I remember being in DC for the first time at 18, seeing they had "taxation without representation" on their license plates and realizing that DC was a more interesting place and America a more fucked-up place than I previously thought. The consistent failure of democracy there is such a clear example of how committed the elites really are to democracy in America: not at all if they can get away with it. Super informative and smoothly argued as always, hope this videos does well as it is deeply important for people across the country to understand the hypocrisy at its symbolic center.
Yeah it's a weird place on so many accounts, and a disenfranchised one on so many others. The voter registration card (that I still have in my wallet) was such a funny badge of nothing. Not that voting is actually meaningless (as seen in the initiatives) but in that it's like...just worth less than in any of the 50 states, and despite that, DC has the 2nd highest cost of living in the nation.
I think there is a…more nuanced read here. In the abstract, I think all our leaders, those whom I agree with and would support and otherwise, agree with democracy in the abstract. It’s the partisan consequences they don’t want to deal with. DC would likely vote democratic. There aren’t territories to carve into states like the mid 1800s, so…there is no compromise to be had. Opponents to DC statehood will waffle about the intentions of the founders but it is a political calculation and…that is their career. I’m sure there are things in your job where you would like to do the right thing but the practicality, stakes of the situation, and “what you get out of it” in the situation makes doing the right thing just…not impossible but rather just not worth doing.
Thinking the morally correct thing is "not feasible" is the only thing guaranteed to stop that thing from happening. By definition, immorality has to be caused by humans. In other words, immorality has to come into existance through either a direct immoral action or inversely, a lack of a moral action when the situation would require one from a consciousness. For example, a rock falling off a clifface and killing someone isn't immoral, it's just a random tragedy as it was not caused by a consciousnesses action. If however, that rock only fell due to inaction on the part of a government who took on the responsibility of foreseeing such tragedies, that inaction would be immoral as a consciousness observed the problem, thought about it, and decided that allowing someone to possibly die is acceptable. In other words, "the time required to prevent this isn't worth the time the other person would gain from being alive." Restated yet again, "My time, and the thoughts I could have created in the minimal time saved through innaction, is superior to the thoughts that a separate person could have created using their necessarily unique outlook on the world, given they were alive." (A necessarily unique context as each person has to be born in a seperate instant in time to a seperate person, giving them a unique starting point.) At the end of the day, we do not know what perspective will have ultimate insight, if we did, we would already have said ultimate insight. Any death has to be an unacceptable loss in the face of this fact. All humans have the ability to choose their own actions and have their perspectives changed but they have to believe they can change things in order to catalyze said change. Any human caused problem has to have a human caused solution by definition. Every person could literally choose to just stop driving cars tomorrow. That situation is not impossible due to the laws of nature therefore it is not impossible. It is the belief that things are too big to be changed that stop everyone from doing the provably correct thing. I comprehend the logic behind something seeming infeasible given the arbitrary rules we have put in place as a society, but that logic can only be a thought terminating cliche because those rules are not reflections of the fundimental laws of the universe. Those rules are therefore arbitrary. That way of thinking will always only stop something better from taking shape. TLDR: Political inaction may seem comprehensible when viewed through the flawed lense of arbitrary rules but as those arbitrary rules do not have any basis in the fundamental laws of the universe, they can only function to remove actually fesable solutions from the table. Hug a friend, say hello to a stranger, never do something without purpose.
There is also the fact that giving an area that small senators is pretty ridiculous. The congressional system was set up to balance population centers, urban, and large swaths of land, rural, against each other. Delaware is already too small in comparison to the other states, dc is miniscule.
@@rangerpritchard7546 this is a bad argument that is, simply, wrong and historically untrue. The congressional system was designed so that one house would be representative of the people (the popularly elected House of Representatives) and one would be representative of the states where every state would have an equal say (the senate, whose members were, until the 17th amendment in 1912, elected by state legislatures). There is no size requirement to be worth of senators. Land area has no bearing on who gets to be a state and have representation. You get two senators, whether you’re Delaware or Alaska, by virtue of being a state. More to the point, DC has no power in either the senate or the House of Representatives despite having more people living in it than two states (wyoming and Vermont), so why do they deserve to have representation when the people of DC do not? I would never, of course, argue to disenfranchise any of the people of any state, but it serves to illustrate the double standard applied to arguments against enfranchising the people of DC when nobody would dare to suggest that the people of wyoming not get their just representation.
It kind of is though. Restraunts and bars operate on relatively low margins. The difference between the end price/cost of ingredients isn't all profit. Plenty of food goes to the trash, dishes need to be remade/comped, BoH needs a salary, rent/lease/maintenance needs to be paid, lights must be kept on, liquor licenses need to be renewed. Further restaurants are subject to competition as everything else, and they need to compete with every other venue in their market, as well as grocery stores/foodtrucks/fast food. The average profit margin for a full service restaurant is less than 10%, and people are STILL complaining that it is too expensive. If FOH begins to make a wage not only will most restaurants be unable to match their average tip earnings, but most restaurants will be unable to afford them *at all.* The free labor restaurants get from FoH is at first glance exploitative, but in reality it has ended up being more beneficial for both the servers and the owners.
@@annoying-v5y It doesn't benefit anyone except for the owner because it lets him not have to pay staff and pocket all of the revenue their labor generates. Restaurants shouldn't get an unfair competitive advantage over other businesses in being allowed to take advantage of free labor. The reason they operate at low margins is mostly because of poor management due to the free labor thing attracting the worst and most incompetent types of people to open them. The fact that they're still operating at low margins despite having free labor is proof that it's merely a subsidy for bad business owners. The owner should be obligated to pay the staff at least a portion of the money they made for him, since they did most if not all of the work running the restaurant.
From Wikipedia: "Initiative 82 passed its 30-day legislative review period and became law on February 23, 2023,[2] however on January 17, 2023, the DC Council voted to delay the first pay increase until May 1, 2023.[3]" "On July 1, 2027, the tipped wage will be eliminated in the District of Columbia and there will be one minimum wage for all workers. The exact minimum wage will not be known until January 2027.[25]"
@abarette_ The law states that on July 1 2027 the two minimum wages shall be the same but the July 2024 minimums are constant with base minimum wage for tipped employees reaching $16 or $17 on that date whist the regular minimum wage is already $17.50 My expectation is the law will be quietly repealed (or delayed so much as to have the same effect as repel) in 2025 or 2026
One of the most common lines growing up was "if youre gonna complain lets give you something to really complain about" and I think this is the stance we need towards employers and the otherwise ultra rich.
@@Cookinlikesanji If they were managing it well, a small increase to their employees wages, that they should have already been paying for decades shouldn't be a big deal. American business owners are the most entitled babies on the planet. If your business will fail because you have to pay people a living wage, then your business shouldn't exist in the first place.
@@blockwithaglock96i heard they are quite literally there to be baby sitters. someone to get paid to yell at workers and get yelled at by customers. keeping the actual higher ups completely out of it.
22:45 I will never forget walking into an opening shift to hear my boss was listening to Gil Scott-Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" because I absolutely cannot fathom how someone could miss the point so much.
As far as I know, here on the West Coast-where there is no tip exemption to minimum wage-people still tip (close to) 20% indiscriminately. It is not as if increasing the minimum wage will stop people from tipping.
@@RainedOnParade ah the classic disconnect from reality. "No one should even live there!" But they do. They're necessary too, we need them there. And they deserve representation. "DC is the representation" they still don't have a say in what happens to themselves nor do they have the same voting power everyone else has.
@@RainedOnParadethe problem with your argument is that while the purpose of D.C is to be a hall of government there are people who live and work to support that hall. Capital police, construction workers, restaurant worker and exist to serve this hall and yet to do so they have to live there. Add on the schools and hospitals necessary and D.C. has a permanent population of people who have lived all their lives in D.C. My point is D.C. is a city and more than just the capital and its residents deserve a say in government.
@@nhjhbmkuy7173 why not give it back to Maryland and just keep explicitly capitol fixtures, Power Plants, library of Congress, white house, etc. Have the permanent residents of DC register to vote in Maryland. Problem solved
Before even watching, just want to thank you again for making a video on local D.C politics. I don't live there but the work you did in your previous video really helped me to better understand the political landscape of the actual people in the capital, and it's always more important to get people interested in local-level politics over national ones, in my opinion. Keep spreading the good word man.
Is this one of the reasons that the uprising was so blindsiding for Congress, because the people living there were unwilling to do anything for Congress because they get nulled on any way to fix things
Massachusetts has a similar level of legislative interference when it comes to initiative petitions. For instance, when a factory farm animal welfare initiative returned favourably, before total implementation a few years later, much of the law was kneecapped over justifications about “price increases” even though people had literally voted for it. Another one from recent memory is legalisation of marijuana where the legislature delayed its implementation by a year so they could meddle with the details of what got passed by voters.
This video was very interesting! Especially the discussion of the tipping system enabling employers to underpay their employees, which I didn't even know existed. I worked a tipping centric-job (pizza delivery) and was given my minimum wage of 15 an hour PLUS tips, so I for years didn't understand the widespread opposition to tips. Thanks for broadening my perspective.
I worked the same job (presumably in a different state) and got paid 3.25 hourly for Pizza Delivery + 1.25 for each order I took (averaged 15-30 a night) so those 2 hours I spent doing dishes every night was pretty much volunteer work
Frequently, employers will just ignore laws even when they know the laws most certainly apply. Even in work well above minimum wage, employers will threaten to fire over logging overtime because they know workers don't have the resources to sue. Instead, that work illegally goes completely unpaid and unlogged. Really, labor laws are just a suggestion.
Cool video, fascinating. I especially like the part where you say there's no hill worth dying on. That resonates with me. Good luck to everyone staying not dead, and a dream of democracy for The District 🤞💜
The fact that the British burned DC down made almost no difference to the overall outcome of the War of 1812, much like how Napoleon burning down Moscow had no effect on the end of the War of the Sixth Coalition. The peace treaty still enforced Status Quo Ante Bellum, hence a draw.
@@professorquarter I mean, if you want to get technical, the US came out of the War in a better position than they went into it, thanks to Tecumseh's Confederacy getting demolished in the War and then being abandoned by the British in the treaty. It left the Old Northwest firmly in American hands.
The capital that was burned by the British was a muddy sparsely settled area and the capital was not built up like it is today. The few people that were there including the First Lady did not leave, taking flight to the eastern countryside until a couple hours before the British arrived. The British arrived at the President’s residence to a dinner table set for 40 the first Lady had planned and sat down and feasted before they burnt it all down.
I've never really understood the argument that it was a draw, the US invaded Canada and got kicked out, surely that makes it a (not massively significant) defeat?
God damn I never knew just how privileged I was to live in Arlington. I always knew it was the rich side of the river but I didn't know it was this bad
I live in a Union Territory (Federal city-states and territories) in India, and it works much like DC. However, we get way more funding per person (2x or more) than an equivalent regular city and no one cares what we do with it. Unlike in our full fledged states where representatives of (tax negative) rural constituencies do everything but invest in infrastructure required to keep their states' 2-3 tax surplus districts (counties) functioning. Which is why Indian cities are the way they are (terrible). When I go to other states, especially in less developed states, I barely feel like i'm in the same country. Interesting to know the same situation in the US is detrimental to the residents.
Reminds me somewhat (not quite but still) of a recent referendum in Berlin. Voters were given the opportunity to vote on whether on not to disown a big real estate company. The idea was that once disowned, and all their property in Berlin possibly put into public hands, rent prices would fall. You know what happened? It got the votes needed, but then the current mayor from the SPD (social democrats, doesn't mean much) put it to a commission to see if it was "feasible". That's the last I heard of it. After the coal commission, mostly made up of fossil fuel lobbyists with scientists as "advisors", I wonder what'll happen to the law meant to replace the "transsexual law". It apparently won't happen until Summer this year at the soonest because operators of women's saunas complained.
Ah, classic. Sucks that there's no expediency measure to so many of these referendums and the like. It's sad to see the SPD pull itself into more and more of a center position, even if they were never perfect. It reminds me of the UK Labor party's general transformation into American Democrats at best. At least Berlin gets to be its own state despite being a city. Still sucks that they subvert people like this though.
@@Rosencreutzzz There's nothing new about the SPD allying with the right and betraying the workers. They're the ones who utilized the Freikorps (proto-nazi paramilitary groups) to murder communists after WW1. When capitalism is under threat, social democrats prove themselves time and time again to be the left wing of fascism.
@@jasonhaven7170 that's the literal translation of the name of the law (in German it's Transsexuellengesetz). It governs when and how you're allowed to legally your gender (tldr after talking two psychiatrists iirc). The new law is meant to be basically self-id.
Issue with "they burned the capital down" is that Napoleon burnt down Moscow, but still lost that war. Losing the capital can be enough to win a war, but it's not automatically equivalent to winning.
Hannibal burned down most of Italy and smashed multiple legions and Rome still won the Second Punic War. Or to later quote a Roman Poet Ennius "The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so." Considering the terms of the Treaty of Ghent I would say it is a textbook status quo ante bellum if there ever was one.
That is also why it is so hard to win wars against people in their hometurf. They know how to navigate their land, how to best use the resources, where said resources are, and where it is easiest to defend. Emotions also play a massive play in this. You aren't expected to use every last of your artisans and farmers to become soldier and attack someone else, but if you step in their land, every farmer would want to find ways to at least protect their land and families, with good motivation to do so. Knowing these kinds of things should be more common sense, but it is weird that it isn't, and sometimes I think it is because "wins who hits first" narratives are MASSIVE propaganda tools. Single votes, "winner takes all" and "good vs evil" are all protected by the people at the top because they have lots to gain from simplifying and polarizing politics.
Arguing america won the war of 1812 is hilarious to me. Like under what context would "we invaded a country, gained no territory, had our capital burnt down, lost 50% more soldiers (unless we count the indigenous civilians we butchered), and lost more ships" be a victory?
The shift in the propaganda lines is symbolic of that: before the war they were all "we're going to right hook the British right back to Europe" and by 1815 (when Andrew Jackson managed to actually win a battle although it was technically after the peace treaty had been signed) the propaganda lines were all "we didn't lose anything!"
The US got Britain to stop interfering in US expansion, decimated the tribes that blocked expansion, and took Florida from Spain. Got everything they wanted and more plus opened the door wide for future plans.
I remember learning about DC's representation three or four years ago and being stunlocked into silence by how insane it was. Now that stun lock has been expounded upon with critical psychic damage. Thanks.
Recently discovered your channel and I must say you explore politcs topics I never thought about (cause I'm German and most of your examples/themes are more anglocentric) but that actually apply to a degree over here. Rather fascinating. Thanks for this stuff, it always pays to broaden ones one horizon. If you ever have questions about German Politics/Policies/Laws just hmu, I studied Urban Planning, History and nowadays work in a law field for the state.
In Argentina, the federal capital (Buenos Aires) started off as a city directly controlled by the federal government, but it has transitioned over the years to slowly become something like a separate state. It’s a lot closer to a state than anything else, that’s for sure.
5:56 "The United Kingdom and The United States went to war, and yet inexplicably Canada emerged the winner and the Native Americans emerged the loser." That is the exact saying I've heard. Neither side won the war by their own goals. America did not annex Canada or even the big chunk of Lower Canada they eyed. They bailed out when they did because with their pseudo-allies in Napoleonic France gone Britain could put their full force on the US. They suffered a humiliating loss with the sack of DC. The UK did not accomplish their goal of annexing Maine, they did not force the US to accept their versions of border disputes(They ended up losing the Arrowhead region and the Red River valley disputes), and they didn't create an independent native buffer state to halt US expansion. And they suffered a humiliating loss at New Orleans. Canada came out with renewed vigor and a proto-nationalist spirit which would later lead to the 1838 revolt and their independence in 1931. The Natives who sided with Britain didn't get what they wanted and the ones who sides with the US got betrayed, any hopes of a Native state east of the Mississippi was destroyed, just as King Phillips War 120 years earlier destroyed any chance of a Native state east of the Appalachians. (Oh and DC should join Maryland, it was their land originally)
I haven't watched the whole video, but may I ask why it becoming a state makes more sense than residential areas being given back to Maryland? I'm genuinely curious.
Wdym calling the war of 1812 a “surprise attack”? The real suprise was the kidnapping and impressment of US sailors to fight Napoleon. Im genuinely confused where you came up with that
@@Mastersharkmapping*England. They didn't exactly win the war. They had to concede a lot, mainly in stopping kidnapping of civilian sailors for war purposes.
Good news- The bill went through. While it has a slow change (employees are still paid below minimum wage as of now) the amount they are paid increases each year. as of now, they make at minimum 10 dollars an hour. in a year, it'll be 12. then 14 a year afterwards. by july 1st of 2027, it'll be tied to minimum wage.
As someone who's making a video about Apollo Justice, hearing a remix of the objection theme threw me for a loop. Everything else I could say about this video has already been made in several of the top comments so I figured I'd compliment the music choice uwu
I love it. Redial already rules but changing the pace really makes it chill mode. (I don't have the uhh... emotional energy to pair well with higher paced video game music, lol.)
I only discovered your video today, i am really interested in talking to you about many things, something has to give, and be damned if i will let it be those of us who work for a wage.
As someone who's lived in the area for my whole life (not in the district itself), I've heard this sort of thing on and off for ages. It's nice to have it actually put in an easy to understand format. Thanks for doing the research and putting in the effort to make a great video, and congrats on one year, man.
Personally I think the District should be given back to Maryland. That way you get representation, the Senate isn't changed, and everyone's happy. Washington could be a free city like Baltimore, and the Feds retain control over the Capitol area itself.
Nope, everyone isn't happy. Maryland doesn't want DC back and DC doesn't want to be a part of Maryland. This would be the equivalent of trying to merge PR with Florida.
@@delanceysamuel4770 You see, there's no explicit constitutional process to merge PR and Florida. There is for ceding the federal district back to Maryland. Keep in mind, I am a Maryland resident myself and it would kinda suck but it would probably be a more likely way to get DC representation at this point than getting her approved for statehood.
@@LordDoof you missed the point of the comparison. The point is that trying to merge the territory into the state to solve the representation issue isn't a good idea as the people there would still feel they aren't properly represented.
They might _feel_ unrepresented, but they would be *actually,* _objectively_ represented better. If that doesn't please them, tough shit. That's called being a minority of a constituency. "Ooh that solution of merging solves all my problems, but _I don't like it very muuuch."_ If this is about injustice, then this gives justice, and it doesn't matter how they *feel* about it.
There was still a resistance and the colonies, now we could count them as illegitimate but even then France joined back the allies in 1944 and occupied parts of Germany, so they were parts of the winners
France certainly did not win WWII. The Soviets did. The Americans planned to administer post-war France like Germany and Italy under the "Allied Military Government of Occupied Territory." However, De Gaulle got the jump on the Americans and took over the mairies before the Yanks could, rendering his only successful military service to the French state in a long career of failure.
I worked at ksna and heard from some tsa agents that there are plans for terminal b to be the exclusive tsa gate for terminals a and b "at some point" with a reinfored floor to handle the newer tsa machines, as it currently cannot hold the heavier machines currently being rolled out
i mean a lot of politicians are funded by big buisinesses. While democracy is good, the fact that politicians don't represent themselves and more represent economic intrest is not good.
Mate even if you believe in the principle of democracy, you can't just invoke its sacred name only to defend what is clearly its hollowed-out skeleton.
I'm glad it's getting a positive response, especially as a "remaster" where people might have just wanted to ignore it. *and been totally within their right to
Honestly just give DC, minus the federal buildings, back to Maryland. We already gave back the Virginia section, everyone would have their vote, and it would be a start to fixing Maryland’s horrendous boarders.
At this point, Maryland and DC have been separate for so long, there’s not really much point for retrocession, aside from just wanting to avoid having 51 states. The people of DC and Maryland consider themselves to be politically distinct, and wouldn’t really be super eager to merge.
Glad to see this remake come. Your story of having made the original iteration to be able to reach out locally has always been very admirable. Great job, and I hope you're doing well. You should be satisfied with this good work.
I don't know if I can do it the same kind of justice, but I do know *of* a few creators who've tackled the issue before, so maybe if I asked around I could collab on approaching it. Someone would also probably have to stop me from spiraling into just talking about the US's hidden empire re: the Philippines and Cuba and all that.
16:10 I just had a thought a new angle I never have thought about before; but they only need to raise rhe price of each meal enough to cover the price of a normal wage... whcih means rhe prices would raise less than 15%, so it would still be cheaper than the practically forced tipping. While I know you don't HAVE to tip, you pretty much are socially forced to. You'll legit lose friends I'd you don't
If I ever made a "planned capital" with the specific intention that it's a neutral ground no state/province/whatever my country callled it could control I wouldnt even make it a normal civilian city in the first place. From day 1 i'd have the whole thing including the housing be national property and then only elected officials and government employees could live there. If we needed restaurants etc theyd be govt owned and all the employees would work for the government so not breaking the "rule". Could be made much smaller than building a full size city too. 1 square kilometer would work not even a full mile. Even if it becomes something resembling the Vatican or the Kremlin where it ends up being a weird little area surrounded by a normal big city so be it. Maybe the solution to fixing DC while keeping the whole "the federal government is in neutral territory" aspect would be to just vastly reduce the size of the "district" to only cover the White House the Capitol building and other areas that are just federal government. Draw it up like a gerrymandered riding and have it weave it's way through avoiding as much civilian property as possible. Bonus it could be changed to cover federal land that isnt currently "in DC" like the pentagon
Well at least it's harder for them to try and play the put race against Grace Creed against Creed everyone's starting to realize it's a status class stratification thing and I guess the days of them manipulating us so openly with no repercussion is soon approaching a turning point, yes?
6:01 hey man, i love your videos! But can you use sources rhat are actually valid? Wikipedia has a history circular sources with no origin point and fraudulent studies/misrepresented data from studies as sources. Wikipedia has NEVER been considered a valid source of information in any academic area and theres good reason for that. While I love your videos, and I'm sure you cross referenced (I hope) I really wish you wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source of information. If you want to actually get good answers, you have to use other sources. Going to Wikipedia is like going to a random library and picking up a random book and deciding its fact. If you cross reference a lot in the non fiction section and find out it is in deed a fact that's one thing, bit pointing to the library as the source for the information is Ludacris. No one would ever take "the library" as a source seriously just as much as no on3 should take "wikipedia" as a source.
I'm assuming this is a joke or troll comment, you know given you wrote the artist Ludacris instead of ludicrous, but just in case the joke is lost on someone: The video is clearly talking about the people discussing the war of 1812 on Wikipedia (and making fun of them), not using it as a source for the actual conflict. On the off hand chance this is genuine, it's really funny to lecture someone about sources when your own media literacy is this piss poor.
@Felix-nz7lq how is my own mwdia literacy poor? In what way? All i did was make a comment about the verifability and truthfulness of wikipedia itself, nothing more. Youre the one assuming im talking about the video.
@@whenimmanicimgodly4228 they're commenting on your media literacy because of this: 1) "All i did was make a comment about the verifability and truthfulness of wikipedia itself, nothing more. Youre the one assuming im talking about the video." No, read your original comment again. You _are_ talking about the video. You are insinuating that Rosencreutz uses Wikipedia as a source for a historical claim in the part of the video that you highlighted. 2) You're wrong. Rosencreutz _doesn't_ use Wikipedia as a source for a historical claim. It should be obvious, but he's laughing about the way American wikipedia writers tend to argue on the Wikipedia War of 1812 talk page about how America totally won the War of 1812 (it can hardly be called a victory). If you wanna be uncharitably particular, his wording in the clip was this: "Americans tend to think they won the war or forced a draw." If interpreted literally, you might say Rose wants to make a factual claim about all Americans' opinions on the War of 1812. In order to back up that claim, one wouldn't cite the Wikipedia talk page, but rather a survey taken from a representative sample of Americans. But at that point you'd not only be overanalyzing a throwaway joke, you'd be straight up just wrong about what Rose means and why he said the statement. He's not declaring a fact about all Americans, something that needs to be sourced by rigorous survey. He read the Wikipedia talk page, laughed at the cope from the Americans, and wanted to include it as a side note in the vid. That's all there is to it. But nowhere in this claim was he sourcing a historical event from Wikipedia. Man, I had to explain the joke to you. In a big paragraph. If that's not one of the saddest things I've done, then what is?
I will say joining Maryland would probably be legally smoother given that there's precedent for it, Virginia took back their third they had pledged to DC back in the 1840s. The same argument they made could easily be used except without all the racist CSA undertones, Maryland donated that land under the intentions it would be used in perpetuity for the stateless capitol region, people no longer want said region, so Maryland should get the land back. It was there's originally, and Virginia already yoinked back that chunk. It solves the representation-taxation issue that is the stated primary problem and is smoother in the American legal system. Plus it voids the concerns of causing a problem with the Republican Party as it weakens their influence in the electoral college further.
@@BossXygman still should happen, it has precedent with the other side of DC, and it would be better to keep the current balance of states rather than add a new incredibly one sided deep blue state
@@ash_11117 but no senator stacking, that's the point. Give the residential area back to Maryland and keep the Capitol and other government buildings in "DC" or what's left of it
This video is super fascinating, but I’m not gonna lie: realizing the music towards the end of the Save Our Tips section was a version of the Metal Gear Solid main theme *really* distracted me. :x
I wonder if the DC council's response bill has that element of DC "learned helplessness/apathy to it." Other states and cities -- overwhelmingly Democratic, it should be pointed out -- have raised wages for traditionally tipped employees. The difference between them and DC is that they knew that their wage increase wouldnt get immediately slap-banned by those in higher positions. If the DC council knew that a Congress where noone has a vested interest in something as nebulous as ensuring that a few thousand service workers in a place they don't represent get a fair wage was going to ignore the increase at best, why bother championing it? A super progressive, labor-centric, DSA-endorsed DC council could have resoundingly ratified the voters will... only for it to be yanked out by the next Republican congressman who has an ax to grind, and could even further inject language in an amendment to prohibit the District from instituting a min wage higher than $15/hr, period end of sentence. So the "compromise" resolution, as shitty as it was, was what the DC Council knew they could get away with without invoking the wrath of hick congressmen who hate the poor. Like you said in the video, it doesnt matter what party holds municipal power in DC if Congress is going to override them anyway. In places where city governments *do* have this power, and specifically in cities where politicians rely on working class people -- which is not a given in extremely low-turnout municipal races!! -- you do see policies like this get enacted sucessfully.
dont worry dude, im doing my best not to die. don't die either. anyway, the latest development is restaurants are adding an "i-81 service fee" onto their bills, and as service fees the owners can do whatever they want with that money. some owners are being transparent, others are downright hostile. its honestly kind of a mess. but hey, the powers that be couldn't kill it twice, i-82 is happening. its just gonna be a bumpy ride.
Why isn’t civil disobedience is greater theme here? In any other Western democracy, that’s where things would turn to after such tricks. DC is uniquely suited to this: the affected already live near the politicians that did them a disservice. They could do any number of things that would have a direct effect on the lives of the congressmen responsible. General strikes. Peaceful marches. Demonstrations. The list goes on, yet it want even mentioned. Is political participation that low?
Tipping enables a business to overstaff (to handle unexpected rushes) without paying adequate wages. Without tipping servers would work fewer "dead" hours.
‘You feed and clothe the leaders of the free world’ that there is power. If DC had a general strike or simply refused service to the federal government legislators they would have to listen or go to Virginia and For those services. Given what happened on January 6th 2021the ivory towers of congress and the White House aren’t impregnable.
You know for a fact they'd call in the national guard or police to 'peacefully' break the strike. They'd also use some sort of slimy justification like "this one city is holding the entire nation's government hostage, so you know who to blame now that the government can't do anything" or "break the strike so that the government doesn't cave into meeting demands that the rest of the nation didn't vote for" to rile up the rest of the nation against their fellow laborers. Utilizing the democratic principle against the people. What's more, against the people with the least electoral power. What a crazy fuckin system, am I right?
I will say as a bartender, I can understand why people in dc would want to fix tipping. However I fail to understand how that would be beneficial in other states where the server wage isn’t as low but is still tiered below the minimum. I’m in Florida, we voted $15 / hr minimum by 2026 & then tethering minimum wage increases to inflation. In this law it excludes service workers to making $10 an hour. Currently in 2023 (it goes up every September) server wages are at $9 and regular is at $12. This was something fought to be kept before the amendment was put on the ballot because most servers and bartenders here make much more than minimum wage with tips. Even on slow days. The problem a lot of servers / bartenders worry about raising our wages to equal to minimum is losing out on our higher than minimum wages. Reason being because a lot of customers only tip because they “have to” and wouldn’t otherwise tip anything. And I don’t see business owners deciding to raise our wages above minimum anytime soon. For more proof on this, look and see how much they pay cooks and hosts. Why would I want to destroy a system which allows me to make even on slow days $10 more an hour than minimum wage? Again I understand the downsides, and have been sexually harassed by bosses, owners, and customers too many times to count. I understand dc specifically wanting it raised due to the extremely low hourly. And I understand the racist history of tipping and why tipping is problematic. But I still cannot reckon with the chance of it going away and being relegated to customer service level wages when now it’s often much higher. Alot of European countries have this model. Their bartenders make horrible pay. They make the same as cashiers / customer service. And while I’d love to fight to get everyone to make actually liveable wages consider me jaded that that’s not happening till a general strike or a revolution happens and therefor I don’t like the idea of jeopardising one of the only industries which is low barrier to entry and able to make lower middle class wages. Realistically until our country reunionise or drastically increases minimum wages I see raining tipped wages to the minimum as a threat because lots of people will stop tipping if they don’t think they have to. I’m writing this novel to ask how do you rectify this fact in the view of getting rid of tipping in the current economic climate? Short of the hoped revolution or hope mass strike how can one desire erasing a lot of peoples only way to make higher wages ?
I dont know on what evidence you presume that eroding the tipped minimum will result in nobody tipping anymore. European server pay is generally worse (though i've noticed you don't account for health coverage, which i'm told by most people who have worked in services is absolute dogshit in the us if available at all), but that's due in large part to there just being less post tax inequality. This gap between the incomes of higher and lower earners is what drives tips to be as large and widespread as they are. It would exist even with a universalized and higher minimum wage. Now I'm not going to deny that some workers win out from the system as it is. However, I thinking pretending your 10 above minimum is typical in the face of the fact that the median salary of a bartender in the US is $ 15.15. Now this sounds dandy when the federal minimum wage is 7.25, but only a third of the population lives in states that have a federal minimum wage of 7.25, and in those states many localities have higher minimum wages. So, suffice to say for everyone earning 10 above minimum, there's a sizeable number of people earning well under that. So insofar as this structure helps some service workers it does so at the expense of others and can only preserve itself within the framework of a deeply stratified country when it comes to income.
Worth mentioning that these issues, albeit the details differ, the grand scheme is present in pretty much every democracy. Democracy has its merits, and it is arguably the best system we ever came up with that reached vast acceptance, but it is prone to the same human mistakes of other systems. People adapt to negatice outcomes and become less sensitized over several decades, eventually turning them into culture. Once it becomes part of the culture, getting out of it becomes hard. Bipartisan single-vote democracies have it worst, but opting for multi-vote won't solve the systemic problems if things like education aren't invested on. Terrible, because education only bares fruits between 15-30 years down the line, when people join the workforce; that is a LONG TIME. If you spend 15-30 years as a passionate activist, mad and enraged to keep changes going, it destroys a person's mental health. And because any revolution requires a LOT of people, it could mean a massive onset of old and elder people dragging down the system against their own will, even if it is better. Come on, Millenials and Gen Z are already terribly dissatisfied with all the old men at the top, we need to find a way not to turn ourselves into those kinds of people. I want to be hopeful, but it is simply terribly hard to so anything when 1) humans are absurdly complacent and 2) if you force them NOT to be complacent for long enough, it becomes an obsession and a cult. Either way you go, humanity kills itself, either by doing nothing against evil, or by becoming evil. Right now, the Russo-Ukrainian and Israeli-Palestinian wars became a tool for brainwashing and manipulation by both sides of the political spectrum, some even defending genocide of all 4 parties. It is doomerist and accelerationist, it is a mess, it is the last thing we need or want, but it is exactly where we live right now! And we need to get out!
I'm fine with giving DC more power locally and less power federally. They need to remove their shadow representatives from Congress and the Senate and their local council needs to be given more sovereignty on day-to-day laws, recognizing always that if such laws interfere with the Federal government, they can be voided. 'Interference' will need to be duly legislated.
Not to nitpick a single part out of a video i completely agree with otherwise, but I think something similar to restaurants is at least a little necessary, in that everyone needs food, humanity has specialized beyond hunter-gatherers, cooking for lots of people at once is kinda required, and something like a restaurant or a soup kitchen is a great way to organize that process on behalf of a large group of people.
I-82 is real though, you can tell from the service fees restaurants like Rose's Luxury are adding to their bills instead of raising menu prices like a reasonable business.
Wait until you find out that DC employers are required to pay the rest of their employees wages if the employees don't make up the difference between 10$ and 17$ in tips. You literally only have to get 7$ in tips per hour and they don't have to pay you the full minimum wage. This could be easily framed to support his narrative, but he doesn't even do that. He simplifies to try to make it look even worse.
Militarily it was mostly a British win; politically it was a draw, which is the same reason the US is generally said to have "lost" the Vietnam War. Depending on which metric you use, we either won the Vietnam War and lost 1812, or we lost Vietnam and drew 1812. The political metric seems better, since you can win all kinds of victories on the field, but if you go unsupported by the powers that be and your foe goes well-supported, then, like Hannibal Barca, you won't ultimately win the war.
@@RickJaeger I’ve been comparing it to Ukraine in my head; given Russia invaded, if they end up going back to the original borders, that’s a failure for Russia. They tried to gain territory by invading another country and failed.
@@Azeria That's true, that would be a loss for Russia if territorial gain was all they wanted, *and* they didn't achieve it. However, there were other war aims and gains that _were_ achieved for the United States-although I think it's open to question whether those gains were "worth it" considering the U.S.'s performance in the war.
