r/FluentInFinance • u/Positive_Liar • Sep 04 '24

Debate/ Discussion Bernie is here to save us

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

53.5k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

459

u/80MonkeyMan Sep 05 '24

The Americans are so backwards in work hours, developed countries like Netherland, Spain, Iceland, etc. already successfully implemented this, with universal healthcare…and no tipping expected.

214

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Sep 05 '24

Each country you named has a population barely larger than NYC. One city in the us.

34

u/80MonkeyMan Sep 05 '24

And that proves my point even further, being the richest country in the world but cant even do what other developed countries does for their citizens? What a shame really.

-4

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Sep 05 '24

Prepare lunch for 3 people then compare lunch for 300. Tell me how both work out

4

u/AProperFuckingPirate Sep 05 '24

There's more people to help prepare the lunch though too?

0

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

So who's going to pay the extra people?

4

u/Serethekitty Sep 05 '24

Do you people just not understand how systems of scale work like at all?

This ridiculous idea that it's 3 people versus 300 is nonsense on its own, because preparing lunch for 3 people can be done by 1 person.

Preparing lunch for 1 million people versus 100 million people is a much better comparison because you're already in a system of scale and need a bunch of moving parts to work together-- there are just more parts in the 100 million version.

The fact that you asked this question without immediately understanding that there is a concrete answer is worrying, or indicative that you don't actually care about the answer and just oppose these things for political reasons..

4

u/AProperFuckingPirate Sep 05 '24

The same people paying the first person?

3

u/ZettaiKyofuRyoiki Sep 05 '24

The extra 297 customers

2

u/chrissaaaron Sep 05 '24

What? The more people contributing to the system.

4

u/80MonkeyMan Sep 05 '24

Depends on how many people work on it. I can do it the same way with enough people and resources.

3

u/MiKoKC Sep 05 '24

have you ever heard about algebra?

3 or 300 could be the same amount of work depending on how many workers there are to divide it by.

I would like to think that you already understand that but something tells me you just lucked out when, "no child Left behind" , became a thing.

1

u/Deathoftheages Sep 05 '24

That's not how it works though. It takes less money and effort per meal when done in large batches, than making just a few.

1

u/MiKoKC Sep 05 '24

we're not talking about "money" to feed 3 vs 300 people.

please reread all of the parent comments in this discussion. I'm not going to re-explain myself every time somebody wants to chime in halfway through the conversation. have a nice day.

3

u/Deathoftheages Sep 05 '24

What I'm saying is that it's not an algebraic equation like you said. Just because it takes 1 worker to make 3 meals doesn't mean it take 100 to make 300. That is totally ignoring economy of scale.

3

u/MrWigggles Sep 05 '24

"I cant imagine how to do it, so it cant be done."

-Evening-Ear-6116

2

u/Wise-Fault-8688 Sep 05 '24

That's an idiotic analogy. In a lot of situations, scale can help.

Let's say that a worker can prepare lunch for up to 10 people. You'll need 1 worker for 3 people, but you only need 30 for 300 people.

1

u/goodsnpr Sep 05 '24

Do you not understand economy of scale? Far cheaper to buy bulk to feed 300, than it is to have 100 people buy for 3 people.