimum wage - can you prove to me, without doubt, that smart people are currently running for office?