Many, but not all waitresses are only doing that job temporarily in high school or college, which simply provides a little money for extra expenses or textbooks, and provides experience for the future.
However, tips still provide more than minimum wage, even with reductions for kitchen staff, hosts, bartenders, etc.
Looking to a more holistic level, if we remove minimum wage, products and services can be offered more cheaply, which increases the value of the money workers earn.
That's definitely true. Especially in an economy where more minimum wage jobs are being created, as opposed to skill-level jobs. I guess you just have to look at it from both points of view. You'd be making less money, but the economy would also change and adjust to that.
Which is why a laissez-faire system works so well. (I'll be damned if that's spelled right, spell check doesn't work for French.) If the government doesn't force companies to go through government bureaucracy and unnecessary regulations, then less money is spent by Uncle Sam to keep the business in line, and less money is spent by the businesses on silly paperwork. The government spending less would mean the people pay less taxes and have more money in their pockets. This, in turn, leads to a stronger economy, with more people spending more money.
A laissez faire system may be good in theory, but in practice little government regulation generally leads to horrible conditions and little pay for workers. If you want to say that government shouldn't interfere at all with business that's fine, but I'm going to tell you that it won't work. What no government regulation means is that workers won't have the power to form unions, it means that they won't have the power to ask for higher wages (unless you're lucky enough to be highly trained or skilled), it means poorer working conditions, and it means that there's no oversight or accountability above the bottom line (you think that nuclear power plant is just tossing spent fuel rods in the river you drink from, so what?). While too much government regulation is certainly a bad thing, no regulation is even worse.
You spelled it correctly, don't worry about it. The only problem is that big business can go unchecked for so long. That's when trusts start forming and competition is minimized, and the point of a capitalist society is negated.
Haha, okay, there's no more need to criticise the impracticalities of a laissez-faire economy now.
[quote]No, a good deal of it has to do with the fact that Clinton set up our economy to fail...
Which is why we had what, a 12 trillion dollar surplus when he left office? Sounds like messing up the economy to me man[/quote]
I'm not going to address the specifics because frankly I don't know much about how Clinton actually handled the economy. However I will note the general principle that surplus/defecit is not a good indication of how well an economy is managed, and certainly doesn't actually address the criticism that an economy has been 'set up to fail'. More important is showing the specifics of expenditure, and demonstrating infrastructure as well as effectively encouraging/regulating growth, since you can cut spending all you like to gain money, but that's just going to mean massive pain down the road.
In terms of the Bush administration, the major question ultimately centers around the extent of the spending on the war effort: how much it really was, how important it really was, and how justified it really was. And all these questions are very controversial and underscored by the question as to whether this debate is merely a smokescreen for "THE REAL ISSUES". But since there's so much to think about I highly doubt any one body of people could come to a consensus about that that actually means.
Oh, and I forgot to point out. America's deficit is apparently well over 4 times its GDP. Which means if anybody calls debts (obviously not a likely hypothetical), America would be deeply, deeply bankrupt. The depth of this problem is such that while it's all well and good to think about how to "fix" it, this appears somewhat akin to trying to dig yourself out of the Marinara Trench with a toothpick.
Not true. Hong Kong is, for the most part, unregulated in the way of trade. It also has a fairly low poverty rate. Why do you suppose that is?
I would suppose it's because they're a small country based around one single city who's work force is largely beyond manufacturing and production and into service related professions which require highly skilled laborers who you can't bully around. That as well as the fact that Hong Kong is becoming very regulated in terms of labor with 42 pieces of pro-laborer legislation enacted between 1997 and 2001 contributes to the fact that Hong Kong is well off. I suppose however the $31.2 million USD in fines for labor violations in 2001 speaks to the workers conditions.
Hong Kong's a great example of what you can do with a very specialized small scale market, but it's not applicable to an entire country.
That may be, but the way I see it, the only two options are complete control and no control. I'd rather the government NOT control the economy.
Like everything in life that's real and not made up, there are many shades of grey in between complete control of an economy and partial control/regulation. I would be advocating for that partial control.
Really..? Think about it megamickel i think you're you the pig! the trade centers would be alive and well!! all those people perhaps one of them would've been president! I am not an american I am an Arabian! Deal with the facts!
the fact that Clinton set up our economy to fail... Democrats can't do anything.
Let's say that Clinton did screw up the economy, he didn't and you're mistakeb, but let's say that he did. Why, in eight years, didn' BUsh do something about it? Instead, BUsh pushes us MUCH MUCH further in debt from two wars, one of which was nearly pointless.
People blame the debt on our helping other countries but you know how much we spend on that compared to this pointless war?! I mean are you people really that ignorant? By providing aid to other countries, we gain allies, we help change the hearts and minds of people who people who may otherwise hate the US. With the war in Iraq, we've created more terrosits, we've nearly unilateraly invaded a soverign country based SOLELY upon a lie by our "resident", and we've become more in debt than ever before.
Wake up, people. This isn't just a Bush presidency mistake. This is a Republican party wide problem. They say less taxes and less government spending but that's all lies. They spend jsut as much if not more than the democratic party, but they simply don't spend it on the good of people rather they spend it for their selfish gains.
