The money comes from the customer in either scenario, functionally there is no difference it flows from customer to employee regardless.
Edit: just to be clear, I am very much against the tipping culture in the US as it only benefits the employer and leaves employees at the whim of the customers mood. But all employee salaries are paid by the customers money in the end.
No the definition is technically to be partially financially supported by public funds (I.e. government or other organization)…but that wouldn’t cover tipping from private customers either so…
i don’t think there’s a misunderstanding dude. i think you’re talking past each other because you used hyperbole. you both seem to be making the same point in different words, like you got different educations and degrees or something normal like that
No, but we shouldn’t expect to pay less if they stop receiving tips and the employer pays them instead. I think a lot of people make this assumption. In reality it’ll be more like you don’t have to tip but your meal is 20% more expensive.
7% more expensive in reality. labor costs are a lot in restaurants, but the big one is rent followed by utilities
there was a study on fast food prices rising in relation to the 15 dollar minimum wage hike. that’s where i’m getting my number from. also my ass because it’s me, but my estimates are usually spot on.
Are you saying the restaurant should charge more and prevent tipping or if you don’t tip you get hit with an extra charge? Or is it a different method?
Ideally, the restaurant should pay enough that tipping is not required (which does require them to raise prices). As a customer you would then be free to tip a smaller amount if you thought that the service was exceptional.
That’s how it works in the UK although a lot of businesses are adding a tip onto the bill in advance so that you would need to complain about the service to get it removed (technically you can just ask them to remove the tip without giving a reason if that’s how you want to play it).
I would like the charge to stay the same but the waiter still gets a living wage but it’s absurd to believe that will happen and may be unrealistic to expect that it should. I don’t know what profit margin any given restaurant has but none will give up 20% of profits and a lot may not be able to remain open if they have to. In any scenario the business would have to change beyond recognition. The ones who choose to adapt may just fire the waiters and have you order through a machine and then you don’t have to tip but that business model already exists in most fast food chains.
I would like the charge to stay the same but the waiter still gets a living wage but it’s absurd to believe that will happen and may be unrealistic to expect that it should
which is why it takes a change in law. california did it.
I may have misunderstood the question. Restaurants who have adopted no tipping add the 20% charge in one way or another. Either the food costs more or there’s a service fee.
Waiter is the only one who gets their wage subsidized by their bosses customers.
Everyone gets their wage subsidized by the customers of the business (both B2B and B2C) they work for.
So, they all can ask for tips?
The money comes from the customer in either scenario, functionally there is no difference it flows from customer to employee regardless.
Edit: just to be clear, I am very much against the tipping culture in the US as it only benefits the employer and leaves employees at the whim of the customers mood. But all employee salaries are paid by the customers money in the end.
Yeah, but that’s not what subsidized means at all.
ARGLEBARGLE I LOVE YOU FOR BRINGING UP THIS POINT
No the definition is technically to be partially financially supported by public funds (I.e. government or other organization)…but that wouldn’t cover tipping from private customers either so…
No, you’re just wrong here and there is no technically.
You’re misunderstanding what public funds are.
i don’t think there’s a misunderstanding dude. i think you’re talking past each other because you used hyperbole. you both seem to be making the same point in different words, like you got different educations and degrees or something normal like that
You you’re suggesting that money spent by private customers counts as “public funds”, you’re misunderstanding what public funds are.
the publics funds
No u! /s
No, a private individual does not have public funds.
Public funds are specifically a government things.
At this point I don’t think you understand the point I made.
They can all ask, I’ll still say no.
No, but we shouldn’t expect to pay less if they stop receiving tips and the employer pays them instead. I think a lot of people make this assumption. In reality it’ll be more like you don’t have to tip but your meal is 20% more expensive.
7% more expensive in reality. labor costs are a lot in restaurants, but the big one is rent followed by utilities
there was a study on fast food prices rising in relation to the 15 dollar minimum wage hike. that’s where i’m getting my number from. also my ass because it’s me, but my estimates are usually spot on.
And we won’t pay less!
To be fair, they will do the whole boiling frog pot thing. It’ll be easier to do with 7% inflation a year.
we’re currently1 at 4%/mo or 28% a year which is fuuuuun
1last i checked which was i forget but it was less than a year ago and the number makes krasnov look bad so meh.
Yeah, but now everyone’s running out of strategic oil reserves.
really? i haven’t even touched my fast food workers
Are you saying the restaurant should charge more and prevent tipping or if you don’t tip you get hit with an extra charge? Or is it a different method?
Ideally, the restaurant should pay enough that tipping is not required (which does require them to raise prices). As a customer you would then be free to tip a smaller amount if you thought that the service was exceptional.
That’s how it works in the UK although a lot of businesses are adding a tip onto the bill in advance so that you would need to complain about the service to get it removed (technically you can just ask them to remove the tip without giving a reason if that’s how you want to play it).
I would like the charge to stay the same but the waiter still gets a living wage but it’s absurd to believe that will happen and may be unrealistic to expect that it should. I don’t know what profit margin any given restaurant has but none will give up 20% of profits and a lot may not be able to remain open if they have to. In any scenario the business would have to change beyond recognition. The ones who choose to adapt may just fire the waiters and have you order through a machine and then you don’t have to tip but that business model already exists in most fast food chains.
which is why it takes a change in law. california did it.
I may have misunderstood the question. Restaurants who have adopted no tipping add the 20% charge in one way or another. Either the food costs more or there’s a service fee.
(I get it. It was just for the meme)