[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that they DON'T means that they also feel dealers aren't overpaid.


[/ QUOTE ]

Restated as a logical syllogism your argument is this:

The premise assumes that the casinos have no other motivation to keep their hands off of the tip money other than their "feeling" that dealers are overpaid. An additional motivation for not doing this is that they would be breaking the law as I already stated.

There are several other reasons the casinos would not take the dealers tip money but I only need one to prove your premise false and your argument invalid so I will stop here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try, but you already conceded that there were legal methods the casino could take to get a portion of the money that is currently going to dealers. So there are legal options that the casino could take to increase their revenue at the expense of dealers. Please try again.

[ QUOTE ]

Restated as a logical syllogism in modus tollens your 2nd argument is this:

If society felt that the dealers were overpaid, then society would not care if the casinos took some of the dealers tips. (Premise 1)
Society would care if the casinos took some of the dealers tips. (Premise 2)
Therfore society feels that the dealers are not overpaid. (Conclusion)

Once again premise 1 is false. "Society" would (and should) care if the casino took some of the tip money even if "society" thought the dealers were overpaid. For instance, if society thought that the dealers were overpaid they may want the money returned to the players and therefore would still be upset if the casino were to take it. (this BTW would be my position)

Your conclusions are drawn from false premises in both cases and are therfore not valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try again, but you haven't proven premise 1 false. If society felt that dealers were overpaid they would tolerate casinos getting some of that money, if they got SOME of that money back themselves. There are many options where players and casinos win, and dealers lose. Your idea of stopping tips and increasing rake is one of those options. It would easily be possible for rake to be increased in a way that leaves more money in players pockets, increases casino revenue, and leaves the dealers making less money.

Edit: Not to mention that if casinos thought people were overpaid the LEAST they would do is take options to shift that money to players. If casinos have a choice between their employees or their players keeping money who do you think they would choose? Here's a hint, its the people most likely to give it back to the casino.

Finally, you leave out another component of society's view on dealers being overpaid. The willingness of others to do the job for less. If dealers were overpaid there would be a large supply of potential dealers willing to take dealing jobs where they didn't make nearly as much. So in fact even if premise 1 was false, you're leaving out a very important component.


I'm going to assume you're just finishing your first year at College/University and you took a first year philosophy course. Unfortunately you need to think a little bit more about how to apply those arguments. ( You, of course are going to reply that you're like a 40 year old philosophy doctor I'm sure. Maybe you even are... but I doubt it).