And that’s precisely the benefit of Uber/Lyft. Flexibility. They can instantly pick it up and make some money to make ends meet in between jobs.

You’re also paying for the labor and time. You’re taking up the same pan, same amount of time, and same burner to fry one egg or two eggs.

Well the “nanny state” isn’t necessarily the reason for California’s large economy, but it’s related.

Taking home leftovers (in a scenario where you are purposefully over-ordering) isn’t necessarily a sign of poverty.

Ah, that’s understandable now. I’m guessing there’s the lingering trauma of growing up poor, and thus your understandable aversion to actions from that time.

Well it’s not really damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Do the maths, if it’s costing you more to prepare food for delivery etc. then don’t. If it’s less, then it means it’s profitable (even if lower profit), and continue.

Not really being elitist, but actually makes sense economically. Say typically driving to a restaurant, takes 20 mins, 20 mins back, and say waiting there 10 mins for an order, so even at minimum wage it costs you more than a $4.99 delivery fee.

Just tag it onto an inflation index. Actually, every law should just have that built in.

But that’s not a reason to not have one.

But that’s not a reason to not have one.

It’s a line item at the final receipt but it’s “hidden” as in it’s broken out and not listed as part of the top-line price on the menu. It’s the same concept as how airlines used to advertise ticket prices without a “fuel charge” which was hidden in the fine print, then tacked on afterwards, sometimes doubling the…

It’s a scale. Generally there’s a recognition that kid’s brains are developing, and it’s generally a scale about when and whether this person did develop enough to be cognizant than action was wrong and thus could be held culpable.

love that comic!

Yep. I consider myself liberal, but on minimum wage, my position is firmly that 1) there should be no minimum wage, and 2) taxes should instead be levied on companies/rich to pay for expanded benefits to make up the difference.

Yea, I mean that’s really the reason - but no less of one.

Yes, I think taxpayers should.

Your math is wrong.

Yep true, or it’d even out even in a group of 2 if the Drinker has 4 drinks instead of 2, (or if both Drinkers only have 1 - since even 2 is kinda skirting the limit for driving afterwards.)

Not saying your point generally is wrong that some people say that. Just pointing out that the ACA itself was compromise - the democrats had full control over the senate, house, presidency, but chose a republican plan to implement. 

Well I guess my point is, you should be considering them as a group rather than individuals for individual spaces at a bar.