So 17% of the US income is the top 1% of people. 2x Europe.

https://twitter.com/SusanLund_DC/sta...45887200669697

I also apologize for the politarding.

That makes sense since everyone knows that people without jobs are not only too lazy to get a job, but also too lazy to commit a crime.






WAT?

I know I have already said this 3-4 times in this thread, but there is no other response to this kind of post, but to say it:

Income inequality has never and will never be an issue in a free (or mostly free) economy. You are not worse off if your neighbor gets a new job and doubles his income and if anything you will be better off.

Anyone that tells you income inequality is a problem that the US is facing right now is either an idiot or politician (those two tend to overlap).

As a brief aside from this political discussion, and getting back to poker, I assume from your statement,that you are in favor of much flatter payouts in tournament poker. Although Daniel Colman and Antonio are certainly talented, they don't bring $20 mllion dollars of value into the poker economy. Obviously, the lesser skilled players would benefit and if done correctly, the dealers would be more highly compensated, resulting in more skilled dealers and happier players. Not to mention cash play. How the heck do Durr (formerly?) , Ivey, Jungleman, etc, deserve to make millions more than other players? Need to flatten out the cash structure too, IMO. I'm with you man, those $20 mil CEO guys are pretty random.

I wonder what % of the overall poker tournament prizes have been won by the top 1%. Nobody seems to be upset about that.

Since when was being successful a sin? I can't figure out why people want to punish that.

Eight on nine years ago the Commerce Casino raised the drop and gave as an explanation a rise in the minimum wage.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...-inherit-earth

This should not have happened if what you are arguing is true. Simple as that.
Do you really believe that non-black(mostly white tbf) people are 400x better at becoming ultra-successful than white people? Or would you agree that the lack of black people on the list in question is at least partly due to the racist nature of American History?



They aren't 'working hard' like you think they are. They aren't being incentivized by the free market to be successful; They are given money because of who they are. Because they are simply given so much money, it's very easy for them to make a lot more money, and very difficult for anyone who isn't one of the lucky few to be born into wealth to make any significant amount of wealth.

And seriously, stop accusing me and anyone who shares my views of hating success:

I read the first 1/3 of this thread, then skipped all the nonsense politarding that follows. The estimates on rake going through the roof are ridiculous... That'll only happen if poker rooms use it as an excuse.

Let's pretend there's no minimum wage exception for dealers anywhere (not true, but worst case scenario). Let's say there are an average of 2 hourly employees per poker table subject to the increase - dealer, dealers on break, waitresses, cashiers at the cage, etc. Again, this is probably a worst case estimate... A room with 10-15 tables active most of the time is going to have a few dealers at dead spreads, 1-2 podium workers, 1-2 cashiers, 2-3 waitresses. We'll throw in five more non-dealer employees. Floors/managers are usually salaried, so I'm leaving them out.

OK, so each table requires an extra $16 an hour of labor to keep the room running at similar profitability. An extra $1/hand of rake should come out to an average of $30-35 an hour in rake. But wait, some of these employees currently make $2-4/hour because there's a minimum wage exception and now they aren't getting one... OK, so the change is as high as $26/hour per table... Which $1 per hand in rake still accounts for. That still leaves $5-10/hour to go around between 2-3 floors/managers, who each get about a $3/hour raise, or somewhere around $6K per year. More likely, they get a smaller raise and the room becomes slightly more profitable.

As a result of the increased rake, players tip a little less to offset the increase, and the poker economy mostly keeps humming along as-is, with possibly more disposable income for some players to come in and play.

Dealers/waitresses who reported all of their income see very little difference in the value of their income, while those who evaded taxes will see a decrease.

As for the political arguments on the cost of living doubling along with minimum wage, that's unlikely since labor costs do not comprise 100% of a business's cost of producing goods or providing services. More likely, cost of living would go up around 20-30%, with poor people's COL going up less than rich people's, since poor people are more likely to consume cheaper foods and goods that require less labor.

Bj, thanks for the link and the explanation of how people that inherit a **** load of money have a **** load of money.

What is your point? You don't think that people who work really hard and are really smart deserve to do what that want with their own money if that includes giving it to their own kids?

A $1 a hand rake increase would kill 1-2 and 1-3 games in most places.

Also, don't forget the extra little expenses that businesses have to absorb as their payroll increases. Things like payroll taxes.

Some people like to think there's always enough money to cover the additional cost. If this were true the United States wouldn't be $18 Trillion in debt.

For the poker economy to improve wealth must be created not merely redistributed.

He's a socialist, which means that he believes that anyone who has money is evil, and they need to give it to people who don't have any and complain about it, much like himself.

No, I don't think the super rich are evil. I just think that having that much money is pointless, and that money could be doing amazing things for society/humanity instead of sitting in a bank account making one person richer.

I think it's safe to say that this sentiment is shared by some of the world's richest (And not coincedentally, mostly self-made), like Bill and Melinda Gates, Carl Icahn, Elon Musk, David Rockefeller and Mark Zuckerberg, who have all made The Giving Pledge - among over 100 others - to give the majority of their wealth to philanthropy, or, the love of humanity.

So yeah, keep calling me a socialist, it looks to me like people with socialist ideals can do pretty good for themselves.

You're almost there jmurjeff. What contributes to the huge numbers of unskilled workers? Cheap labor? Millions of illegal immigrants. Thousands more everyday. Without them, companies would have to compete for workers, driving wages up.

Why is it when migrants go into Europe it is called a 'crisis'? And here it is just because they are looking for work.

It's irrelevant if they earned it or inherited it, it's their money, and if they want to stuff it in a bank it's their right. It's not up to you or anyone else to decide what "amazing" things society could do with their money.

I don't really want to get into a political argument, but I've played in 1/2 and 1/3 games with rakes from $4+1 to $5+2 and they're all thriving and beatable. The difference at 2/5 and up is so small it's hard to quantify, as the quality of the game matters far more.

Also, by tipping a little less due to the increased pay dealers would get, it would cause even less of an impact on a players' bottom line.

For China. US wouldn't ne there to buy all of their cheap inferior products.

Britain and Germany would then have to actually spend money for the defense of their countries.

Switzerland? ****, who knows.

It amazes me too. It seems like a lot of people would rather pull the top down to their level, instead of trying to rise up to the top. Something very fundamentally wrong with that line of thinking.

They have these socialists ideas, yet they are extremely capitalistic. Every one of them continues to increase their net worth. Has any of them said "**** it, I have enough money, I'll just keep a billion dollars and give my other 49 away."

Let's knock every one on that list down to 5 million dollars and see how much of that they "pledge" to give away.

lol @ you guys saying that we're trying to 'punish' the super rich who want to hoard money for no reason.

That's not it. At all.

It's like this:

"Hey guys, you know that money that you have that you can't conceivably use? We sure could use that for some stuff...science, healthcare, food. Do you mind if...we have it? We know you worked hard for it but you just have so SO much... You'll never use it effectively. Bill and Mark are doing it. So what do you say guys?"

"**** OFF SOCIALISTS"

"Whoa. Alright guys. Calm down."

How about you go to the page and read the letters signed by each of them pertaining to the subject, instead of ignorantly touting what you 'know' about those people and what they are doing. Any person with a bit a sense is going to do that rather than trust your post, so you aren't really accomplishing anything I wouldn't think.

Bill Gates just had a $68 million dollar house built in Washington State. Infer whatever you want from that, but that speaks volumes to me.

All it says to me is that he's rich as ****.

As I said earlier ITT if someone has money in the bank they aren't the only ones benefiting from it. The bank, bank employees, individuals looking for a loan to buy a car or house, and small business are all among those who benefit from this money. You are also ignoring the fact that these people don't park their net worth in a savings account at a bank. They are investing it, which again helps others.

I like how the first word of the title pins the blame on one major political party and the OP starts off wanting people to not politard.

Next time, try framing the question in a more neutral manner, like, "How much would casinos have to raise rake if minimum wage were raised to $15?"

Then you might at least get like 10 serious posts before it degenerated into accusations of who doesn't understand economics and who really doesn't understand economics.

Comments like the one above are most laughable. Why does a person have to have an effective use for the things they choose to collect? Why act like a person should have no business trying to collect money? People collect all sorts of things and if someone wants to collect money, tons of freaking money, it's their right to do so. Maybe if you change your perspective a little bit and look at it this way...? You like collecting terrible ideas and posting them on the internet... right? Well other people like collecting money and if they want to stuff it in their mattresses or rub it on their titties who really cares? It's their ****ing money to do with as they please. Nothing bugs me more than people who think they have a right to dig their hands into other people's pockets because there's never any end to the amount they'll try to take. Once they grab a handful they keep going back for more and more. The insatiable desire for other people's money. Go earn your own ****ing money!

Taking $1 extra per hand adds up to $600 a day per table. That's $219,000 per year. That's not inconsequential. If the poker room has an average of five games going around the clock (I realize that might be high for most rooms) that's $1 million per year being sucked out of that game. You can't just suck $1 million out of a card room's entry level game within a one year time span and not have it negatively affect the game.

Just reduce the amount you tip a little to make up for it? How about taking $1 million out of the dealer's pockets who deal those games to make up for the added rake? Do you really think that's the answer?