That would be a valid point in cases where the employee isn't being paid below minimum wage. In restaurants in America, it literally, legally, does subsidize their pay.
agamemnonymous
joined 2 years ago
Should.
If you go to a business (e.g. a restaurant) that is known for offering low prices by paying sub-minimum wage subsidized by tips, and you happily pay the lower price without tipping, you are not helping. The business owner has no incentive to change their compensation, you're just screwing over a working class person.
If you take offense to this practice, don't go to businesses that use it. Better yet, write your representatives to draft legislation to end tipped wages. Otherwise, you're just treating yourself to a little discount at the expense of the worker, no different from their employer.
We can't rule out two-eyed giants obviously
Running for reelection.
I'm not making excuses for him, I'm discouraging an inaccurate conception of the division of powers. I'm fine blaming him for all the things that are his fault, but I don't think reinforcing the idea that "the president is a king who has total authoritarian control over the federal government" helps anyone except the people who want to make that a reality. He appointed what he could to the Board, direct your ire, in this instance, at them.
Agreed, but it's out of Biden's hands now, I don't like popularizing a unitary executive
A sett of anatomical tables, with explanations, and an abridgment, of the practice of midwifery, William Smellie, (1754)
Table 32 Edit: NSFW I guess, 18th century medical illustrations of female reproductive anatomy
Doesn't look like twins though
Biden isn't a king. Postmaster General is elected by the Board of Governors, which Biden did replace a number of. Also no more than half of them can be from the same party, so gridlock is natural.
Are we sure it's AI? It looks like an old medical illustration for delivering twins entangled in the womb.
Roughly the same, but in the US the Libertarian Party is basically just conservatives who want to smoke weed.
So that's what that phrase means
In general? Definitely not. In this specific case? Yeah, probably. It's not normal for appointees to be sycophant drones, and in terms of concentration of power it's not even desirable. Concentrating total power in the President is not a good idea, and advocating it by blaming the President for things that fall outside the scope of their power only empowers the people who want a dictator.
He made his appointments to the Board. The decisions those Board members make are on them, if you have a problem with their decisions, criticize them directly and direct your correspondence to them. Concentrating every complaint on the President promotes an inaccurate, and therefore ineffective, conception of scope of responsibility.