"This study found that attractive waitresses earned larger sales-adjusted tips than did less attractive waitresses. Attractiveness had no effect on the tips of waiters."
If this was just based on (an even) salary, wouldn't it be better for everyone?
Not in case of known salaries per position. (Or at least small differences in case of ranges) But we won't get there in one day. Getting rid of tipping is one of the steps.
Salaries might be set per position per restaurant, but go have a look at the staff at your local high-end steak place. Then go visit your local Chile's/Applebees/Fast Casual Dining place.
Which has a more attractive staff? Which do you suppose makes more in tips? (Or would in salary if straight salaried?)
I believe that in a straight salary system that more attractive people would be well served (no pun intended) to seek jobs at higher-end restaurants; I believe that's already happened to some extent. One table turn could tip $100 or more at a high-end place today. That will be partially shared with the multiple staff serving the table, but it's still going to be a very strong hourly rate.
Sure, there would be some migration towards the high-end, but at some point you either hire experienced people, or your reputation will suffer and you'll no longer be high-end. This migration leads to hooters, not to a place with sommeliers.
Getting rid of tipping is like treating chronic disease with symptomatic pills. Though we have to question, whether it is a real disease or simply our nature?
Demand is on customer side, not on service company or place. If someone wants to be surrounded by attractive service and is ready to pay for it (not rejecting averages, of course), is he completely wrong?
1. I don't think the drivers can see how much you tip.
2. In case of restaurants in the US, generally servers make very little without tip. When you pay you are paying the restaurant and not the person who serve you food. I know it's different in other countries but that's just how things are here.
So pay them more. isn't the whole point of paying for a meal is to include expenses like paying employees? By paying tips you actually contributing to a system that doesn't pay to employees.
As a European that is also often uncomfortable with this typical US "custom", I think it is kind of an arrogant statement to make.
It is just a different way to do things, and I'm not sure what servers would choose given the option.
In Europe servers tend to work long hours, often at minimum wage (I worked briefly as one, while studying), it's not like they are treated substantially better.
At least in the US you can count on the occasional generous tip, and good servers tend to work for it.
But, if you decide not tip someone, especially a food service worker that you know is only making $2.35/hour, then you are punishing that worker. Punishing them vastly more than you are punishing are system or the employer. If you really don't want to support tipping culture, don't use any service/store that allows for it and petition your legislature to change the laws.
a food service worker that you know is only making $2.35/hour
This varies by state. For example, in Oregon the minimum wage is $9.75, and, importantly: Oregon is one of the few states that does not allow employers to take a tip credit. Employees must be paid at least the full state minimum wage, whether or not they also earn tips.
Despite this "high" wage, there is no shortage of restaurants in Oregon. Somehow good restaurants do manage to stay in business here.
It's possible that food service workers might earn a lot more than minimum wage with tips, such that taking away their tips would hurt their compensation. Perhaps - it's still arguably no concern of the patron. If I'm buying an automobile from a car dealership, should I pay extra because the poor car salesman needs his commission? I don't think so. His compensation is between him and the leadership. It is fair that I negotiate the lowest possible price, and a price that works for me.
Regardless of all that, my primary point is that it is incorrect to claim that servers will make less than minimum wage without tips. They always earn minimum wage and so this is not a reason to justify tipping.
In USA, even minimum salary for servers is lover then minimum salary for other workers - the law expects the tips. Whole American culture expects patrons to pay directly to server.
"Where an employee does not receive sufficient tips to make up the difference between the direct (or cash) wage payment (which must be at least $2.13 per hour) and the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference."
Interesting, they did not told us that part when I worked in USA in summer. Cooks got 6.5$ and that was minimum wage in there. Servers got 1.5$ and had to report all tips to be taxed. Then again, servers earned more overall, so minimum wage was not really an issue for them.
Literally the third sentence in your link provides support for GP's position:
"The employer is prohibited from using an employee’s tips for any reason other than as a credit against its minimum wage obligation to the employee (“tip credit”)"
You are mistaken. Please read the rest of the article, and the comment that is a peer to yours.
"Where an employee does not receive sufficient tips to make up the difference between the direct (or cash) wage payment (which must be at least $2.13 per hour) and the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference."
I agree with this sentiment. I hate the 'tip culture' too, but it's not going to change overnight and the reality is, if you aren't tipping people in the US (and Canada, btw), the worker is getting far less compensation.
It should change, but this particular Uber situation isn't going to be the straw that broke the camel's back I'm afraid.
Then let the restaurants pay their servers more. Or put it in the bill. "service charge" it is called. Don't leave me with calculations to do and faux hospitality from waiters being nice only because of money.
I'd hate to have to do a "little dance" and show extra teeth every time I serve someone.
From my previous conversations with Lyft drivers, if I recall correctly they get a sum weekly/biweekly and don't see who tipped.
I used to live in a country where tipping wasn't a thing. But having lived in the US for a while now I actually like it. It gives the servers incentive to do well. Also you always have the option to not tip if the service is really bad. I understand your frustration, though. Perhaps, I've gotten too used to it haha.
Ok, this may work for drivers, but what about the kitchen staff at restaurants, don't they deserve more? Do you think the waiters share the tip? This is a horrible way to solve problems, everyone should receive a fair pay directly, by their employer.
> 2. In case of restaurants in the US, generally servers make very little without tip. When you pay you are paying the restaurant and not the person who serve you food. I know it's different in other countries but that's just how things are here.
Yeah, this applies only to US. It is a fucked up system. Everyone else people are rational and tips are not excepted - the service is excepted in the price.
Poorly written (probably because it was written in a hurry to piggy back on Susan's article). This doesn't contribute anything new to the conversation.
I found it interesting. The account does not have to contain outrageous horrible war story to be worth to be read. Moreover, if you are trying to make up your mind about a company or place, non exaggerated no big event story about how normal daily affairs are done there should matter.
The fact that this story does not contains ridiculous behavior on part of anyone, just some warning flag does not make it pointless.
More than the typos, I was more put off by the structure and sentence flow which made me feel like it was haphazardly put together, but didn't know he is ESL. Thanks for pointing that out. My apology to the author.
I think your comment is the first in what amounts to a "noise loop", where your comment doesn't add anything substantive to this conversation, and me pointing out that fact also doesn't add value, ad nauseum, forever. There may or may not have been signal in the submission, but there certainly is no signal in what we're doing.
Preferably, you'd have never made your original comment. Maybe I shouldn't even make this one. Who knows.
I see this kind of reasoning frequently, but I remember reading a study that showed that most of the Trump supporters were actually not victims of job-outsourcing and had good economic standing. Not sure if it was a non-partisan, credible study but unless you have good sources you might be theorizing?
I think you are seeing this in a the glass is half empty kind of way. I am assuming you think that everybody is really good at something special. Better than most people.
I don't think about it that way. My inspiration came from reading the Undercover Economist, where he starts by admitting that there are lots of people who would have written that book much better than him. However nobody has infinite time. They can't do everything. That is the key insight of the concept of comparative advantage. You do what you are best at even if everybody else is better than you at that thing. It doesn't matter because if their comparative advantage is in a different area, they are better off doing that.
So the glass is half full way of reading everybody is talented at something, simply means everybody is better at some things than other things. You might be a poor mathematician and a poor writer. But if you are a better mathematician than writer, then that is probably what you should do.
You raise a good point, and CA is the reason why trading with other nations is a good idea (econ101). I should have made my point clearer. I'm not trying to take the glass is half empty positon. I wanted to point out that such statement places all the burden on the individual without recognizing the system that needs to assist in fostering and discovering talent.
The current public school system is based on the British Colonial model. At the time the British empire spanned the globe there was no robust method of immediate mass communication. So, how was the Empire going to ensure that marching orders were carried out as they were handed down?
Create cogs. Everyone learned the same thing everywhere. And you learned in an environment that stressed the immediacy of execution. The Empire didn't want its citizens thinking about whether or not to follow an order in the middle of a battle. The citizen was needed to simply do as told, now.
As a result there was standardization of curriculum and an expectation of rote learning, not critical analysis and the exercise of judgment.
Contrast that with our current environment.
Products have long lead times. Skype. A massive percent of our GDP is spent on things that we didn't even know we needed or wanted. Many of the things that we rely on everyday are the product of discovery rather than directives.
So, when the person said everyone has a talent, I take that to mean, we can each bring something to the table. Diversity of thought. Diversity of experience. And that, is definitely true.
What is not true, what is arbitrary, is that there is some defined set of talents that have value and a person either masters one or more of these talents or, if they don't, they have no talent. That point of view is ignorant and counterproductive for both individuals and communities.
It is my fault for not being clear. I was making fun of the bumper-sticker, oversimplified statement. I have no quarrel with the idea that everyone has something unique to bring to the table. Also I was upset by the fact that it seemed to put all the burden on the individual, when in reality discovery and fostering of talent is as much a job of the society.
The word used was "everyone". All I have to do is point to a bum on the street and the original statement is false. I just wanted to make a point that such statement places all the burden on the individual, without acknolwedging the systems at play in fostering and developing talent.
No, this isn't how proof works. All you have to do is find a bum, and definitively prove that he has no talent at anything, even things he has never been exposed to, even things that have fallen out of fashion, even things that have yet to be invented.
Go ahead, get started, I'll wait. If you could please do this with many bums, the world would thank you -- every inevitable failure will make the world a better place.
I'm not sure why it's so important to you to push the notion that some people just simply are not good at anything (and of course you use, as an example, a homeless person -- obviously they must be talentless, yes, otherwise they would be successful like us?).
"Everyone has a talent, it's just a matter of finding it" -- the point you are dismissively hostile towards is a positive one which is essentially irrefutable. It doesn't claim talent is "any good" or that it can easily be exercised. It's suggesting everyone has worth and something to offer. I don't know why you are so opposed to accepting something like that. The hostility here isn't mine.
If you read my second sentence "I just wanted to make a point that such statement places all the burden on the individual, without acknolwedging the systems at play in fostering and developing talent", you would know that we hold the same position. The point I am making is not that some are talented and some are not (only idiots would believe in fully meritocratic outcomes), but that the burden of seemingly "untalented" people lies with the society as much as it does with the individual, and the original bumper-sticker statement does not acknowledge that complexity and power dynamic. I have no hostility.
I did not refer to whether people are worthy of being in the gene pool, you assumed. What I mean is that everyone who is still in the gene pool is still in it for a reason. Sometimes people have talent, sometimes people don't have talent. One should not feel bad for not having talent, maybe talent is not what got you here. Maybe you have other things to offer, things that could not really be considered a talent.
My friends and I went "offline" and we are much closer and happier. Social media is overrated. I think we will look back at this time in the future like how we look back at cigarette smoking in the 50s. It has its place but its usefulness is limited. I don't question Snapchat's business potential, though.
edit: also I find it funny (and pathetic) how industry analyst struggle to understand social media and what is the next big social media. They just don't get it.
I'm in the same boat.
I was chatting to some Chinese business people yesterday. What we call social media, they call "self media". I think that is a better description of how most of us use social networks, i.e. to broadcast ourselves.
But there is still underlying value in the connectness which social networks enable. For example my local community is using Facebook to bring everyone together to oppose a gravel development next to our local school. It's a great way of keeping everyone informed, quickly, and at no cost. Some people are really creative too, such as uploading videos of the proposed site using drones to show what we would lose.
So I think to be useful, "self media" has to truly evolve into "social" media.
Please forgive me for generalizing, but from what stereotypes of Chinese culture that I've heard, I've been given the impression that the Chinese tend to be conservative with regards to outwardly expressing themselves. Given that this may be the case, is it not unsurprising that they would see a platform that is about visual expression and that focuses upon the creator of content, as being possibly too self-oriented?
If this is the case, such a perception may act as a barrier to their ability to perceive that it is a platform that can be used for the creation and strengthening of interpersonal bonds (social media).
With friends who live close by, we don't interact online. Instead we schedule dinner or make plans for weekends.
With friends who don't live nearby, I don't talk to them as often. I still have my FB account but I don't follow anyone on FB, so my News Feed is empty. I keep it alive for FB messenger, which I use to chat with some friends occasionally. Or if I'm traveling nearby, I'll let them know and schedule something. I used the word "offline" in a sense that I don't subscribe to people and I don't broadcast my activities.
While Android is a smartphone OS, it is questionable whether android devices are being used as smartphones by majority of the users who have android devices.
This isn't true. You tip for their service not sexual attraction.
It's hard to calculate the service they provide. Wouldn't you pay more for a pleasant drive than for an unpleasant one?
Besides these points, I think it is a stretch to say tipping is immoral.