This has to be the grandest non sequitur I've seen in years. Good job. (see what I did there)
It's only one if you ignore my original complaint about your argument and the implications it has that you always ignore for idealogical reasons.
They tip the waitstaff, not the cooks.
Don't the tips get spread out amongst employees, or am i confusing that with someplace else...
Anyhow, that's beside the point i was trying to makes, aka in the end people still need to make enough money to live, in that case it's the customer that pays their part of their wages directly.
Anyway, if you're arguing that every single job ever should pay a living wage, I've got bad news for you - economics doesn't work that way. Yes we "need" burger flippers and always will, but the level of our need is vastly dwarfed by the number of qualified applicants - it is, after all, a low skill, low intensity job that requires minimal training. Thus, supply and demand sets the wage low.
Sure, economics by itself doesn't, but that hardly means it's an ideal situation...
I mean look, there's a good argument to be made that the black plague helped jump start capitalism by limiting the supply of workers and forcing employers to pay more... google it, there's plenty of stuff about it.
Hell, that's the whole point of minimum wage, the fact that economics cares about people starving while working a full job as much as evolution does...
Also, the definition of living wage aka subsistence wage means that unless those people you where complaining about are starving/homeless etc they do make one (or have other sources of income, over here ppl just steal stuff, it's totaly working out awesome).
Nobody should expect to raise kids on minimum wage - even its proponents acknowledge minimum wage isn't there to make sure everybody can raise kids. Otherwise, the minimum wage would be $20/hr.
And that's why i said the world is more fair with people that do what you said at the start, then it would be with everyone being 100% committed to bettering themselves or whatever...
But clearly people are raising kids on minimum wage if they can complain about it to you instead of crying about their kids dying of starvation...
Actually, once you strip out the sarcasm, that is a correct statement. It is much faster, easier and less expensive to create (or find) average employment than it is to train a doctor.
Yeah, that still doesn't make it a zero sum game...
Plus, there's plenty of things one could do for healthcare that doesn't require a new doctor (it's not like you have less, especially since a lot of foreign ones come to the US because there's more money to be made there).
I really feel like I'm having to condescend to teaching you basic principles of economics here, and frankly, I don't have time to coax you gently through ECON101.
You know, there's a reason why high school econ doesn't make one an economist... and also why econ isn't as hard a science as math etc.
Contrary to leftist histrionics, Americans were not dropping dead in great swaths in the street prior to 2007. Our health care system may not have been perfect (and it is less so now, obviously), but it was the driving force behind medical advancement in the world. The impetus for the current boondoggle was largely manufactured out of whole cloth in an attempt to force centralization for dogmatic motivations, not to actually improve the system.
No, healthcare wasn't/isn't the reason for the fact that the US is the driving force behind medical advancement, the fact that you pay your doctors more was/is...
And you're right, people weren't dropping dead in the streets, they where just going bankrupt...
A most unusual/rare event, and an outside one, at that. Certainly nothing you could plan for.
--Patrick
New dominant species is able to imagine this:
Coincidence?!
