[Superleroy]

I think the argument is not that you are not working for money, it's that within the first two weeks that you worked you already payed bills. In a way that means you provided the capital before you did the work. So the money always comes first, which is the basis for his argument. The company then pays you which allows you to keep paying your bills but you cannot pay your bills with future income, hence money always comes first and thus allows you to work in the first place

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

Except until you get the money, you haven't paid the bill - you've at best shifted it. If you put it on a credit card, for instance, until you pay off the credit card, you haven't paid what you owe. The credit card company has paid the bill, and now you owe the credit card company (plus interest for them assuming your debt).

When you get that paycheck, only then can you actually pay your bills, to whomever holds your debt at the time. To put it another way - you can't pay someone if you don't have any money in hand.

[Superleroy]

You are not arguing against his point though, you are shifting it. His point is that it has been paid and you are saying the same thing. His argument is not about who paid the bill (if it was you or the bank) the argument is that it was paid and you seem to agree with that I think?

€ A different way of putting it is to imagine you had 0$ and a job that pays you in two weeks. Now you cannot take any credit since that means the bank pays for you (so the money comes first then the work). What do you do now to survive two weeks? The answer is that you need money to be able to work, not the other way around.