Minimum wage bill stalls in Senate Republican bill, denounced as 'ploy' by Democrats, would also cut estate taxes. August 4 2006: 6:27 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Republicans Thursday night failed to advance a bill coupling a 40-percent increase in the minimum wage with a cut in estate taxes, which Democratic leaders had denounced as an election-year ploy.
A move by GOP leaders to cut off debate and move to a final vote on the bill failed to get the 60 votes it needed under Senate rules. The vote, which fell mostly along party lines, was 56 to 42.
Wouldn't increasing the minimum wage give companies greater incentive to out-source low paying jobs, for example in manufacturing?
Wouldn't this mean even fewer jobs for those trying to support a family wage income(s)?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is stalled because it allows lower wages for servers who can make up the difference in tips.
This law would trump state law. Eleven states do NOT allow lower wages for servers, so tips are on top of the minimum wage. This law would effectively cut wages for servers in those eleven states.
Hence the stalling.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
NJ is not one of those eleven states. Minimum wage for servers is $2.30 per hour (at least last I checked), which doesn't even cover taxes on the tips you make normally. Plus, they automatically tax you on at least 15% of your total sales (more if you made more), even if you had a slow night (or several) where you made less than 15% in tips.
Of course, the only way they can track tips is credit card tips, so if you made 17% in credit card tips and another 3% in cash, they'll automatically tax 17% and you're supposed to declare the other 3%. Contrarily, if you made 3% in credit card tips and 17% in cash, you'll get taxed as if you made 15% tips, and are still supposed to declare the extra 5%.
However, if you made 5% in credit card tips and 6% in cash, you'll still get taxed as if you made 15% in tips (even though you only made 11%).
It's a bad system, and lowering hourly wages just makes it worse.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I heard that it was stalled because they tied the minimum wage increase to dumping the inheritance tax. The Republicans hoped to cut the rug out of the Democrats Upping THe Minimum Wage crusade while passing their stalled thier own agenda--tax cuts for the wealthiest.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Wouldn't this mean even fewer jobs for those trying to support a family wage income(s)?
The problem is that at present, people on minimum wage can not afford to buy the staples of life. They must either work multiple jobs, cutting the number of available jobs since the same person is doing two or more, or relying on welfare, which increases taxes, which drives companies to out source, which cuts jobs.
On the other hand, increasing minimum wage would increase the amount of many that many people have, allowing them to spend that money, which will increase demand, which will increase employment. I call this my Trickle Up Theory.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:This law would trump state law. Eleven states do NOT allow lower wages for servers, so tips are on top of the minimum wage. This law would effectively cut wages for servers in those eleven states.
This assumes that the server's employers are going to squeeze the servers as much as they can under the law. That may be a fair assumption, but I don't know what it says about acceptable American business ethics.
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
quote:On the other hand, increasing minimum wage would increase the amount of many that many people have, allowing them to spend that money, which will increase demand, which will increase employment. I call this my Trickle Up Theory.
Companies only have so much money to pay their employess to have x amount of service performed. If we double the minimum wage and the amount of service preformed doesn't change, it is likely that employmees' paid hours would be cut in half. It would also requires employees do x amount of work in half as many hours. This doesn't seem wise.
Perhaps the solution to the problem lies not in forcing employers to pay more, but rather in increasing the education & skills of minimum wage workers so they are more valuable.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Citadel, those jobs still need to be done. If all employees have skills that make them more valuable, the who will do the jobs that the companies require?
Companies don't worry about this because they know that the solution you suggest is a pipe dream. Yet its a good phrase to use to sidetrack minimum wage increases.
Besides, companies don't just have X amount of money. They make X amount of profit off of each item or service they produce. If a hike in the minimum wage increases demand, and then increases profits, they will have more money in which to pay the increased labor costs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think they should eliminate tips entirely and pay servers a real wage.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I have a better system.
1. Do away with the national minimum wage, and all the State minimum wages.
2. Have individual unions associated with individual businesses (someone wanna tell me why a business with less than 15 employees needs nationally enforced labor laws?), where the employees get to choose whether to join and work under those negotiated resolutions (if there are any).
3. Make it illegal for employees at all levels to do anything to try and prevent their employees from joining that Union, or starting their own.
Seriously, most people don't care about Unions anymore. And with the political weight Unions have, only a small percentage of the workforce needs to have membership in one, and the rest will automatically get whatever is nationally enforced by them. There's no real incentive to join for most people.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I disagre, mph. I've been a server and I have a brother in the restaurant business. A lot of servers I personally know, and this includes me when I used to be one, would not take a wage job and eliminate their tips because they make so much more off the tips than they would if they were just paid minimum wage or even some above that.
My brother, for example, left bartending at a brass and fern type restaurant for management, and without his tips, he took a cut in pay. When I was a server, my salary check went right into the bank and I saved it for school tuition - I lived off my tips and they were enough for me to do so. (of course, I was a poor college student with an apartment that my parents paid half of the rent for me, I'm not suggesting I couild have supported a family on those tips)
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Depends on whether you are getting tipped at Italian Gardens or whether you are getting tipped at Sonic
(and I did ask this once at our local Sonic -- they are all paid minimum wage and expect tips)
FG
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I want a Sonic limeade now. Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
quote:On the other hand, increasing minimum wage would increase the amount of many that many people have, allowing them to spend that money, which will increase demand, which will increase employment. I call this my Trickle Up Theory.
I am having trouble understanding this. Maybe you could elaborate.
The way I see it if were to raise minimum wage to say $10 1 of 2 things would happen:
1. Companies having limited money for payroll would layoff workers resulting in fewer workers & jobs with the same amount of stuff to do.
2. Companies don't layoff anyone but instead raise the price of their goods. Sure people make more, but everything costs more. If we raise mininmum wages then the cost of food goes up, because grocery stores have many minimum wage workers that will have to be paid more.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: A lot of servers I personally know, and this includes me when I used to be one, would not take a wage job and eliminate their tips because they make so much more off the tips than they would if they were just paid minimum wage or even some above that.
I didn't say pay them minimum wage or just above.
Pay them what they're worth. Charge the customer what he's expected to pay.
I hate the entire concept of tips.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I think this does a decent job of explaining what's going on.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I think they should eliminate tips entirely and pay servers a real wage.
What would be a real wage? And how much more are you willing to spend on food so that the restaurant can afford to pay this real wage?
A raise in minimum wage means a raise in overhead for a business, which means either a) a reduction of costs, or b) an increase in pricing. The first can mean fewer work hours, fewer employees, or lower quality product. The second is self explanatory.
The idea that "higher wage = higher purchasing power = greater demand" is fine, except that such a chain of events is not immediate. In the short term, businesses need to find the money to pay their employees (the two options above) and they are unlikely to revert to their earlier state once demand/profits increase.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If minimum wage goes up wouldnt alot of wages eventually increase as they are attractive for being above minimum wage? Like for example I work in an office making $10 an hour. A year or so down the road would the same position be offered at $14 an hour?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I like the concept of tips. It means if you're an ass and ignore me or take twenty minutes to bring me ketchup, I don't have to give you, personally, any money.
I'm actually a really good tipper, and it takes a lot for me NOT to tip well, but I like to have that option.
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I like the concept of tips. It means if you're an ass and ignore me or take twenty minutes to bring me ketchup, I don't have to give you, personally, any money.
I'm actually a really good tipper, and it takes a lot for me NOT to tip well, but I like to have that option.
-pH
I am a good tipper and really all you have to do to get it is be on the ball.
Just be polite (I am pretty nice to waitors because I know how hard it is for them) make sure I get plenty of refills on my drink, and after you bring my food stop by 1-2 times before I pay the bill to make sure everything is fine. You basically earn 20% of the total bill if you do all those things.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: What would be a real wage? And how much more are you willing to spend on food so that the restaurant can afford to pay this real wage?
A raise in minimum wage means a raise in overhead for a business, which means either a) a reduction of costs, or b) an increase in pricing. The first can mean fewer work hours, fewer employees, or lower quality product. The second is self explanatory.
I'm sorry, but every time I hear this argument I think that God forbid the CEOs and owners of these companies lower their own wages a bit. It's purely an emotional response on my part, but I think it has at least some merit.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What would be a real wage? And how much more are you willing to spend on food so that the restaurant can afford to pay this real wage?
Why would I need to spend more on food? Take that money that is expected to be paid as a gratuity and roll it into the price that is charged the customer.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: A lot of servers I personally know, and this includes me when I used to be one, would not take a wage job and eliminate their tips because they make so much more off the tips than they would if they were just paid minimum wage or even some above that.
I didn't say pay them minimum wage or just above.
Pay them what they're worth. Charge the customer what he's expected to pay.
I hate the entire concept of tips.
YES.
Tips are another one of those "great in theory, absolutely awful in practice" sort of things.
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:What would be a real wage? And how much more are you willing to spend on food so that the restaurant can afford to pay this real wage?
Why would I need to spend more on food? Take that money that is expected to be paid as a gratuity and roll it into the price that is charged the customer.
So everybody increases menu item prices by 15%? So server's don't care about the service rendered because it doesn't matter because their pay doesn't depend on it. Like when my wife had to go get her own utensils at Denny's because the server forgot to bring them 3 times.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, you'd essentially be paying 15-20% more for every item.
Of course, this would translate even to restaurants (fast food drive thrus, etc) that already do not have tips. Because, if the going rate for a burger jumps 20%, everyone's getting on board.
You can see this trend in movie theaters. Big stadium seating theaters with awesome sound opened up and started charging more for their service. Now tiny hole in the wall theaters that practically show their films with a hand crank and flashlight are charging the same amount.
Also, as an aside, tip culture creates better service. Incentives = good. Just like the hope of a big bonus at the end of the year improves office production, so to does the hope of a big tip increase table service.
If you pay a standard wage with no benefit for "extra" or "above and beyond" service, you will get the bare minimum... and restaurants will have the same service as the DMV.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So everybody increases menu item prices by 15%?
Exactly.
quote:So server's don't care about the service rendered because it doesn't matter because their pay doesn't depend on it.
Do you think that's true of all professions, that if they aren't working for tips, they won't care about how well they do?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Do you think that's true of all professions, that if they aren't working for tips, they won't care about how well they do?
I think it can certainly be true of some professions, but certainly not all and it depends on the individual. Usually though, when there's something personal on the line, people are going to work harder. When my husband worked for someone else, he left a job and came home at 5:00 because that's when his employer stopped paying him. Now that he's back to running his own, he'll stay after five if it means he can finish something up and make a customer a little happier, because it's his personal reputation on the line and if he treats that customer well, he may recommend him down the road and he'll get more business. He definitely works longer hours and works harder when it's his business and not someone elses'. I think that's human nature.
Look at the example of the DMV - traditionally it's a terrible level of service because your satisfaction means nothing personally to the person working there. Whether you're angry or not, he/she still gets his paycheck and they don't get anything more by being extraordinarily helpful.
I don't know how much experience you have as an employer, but I have a fair amount, and I know that people who don't have a personal stake in the business will not put forth the same amount of effort as someone who does. Sounds terrible, but in my experience it's true.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think people should start tipping me for being so awesome.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think people should start tipping me for being so awesome.
So far today the coolest thing anybody has said.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*holds hand open*
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Citadel, all companies produce either products or services. Someone has to pay for those products or services. If more people have more money, they will buy those products and services. Henry Ford realized this when he decreed that everybody working for his company would earn enough to be able to buy his product.
So take Joe McDonalds Owner. He has to up the pay for most of his employees. His costs go up. On the other hand, thousands of people in the area are getting pay raises. What do they do with their money? They go to McDonalds, increasing Joe McDonalds Owner's gross sales.
On the other hand, tipping is the last, purest form of capitalism you will find. People earn not what the state thinks, but what they work for.
On the other hand, having a definite minimum wage is socialism. That is the state mandates support for the poor performers who do not work hard enough or are lucky enough to earn good tips.
Those who want to abolish tipping represent communism. That is the state determines your income, not you. No matter how hard you work, or how terrible the service is that you provide, the state pays you all the same. Little motivation equates to lousy service.
Face it, anti-tippers, you are all commie pinko scum.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
They could be monarchists or despots Dan_raven
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
BB--No they couldn't. I've never seen one of them at any of the meetings.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
One thing that bugs me about tipping is restaurants that automatically add the tip if the party is six or more. When my family goes out to eat, if my mother joins us it's seven of us, so this happens to us.
It always, always costs the server. My normal tipping range is around 20% and I acknowledge how hard a server must work to keep a table of seven happy, when three of those seven are under 10. Usually, I reward such a job with at least 20%. But out of principle, when they add the gratuity to the check I pay the check only, and it means the server loses around 5%.
If they just wouldn't force me to tip, I'd tip more. And yes, I know I have the option to tip more if I like, but it usually angers me so much I just pay the bill and leave, and most of the time put that restaurant on the list of ones NOT to re-visit.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Face it, anti-tippers, you are all commie pinko scum.
It's always a fun day when I get called a liberal or a commie. Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Citadel, all companies produce either products or services. Someone has to pay for those products or services. If more people have more money, they will buy those products and services. Henry Ford realized this when he decreed that everybody working for his company would earn enough to be able to buy his product.
So take Joe McDonalds Owner. He has to up the pay for most of his employees. His costs go up. On the other hand, thousands of people in the area are getting pay raises. What do they do with their money? They go to McDonalds, increasing Joe McDonalds Owner's gross sales.
On the other hand, tipping is the last, purest form of capitalism you will find. People earn not what the state thinks, but what they work for.
On the other hand, having a definite minimum wage is socialism. That is the state mandates support for the poor performers who do not work hard enough or are lucky enough to earn good tips.
Those who want to abolish tipping represent communism. That is the state determines your income, not you. No matter how hard you work, or how terrible the service is that you provide, the state pays you all the same. Little motivation equates to lousy service.
Face it, anti-tippers, you are all commie pinko scum.
I'm anti-tipping not because I'm anti-capitalist (as I love the idea of being able to provide my own personal, direct incentives to people who render me service) but because the current tip "rules" are ridiculous.
Why has a tip, regardless of the quality of service, become standard? Gratuity is just that: extra. If you do not do anything extra for me, why do you expect a tip? If I don't feel my cab driver did a better-than-average job, why the hell should I tip him? If my waitress does only an average job (read: the job she's already paid to do), why am I expected to tip her 15%?
Why do only very specific jobs earn tips? There are a ton of service jobs where not only is gratuity not the standard, no means exist to give a gratuity, period. In many jobs, you are not allowed to take gratuity.
...
Fix the rules, and I'm all in favor of tipping.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I just thought of something else.
If a restaurant can pay its workers 50% of what it had been paying them, they will make more money as a company. This will not be translated into lower costs for their product, though it may translate into the company hiring extra waitstaff to increase customer satisfaction.
More waitstaff means fewer tables for any given server, which means fewer tips. This is on top of a lower wage.
I know from personal experience that when a new group of servers were hired, tips went into the toilet. Three weeks later when many of these servers quit, tips went back up.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I liked what you said about socialism/capitalism Dan, that was funny. However, I don't think Joe McDonald's example is quite that simple.
The problem is that all those people holding this extra money have to pay more for their milk, more for their clothing, etc. as rising wages force dairy owners (and others) to raise their prices to pay their employees. Also, Joe McDonalds is paying more per extra-processed patty of meat as the meat packers wages go up, the people at the food processing plants wages increase, Sysco's costs go up, etc.
Everything would really have to go up across the board unless companies were willing to reduce profit margin. This does not make stock holders happy, etc. Assuming that if the minimum wage goes to $10 and everything will cost the same seems a bit simplistic.
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
quote:So take Joe McDonalds Owner. He has to up the pay for most of his employees. His costs go up. On the other hand, thousands of people in the area are getting pay raises. What do they do with their money? They go to McDonalds, increasing Joe McDonalds Owner's gross sales.
I understand this. Joe makes more money and has more expenses. Everyone has more money, so money is de-valued so things cost more - inflation. So if I make twice as much, and everything costs twice as much, what has really changed besides the fact that I am probably in a higher tax bracket?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:It always, always costs the server.
Not in my experience. It all depends on your clientele. Business expense account lunches? Required gratuity will kill a server. A group of 16 year olds at TGIFridays in a lower income neighborhood? The required gratuity might be a lot more than you'd get normally.
quote:If my waitress does only an average job (read: the job she's already paid to do), why am I expected to tip her 15%?
Because they'll get taxed on it whether you give it to them or not.
Granted, that's only because the system is screwy, but not giving 15% is actually costing your server money. If 15% comes to $10 and you give $3, the money you left will be gone in taxes and it will be as though you tipped nothing. If you do not tip at all, it would be like taking $3 out of your server's wallet and giving it to the government.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I love overtipping good servers. It goes along with my rule of "Always smile at people who bring you food."
I also enjoy stiffing poor servers. If they don't care enough to get me my food before it grows all heat-lampy, then they've just saved me some money.
Generally, though, I tip about 20%. I want them to be happy to see me coming next time I go to that restaurant.
Pix
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When did tips go from 10 to 15%? That has changed in the past decade or so.
I read an article that theorized that that's how restaurant prices have stayed down. Food is still cheap, but labor is more expensive, but the cost of labor is not reflected in menu prices. Instead, the percentage for tipping has gone up.
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: When did tips go from 10 to 15%? That has changed in the past decade or so.
I read an article that theorized that that's how restaurant prices have stayed down. Food is still cheap, but labor is more expensive, but the cost of labor is not reflected in menu prices. Instead, the percentage for tipping has gone up.
Tipping percentages are not regulated except as what is acceptable by society, so how did this change?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, it is. Especially for large groups, and servers are taxed as if they earned 15% in tips.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: If my waitress does only an average job (read: the job she's already paid to do), why am I expected to tip her 15%?
Because they'll get taxed on it whether you give it to them or not.
Besides the taxes, you should tip an average server because it's customary and part of our system. Often a server is paid below regular minimum wage, at a much lower minimum wage for tipped employees. It used to be $2.15/hour. So if you don't tip anything, you're getting average labor at sweatshop wages. Bravo.
As far as the taxes for servers, the rate used to be 8% of sales years ago. Did it really go up to 15%?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Morbo -- your argument looks a lot like "You are expect to tip because you are expected to tip."
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: If my waitress does only an average job (read: the job she's already paid to do), why am I expected to tip her 15%?
Because they'll get taxed on it whether you give it to them or not.
Besides the taxes, you should tip an average server because it's customary and part of our system. Often a server is paid below regular minimum wage, at a much lower minimum wage for tipped employees. It used to be $2.15/hour. So if you don't tip anything, you're getting average labor at sweatshop wages. Bravo.
As far as the taxes for servers, the rate used to be 8% of sales years ago. Did it really go up to 15%?
Like I said in my post: the rules for the system are broken.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: *holds hand open*
*drops in a few coins*
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Servers should be paid a full-wage by their employer. If this means that the price of the food goes up, so be it. If you can't afford to pay for the privilege of having a human being serve you your food, then you can't afford to eat out at a full-service restaurant. After that, tipping should not go away. You should still tip, but the percentage could go down a little, since the customer doesn't have to compensate for the stingy wage the employer is paying the server.
The very idea that tips should be part of wages is ridiculous. Tips should be given for "above and beyond" service. If you get your pancakes, it shouldn't matter that the server had a scowl on her face. She's doing her job--serving you--and should be compensated accordingly.
Besides, taking away tips as part of wages does NOT remove the incentive for good service. The establishment's name is still on the line, and the owners/managers don't want to get a bad reputation. If you complain to the manager, action will be taken if they're smart. If it isn't, don't go to that restaurant anymore. It's as simple as that. Customer service representatives at most businesses and stores don't receive tips, and they still have an incentive to provide good service--they want to keep their jobs. And the recourse you have as a customer would be the same--talk to the management. If no action is taken, you simply don't do business anymore with them. You can even spread the word, giving them bad press.
And as to whether or not the economy can afford to pay a living wage to their employees, I really don't think that matters. Just like I said above, if you can't afford to pay higher prices at a restaurant because the servers are actually being paid minimum wage, then you can't afford to eat out period. Well, if your business can't survive paying a living wage (as if minimum wage is a living wage, anyway) to your employees, then that's too bad. There's something seriously wrong with your business plan. Fix it or fold. Someone else will come along who can make it work.
I just don't agree with all of the doomsayers who think that the economy will collapse if we increase the minimum wage. It will recover--and if it so happens that the new minimum wage is devalued again, raise it again.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
What I don't like about tipping as a percentage is I don't think the service at a restaurant where the tab comes to $30 for one person is usually that much better than the service at a place that charges $7. At both places the server taks my order, brings me my food, checks in on me, keeps my beverage filled, clears things away as I finish them and brings me the check. So why is on person's efforts worth $1.05 and the other's $4.50? The difference in cost is due to the restaurant ambiance/location and the difference in cost of the food -- a steak with a sauce and two sides takes more time and more expensive ingrediants to prepare than a burger with fries.
I balance the discrepency in my head by over tipping percentage-wise at less expensive places. . . at a full service restaurant it's rare for me to leave less than 3 or 4 bucks dining by myself, unless the service is really bad. But if I knocked down the percentage a little at expensive places, too, because I don't think they're doing to work to justify a $15 tip I'd both come off as cheap and be screwing them on their taxes.
I also hate going someplace with a group and when splitting the bill some people "forget" to add tax and tip to their share. Even for people who don't like the system, tipping IS a part of the system. If you don't like it, don't go out. Or open your own restaurant where the servers are paid fairly and it's printed in big letters across the menu that everything is more expensive because the tip is included.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I hate required "gratuities" as much as required "gifts".
quote:If you don't like it, don't go out.
That's what I generally do.
Well, that and complain online.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:I also hate going someplace with a group and when splitting the bill some people "forget" to add tax and tip to their share. Even for people who don't like the system, tipping IS a part of the system. If you don't like it, don't go out. Or open your own restaurant where the servers are paid fairly and it's printed in big letters across the menu that everything is more expensive because the tip is included.
People who do this don't get invited to go out with me anymore. Or, you know, beaten with a sock full of nickels.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Citadel--back to our minimum wage discussion--
Inflation is a good question, and entirely different than your earlier argument about employment.
If everybody got double their pay, then inflation would be a definate result. But that is now what we are talking about.
If costs for the individuals go up, while the income of the individual stays the same, that is deflation. There money buys less and less.
People are earning remarkably less in value than those who were hired a few years before, or if they have not gotten any raises in their years of service, are earning less value than when they were hired--due to inflation.
With less value available, then they can afford to buy fewer items and services. As this spread we get the problem of creeping Recession. To combat this, and to feed the children of families making minimum wage, welfare programs are initiated. This costs tax dollars which companies are forced to pay, causing them to increase prices, which more people won't be able to afford, so the cycle continues.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
A couple things.
Known good tippers get better service. Having worked as a bartender and server for a few years, I can tell you this is absolutely true. At a bar, if there are five people who want my attention, and one of them tipped very well on the first round while the others didn't - who do you think will get my attention first? If someone didn't tip at all on the first round, they will most certainly fall far down my priority list behind other tipping customers.
The same is true for regular customers as a server. If I have a regular that tips 20-25%, that person will have a greater share of my attentions than a regular that tips 10-15%.
Knowing you will get no tip decreases quality of service. When I have served a person twice at a bar and received no tip either time, I assume there will be no tip forthcoming on any other rounds. That person drops off the radar as long as I have other customers. If I have nothing else to do, I won't break my back to serve that person either.
For example, say a customer wants a bloody mary with horseradish in it, but there is no horseradish at the bar and I'd have to walk back to the kitchen to get some. For a good tipper, I would gladly do this to make them happy (or keep them happy). For a bad tipper, the answer would most likely be "I'm sorry, we don't have horseradish behind the bar."
The same goes for table service. If I've seen a party two or three times and they've given very low tips despite good service, their requests will drop farther down my list of priorities. Getting extra ketchup for a bad tipper v. getting water for a good tipper? I know which I'm doing first.
**
For the record, I always averaged 20%+ when I worked as a server, and higher when I worked as a bartender. Success as a server often means playing to your generous customers at the expense of your cheap ones.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I hate required "gratuities" as much as required "gifts".
Me too, Porteiro! Let's be friends.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Known good tippers get better service. Knowing you will get no tip decreases quality of service.
I don't go anywhere enough to be a known anything.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
All I know is is that minimum wage does lag far behind inflation trends.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
This is why our system of government is flawed...we're ruled by rich people who don't see minimum wage as an issue because they've never had to rely on it.
Posted by EKR (Member # 9545) on :
Belle, at some restaurants, the POS system which the servers use automatically add the gratuity to the bill. For example, at the restaurant I work at, our system asks the server how many guests are being served. If it's a party of 8 or more, the system will automatically add an 18% gratuity.
And Morbo, with the whol 2.13/hr for servers. If the server's tips don't add up to the federal minimum wage, then the employer must make up the difference.
I personally love tipping. It's kind of like an investment. I go to a certain bar that I love, and I tip well. Over the course of a few weeks, servers and bartenders alike grow to love me. Eventuallly an item disappears from my check, then two items, then... Oh my goodness! Our POS crashed and we completely lost your check! *wink wink* So I pay about 75% of what I would have paid for my bill entirely without tip as the tip.
I love being a tipped employee of California.
~Earl
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:This is why our system of government is flawed...we're ruled by rich people who don't see minimum wage as an issue because they've never had to rely on it.
It seems that just about every other system of government has the same problem, only worse.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:This is why our system of government is flawed...we're ruled by rich people who don't see minimum wage as an issue because they've never had to rely on it.
It seems that just about every other system of government has the same problem, only worse.
I was using the term "our" to mean humans. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
So, EKR, you're bribing employees to steal from their employer for you?
Posted by EKR (Member # 9545) on :
Yes. I am.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I don't go anywhere enough to be a known anything.
I'm guessing you don't drink at bars or clubs. Normally the tip you give on your first round gets you known pretty quickly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by EKR: Belle, at some restaurants, the POS system which the servers use automatically add the gratuity to the bill. For example, at the restaurant I work at, our system asks the server how many guests are being served. If it's a party of 8 or more, the system will automatically add an 18% gratuity.
And Morbo, with the whol 2.13/hr for servers. If the server's tips don't add up to the federal minimum wage, then the employer must make up the difference.
I personally love tipping. It's kind of like an investment. I go to a certain bar that I love, and I tip well. Over the course of a few weeks, servers and bartenders alike grow to love me. Eventuallly an item disappears from my check, then two items, then... Oh my goodness! Our POS crashed and we completely lost your check! *wink wink* So I pay about 75% of what I would have paid for my bill entirely without tip as the tip.
I love being a tipped employee of California.
~Earl
In Taiwan most restaurants are family owned so you dont tip anybody you just become a family friend if you keep coming back and eventually you get charged as a friend instead of a stranger.
The sit down restaurants have the bill and thats all you are expected to pay, tips are a rarity. But then again I do not think there is a minimum wage in Taiwan and people just get paid how much the invisible hand of the market dictates. It seems to work for them just fine.
I prefer the family run restaurants, it so much more fun to eat from people you know personally.
Too bad there is nowhere in Utah I can think of where I could afford to go enough that the staff got to know me. Not to mention I can't think of anyplace with enough different good food to warrant that many visits.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm guessing you don't drink at bars or clubs.
Good guess. I have never had a single drink in an American bar.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: All I know is is that minimum wage does lag far behind inflation trends.
See -- this is kinda my thought.
I'm not usually for government "enforcing" a wage of any kind - minimum wage included.
But we DO have a minimum wage, and while my own regular earnings as an employee I know have been increased (through raises) each year at least 3 to 7 %, I know that those who rely on minimum wage have NOT had an increase (unless they got promoted out of a minimum wage job to something better). I think the minimum wage has been the same for many years now, instead of adjusting each year as most of our salaries do.
And there are employers out there who, quite frankly, will try to get by with paying just the bare minimum to their people that they can. Instead of adjusting each year to take into account the cost of living.
FG
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by pH: I like the concept of tips. It means if you're an ass and ignore me or take twenty minutes to bring me ketchup, I don't have to give you, personally, any money.
I'm actually a really good tipper, and it takes a lot for me NOT to tip well, but I like to have that option.
-pH
I am a good tipper and really all you have to do to get it is be on the ball.
Just be polite (I am pretty nice to waitors because I know how hard it is for them) make sure I get plenty of refills on my drink, and after you bring my food stop by 1-2 times before I pay the bill to make sure everything is fine. You basically earn 20% of the total bill if you do all those things.
Exactly. And I often tip more than 20%, especially if the server went above and beyond. Like last week, my friend and I went out to eat, and I asked for something that wasn't on the menu (it was a really simple change, but still, not on the menu), and then we sat around talking for 30min after the meal, during which time the server kept refilling our drinks and didn't press a check on us until we asked for one.
Like I said, I like to have that option.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I hate required "gratuities" as much as required "gifts".
Me too, Porteiro! Let's be friends.
I feel so loved. :wub:
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:and then we sat around talking for 30min after the meal
I'm glad you mentioned this as a reason for leaving a higher tip.
For those of you who have never been in food service, this is one of the worst things you can do to a server, especially during a busy part of the day.
Every minute you sit at the table, you deny the server from getting another group sat in his or her section. If it's during the dinner rush and you've finished eating and paying for your meal and are just sitting talking for a half an hour or more, you might take up that table for the entire rush and it might never get sat again. That could mean another $20 the server never gets.
Granted, if the restaurant is empty, this is not a big deal. But if there's a wait or tables are filling up, you should definitely compensate your server for taking up a table for a long time after you're done eating. Think of it as renting the table for an extra few bucks.
Also, just to throw this in, try not to buy drinks at the bar and sit in a server's section - especially if that's your only drink for the night, and definitely especially if you're not ordering anything else. You've essentially taken that money source out of the server's rotation (sometimes of only 3 tables) for a large period of time. If you do this, try to kick in a few extra dollars.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It wasn't busy, but even when we asked for the check, she told us we could hang out as long as we wanted.
And tipping bartenders is an especially big deal, since if you don't tip, you could be standing around forever to get another drink on a busy night. This was especially true at a bar that I used to hang out at that had ladies' night...which was a $5 cover, with free drinks for women. The bartenders would serve the guys before the girls becuase a lot of times, the girls only brought five bucks with them, and it was so busy that you might have to stand at the bar 10-15min to get service. Unless, like me, you always left the bartender at least a buck, depending on how many drinks you were having refilled.
Question: how do hairdressers get paid? Because I know tipping them is a big deal, too.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by EKR: And Morbo, with the whol 2.13/hr for servers. If the server's tips don't add up to the federal minimum wage, then the employer must make up the difference.
~Earl
That's over a two week pay period though for many restaurants. At the restaurant where I work, if servers get crappy tips for two weeks, then have one FANTASTIC night where they make 200 dollars, then those 200 dollars are averaged out over the course of the entire two week pay period. I don't think that's fair at all, but it makes it more or less impossible for them to make minimum wage on a DAILY basis.
Belle -
At the restaurant I work at, the servers have the option of NOT adding a grat onto a bill. If they've given great service, and like the table, they might not grat it, hoping they will tip more than 18%. But if it's a table of kids, or knowing my restaurant, a table of black people, 9 times out of 10 they will always put the grat on it, knowing from experience that they are never going to get full value from the table.
Also, where I work, 20% is considered the norm. Anything less and I hear grumbling.
As far as new training classes coming in, it never means less tables where I work. New servers means less shifts, not less tables. Either way you lose money I guess, but you aren't working for less money as it were. The floor is still staffed the same way.
I'm not sure what I think of the tipping thing. Maybe 10% of the tip could be rolled right into the price of the menu, which still leaves people the option of not tipping for poor service, but poor service is always acted on at the restaurant I'm at. If you complain to a manager, the server WILL be talked to.
Most of the servers I work with wouldn't work for an hourly rate. I think the ones that are good servers would still do a good job, and the ones that suck would still suck, that wouldn't change, but good luck attracting ANYONE to be a server if you're only going to give them 10 bucks an hour. I have to leave for work in a half hour, and I guarantee that every server there tonight will make more than I do, and I make 11 an hour (with a raise due soon dammit!), and few, if any of them would work for that. The job involves putting up with way too much crap from people.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:But if it's a table of kids, or knowing my restaurant, a table of black people, 9 times out of 10 they will always put the grat on it, knowing from experience that they are never going to get full value from the table.
This was one of the reasons I had to stop working in restaurants, specifically in Atlanta where I worked last. You become prejudiced - in the true sense that you pre-judge people as they come in the door into two categories "good tippers" and "bad tippers".
Often this broke down along racial, gender and age-based lines, and anyone with a foreign accent was automatically considered a bad tipper.
Watching the immediate attitude of my coworkers toward those deemed "bad tippers" - and catching myself prejudging in the same way - made me want to remove myself from the environment as quickly as possible.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I've been a server, and a charming one, and I'd still rather have a plump hourly wage. One of the perks of tips is that you are paid in cash. And when you are living week to week, as many servers are, having cash on hand is no small issue.
I've never been a bartender, and I think that the circumstances are different for bartenders.
I used to be a good tipper. Now I'm an awful tipper. It has nothing to do with the service and everything to do with my insecure income.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't wait tables, but on the whole, at least on average, those prejudices seem to be true.
Chaldeans are needy, but tip well. Black people are twice as needy, and tip half as good. Foreigners don't tip at all, or tip horribly, or tip in foriegn money, which might as well not be a tip at all. Kids tip horribly.
The Chaldean servers agree about Chaldeans, the black servers agree about black guests, and on down it goes. It's accepted. I personally don't have to deal with it, but everyone agrees, and learns it fast.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Just because it's a stereotype, doesn't mean it's automatically wrong.
All my experience waiting tables in Atlanta proved the prejudices true, but I fought against having my opinions of people changed by the color of their skin.
I worked in Buckhead, which is a popular area with a predominantly black clientele on Friday and Saturday nights. Where in NJ, I would make a killing on those nights and everyone fought to work during those times, in Atlanta it was the exact opposite - people actually tried to get out of weekend shifts, because they knew they'd make no money.
For example, in NJ on a weekday night I might have pulled in $80-$100 in tips, while on a Saturday I'd make $140-$180. In Atlanta, on a weekday night I'd make $70-$80 in tips, and on a Saturday I'd be lucky to pull in $50.
My impressions of people started to be changed by their racial background because of this, and I decided to get out.
Posted by EKR (Member # 9545) on :
Oh FlyingCow... you need to come to California. I'm just a barback and my weekday tips run anywhere from 100-150, and my weekend tips double my weekday tips.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As I said about Taiwan, most Chinese/Japanese/Koreans do not know to tip, so when they learn that they are supposed to they lack understanding as the waitor certainly does not explain what a type should be.
FC: You are right, stereotypes are not always wrong. I blame Asian ignorance more than Asian disposition for poor tipping.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Granted, EKR, I was working in chain restaurants that specifically limit the number of tables you were allowed to have. (4 at Macaroni Grill in NJ and 3 at Cafe Tu Tu Tango in Atlanta)
That severely limited your earning ability. Of course, when people quit and you were allowed to have 5 and 6 table sections, tips rose dramatically.
As for bartending, the Macaroni Grill insisted on having 3 bartenders working the one bar on Friday and Saturday nights and two on weekdays for some bizarre reason. That meant the $450 in tips had to be divided three ways (minus tipouts) and $300 had to be divided two ways.
When I was a lone bartender, I did very well. When they divide the tips umpteen ways, you get killed.
Which was another worry of mine for lowering server minimum wage - it allows restaurants to hire more servers to have "more attention" paid to customers by shrinking section sizes (and therefore tips).
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
BlackBlade, before I travel to another country I read a guidebook that covers local customs, including if tipping is expected or not and how much. I'm sure the guidebooks for America cover it, too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm with mph on this one; one of the bits I dislike most about American cultural imperialism is that the tip is slowly making inroads in Norway. Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Who cares about minimum wage? I'm crossing my fingers about the other part of the article, the estate tax. Permanently getting rid of the estate tax would be a problem for me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Silent E - why?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't wait tables, but on the whole, at least on average, those prejudices seem to be true.
Chaldeans are needy, but tip well. Black people are twice as needy, and tip half as good. Foreigners don't tip at all, or tip horribly, or tip in foriegn money, which might as well not be a tip at all. Kids tip horribly.
The Chaldean servers agree about Chaldeans, the black servers agree about black guests, and on down it goes. It's accepted. I personally don't have to deal with it, but everyone agrees, and learns it fast.
Ha. My girlfriend's half-Indian, half-Iraqi. I can't imagine how confused the poor waiters must have been at her parents' wedding...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
As far as the minimum wage goes, it's not a bad idea. A higher minimum wage is still barely livable -- there's a virtual guarantee that every dime's going to be re-pumped back into the local economy. Increasing wages at higher ends of the spectrum in no way guarantees that the money would be spent immediately or locally or, as you rise higher, that it'll even be spent in this country.
I'm not sure how I feel about the minimum wage, but it's hard for me to be unsympathetic. I've barely scraped by with $7-8/hour in two jobs without any costs but my cheap rent and food. A raise is a very small cost relative to executive salaries, and if anything, would probably increase sales in the very places where the minimum wage would probably be applied (McDonald's, etc.). And since many of these jobs involve direct customer interaction, there's little chance that they can be given to illegals for a lower wage. All the jobs that can use illegals, like cooks or maids, already hire them.
I can't see any drawbacks to a minimum wage unless taken to drastic measures, and though I can see concerns about a ripple effect, I doubt it would affect anyone who makes more than $9/hour. Are there any significant concerns I'm just not aware of?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Basically, there seems to be at least some loss of jobs due to a minimum wage increase, and definitely an increase in prices (restaurants were studied, in this case).
Some questions: is it more important that the people working be paid slightly more, or that there be an extra 2% of people working? I suspect it will depend on who you ask . Keep in mind that people are agreeing to work for the current wage, and that raising the wage will only result in fewer people being able to do so (due to fewer jobs being available at that level).
Note that with this change there's a virtually guaranteed deadweight loss, so no, raising the minimum wage would not result in an overall improvement in the economy or people's standard of living. The gains of the ninety-eight percent having a ten percent wage increase would be more than offset by the two percent losing one hundred percent of their wage and the additional cost of living for those relying on the wage.
In many places in the US, the minimum wage is livable for one person. I think most of the US, in a surface area sense, even. Outside of cities, cost of living can be significantly less.
Many of the jobs at a minimum wage are held as part time jobs by teenagers or people seeking secondary employment -- these sorts of jobs are also among the most likely to be dropped given a wage hike (demand is more elastic for things like landscaping).
Raising the minimum wage creates an incentive to hire more illegal workers. Furthermore, it creates a disincentive at places already hiring many illegal workers to 'legalize' their operation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For another take on the issue, there is some debate over whether the job loss effects are real. For a long time data was very inconclusive, though I think there have been recent studies with more conclusive results showing a small but noticable effect. However, even if you don't accept those arguments, here's an article by one of my favorite economists (he's the author of the excellent "Armchair Economist" book (unrelated to the similarly-named website)): http://www.slate.com/id/2103486/ Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: Many of the jobs at a minimum wage are held as part time jobs by teenagers or people seeking secondary employment -- these sorts of jobs are also among the most likely to be dropped given a wage hike (demand is more elastic for things like landscaping).
I hear this often, but usually out of the mouths of college economists or folks of a class of people who don't expect to work minimum wage jobs again. From what I've seen, there is a large breadth of people who work minimum wage jobs, not merely teenagers. And even as much as we want only teenagers to work minimum wage jobs, I just don't know if that's the case.
I'm a fan of the targeted minimum wage increases for some of the bigger businesses, like security companies or big box stores, where the manager's salaries are three and four times the worker's salaries. In those situations, saying that a minimum wage decreases the overall employment, while true, is only true because of some nefarious business structure.
In those cases, it seems as if the company wants plantation overseers rather than supervisors.
[ August 05, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wow. That article fugu linked is a really, really excellent argument against minimum wages. I'm actually convinced.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
'round these parts, Micky D's pays $10 an hour.
But I don't think that would work all over the country. There's a shortage of labor, and companies can't raise their prices all that much because they'll look evil and uncaring.
However, we also have fewer choices when it comes to, say, fast food, which is why at midnight, there's always a line of cars out the parking lot and down the street at 24-hour McDonald's on St. Charles.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And as an incidental aside, this article gives a really perfect example of how to make controls in a sociological study, as we were discussing the other day. Experimental design to delight even a physicist's eye, and as you must know, we are hard to please when it comes to the soft sciences!
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
KoM,
Fugu's article is also inextricably pro-Earned Income Credit. I'm a little worried about taking one without the other.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Irami, you seem to completely miss two things: the word "many" instead of "most" and the words "or people seeking secondary employment" instead of "just teenagers". And you should hear it from many mouths, because the statement is objectively true and backed up by numerous studies.
Not to mention that the article isn't pro-EIC, its just talking about considering something like the EIC vs the minimum wage and saying that if you want a minimum wage increase, an program like the EIC (or an increase thereof) is preferable in pretty much every way.
And no, saying a minimum wage decreases the overall employment isn't just true because of some nefarious business structure. If it were all a scheme where the company was getting significantly more worth out of the employee than they were paying in wages, then when the minimum went up a small bit there would be no incentive to fire any workers, because they'd still be making money off of every worker they were employing. Only if it is actually true that the amount of value the company derives from having the marginal worker is about the value of his or her wages is anybody fired when the minimum wage increases (making the marginal worker result in less profit than not having the worker).
But of course, the second article provides an excellent argument against the minimum wage increase even if there is no decrease in employment.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
All of my comments were directed towards the second article.
quote:And you should hear it from many mouths, because the statement is objectively true and backed up by numerous studies.
I've missed the research because I've heard it spouted as common sense from people who think that there are more suburban movie theater workers working at minimum wage than there are people working in other minimum waged service or agriculture jobs.
[ August 05, 2006, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Apparently you've again ignored the 'many' and the 'or' clause, and I assume you're exaggerating types of job for effect (or in your case, perhaps affect). also edit: or maybe somehow hearing silly things from people makes you miss research? I can't tell.
edit: and if all your comments were directed towards the second article, then it doesn't matter how the employment is distributed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Here's a decent breakdown, though it has some defects:
It takes into account all jobs between minimum wage and $7.25 an hour, so it includes a lot of people not being paid minimum wage. However, in some ways that makes this point stronger.
Some details to note: over half (56%) of people working low wage jobs do not work full time. At least that many are either teenagers or not working their low wage job full time (since 29% are 16-19, and presumably at least a few of those are full time). That means it is quite possible most are either using it as supplementary income or are teenagers. As all I said is many, I think my point is proved.
Regarding breakdown of job-type, 53% is either retail trade or leisure and hospitality (though I find 'other' a silly category to put 48% in, and wonder why the people who did this breakdown made that choice, and think the fuzzy results funny). So that's more people working the 'suburban movie theater' sort of job than the 'agricultural' sort of job, though considering 'service' includes 'suburban movie theater' sorts of jobs, I'm confused why you're putting them on opposite sides of the comparison.
edit: and one last interesting thing. The numbers for people potentially 'indirectly affected' -- note this is people earning a bit over $7.25/hr, a good deal more than the current minimum wage -- the numbers of people working part time and teenagers all drop significantly. This strongly suggests that minimum/low wage jobs are different from other jobs in that they involve more teenagers and people working part time.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by citadel: [QUOTE] Perhaps the solution to the problem lies not in forcing employers to pay more, but rather in increasing the education & skills of minimum wage workers so they are more valuable.
Hmmm. Perhaps YOU would like to pick the asparagus, apples, grapes . . . scrub the toilets, change the diapers, serve the customer the food they didn't want to make, and bus the table, wash the dishes . . . mow the grass, launder the dirty shirts, scrub the floors, empty the garbage . . .
SOMEONE has to do these menial, uneducated, ill-paying tasks . . . whom do you suggest and for what sort of compensation?
*edited to remove snarkiness*
[ August 05, 2006, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think that's obvious. Consider domestic servants; there was a time when every middle-class family could afford a couple, and 'somebody had to do it'. These jobs basically got educated and technologised out of existence; I don't see any reason why the same can't happen to picking asparagus. Which is too bad for people who like cheap asparagus, just as it was too bad for people who didn't like washing their own dishes.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Edit to add: Exactly which time period were you thinking about, KOM, when most middle class families could afford a couple of servants?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I am not going to rant on this topic. I will only say that it is one of the issues that completely destroys my faith in our government. They have completely, utterly let their people down in the Senate by ignoring the minimum wage for so many years. This is an utter travesty. They can tie it into other political issues if they'd like, but its just plain wrong to allow the minimum wage to sit at the same level as prices continue to rise.
I want to move to England and never come back here. Sometimes I really think I will do that.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Belle: why? (re: the estate tax)
Because I still want to be an estate planner.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I just got my 401(k) booklet at work. It came with a nifty workbook to help me determine how much money I'll need to save to retire comfortably. Since the women in my family tend to live into their 90s, I'll need to have 1.4 million in the bank at retirement.
If I die early in retirement, my family loses money they would have had if I'd been less prepared. (Interesting side note, Americans for a Fair Estate Tax says the threshold is 1.5 million in assets while the IRS says 1 mil. Go fig.) Even if we keep the Estate Tax, the amount needs to go up A LOT.
As for the tipping, most of the gals I worked with were white trash druggies I wouldn't have trusted to work for a flat wage. Let's be honest, food service isn't a popular field. It's usually either something you do part time or because you can't do better. I like that cash incentive to make a waitress be nice to me. I saw what they were like behind the counter.
As for the minimum wage in general, I don't like it being confused with a living wage. Minimum wage is supposed to be the bottom dollar employers can offer without forcing people into sweatshop wages. I don't think the sixteen year old flipping burgers needs to earn a living wage, and I don't want to pay enough for my burger to give it to him. There should probably be a seperate living wage applied to other jobs that we as a society think people ought to be able to survive on. I don't know that I like the idea of telling people they should be able to support a family working menial tasks. It feels wrong somehow.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
AR: 1) One thing people keep forgetting to mention about the inheritance tax. You don't get taxed on the whole amount, just the amount over the minimum. In other words, say you have your $1.4 Mil. in investments. Even at the IRS's number, that $1 mill is not taxed. The .4 is heavilly taxed, but not that original 1 mil.
That minimum is going up, which explains the confusion, but will drop back to 1 mil in a few years.
The pro/con of estate taxes can be divided as follows. Pro Estate taxes look at very rich kids who have and will do nothing to improve society, and wonder why they should get millions if not billions of tax free dollars just because they were lucky enough to have rich parents. Con Estate Tax people argue, I work hard for my money to support my family after I'm gone. How dare you take it away.
I agree that the minimums should be raised, but I disagree that it should be abolished. Some semblance of an even playing field should be the goal of our government in my opinion. Besides, how many Paris Hilton's can any society support?
As for tipping, is it sexist? Do the pretty girls and pretty boys earn more money because they flirt, flash, or seduce customers? Is that behavior we should condone with law?
I still argue--Tipping = Capitalism. Forced Tips, Auto-tipping, or dependence on social norms for determining tips are Socialist. No tipping, but governmental regulated minimum wages = Communism.
No BB, not Autocratic or Dictatorial. Those are political systems. Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are economic systems. Communism tends to be Autocratic and Dictatorial since if a Government thinks it can and should control your income, it usually thinks it can and should control almost everything else.
Finally, the debate about minimum wage tends to fall on who is making that minimum wage. If its teenage kids at McDonalds, we don't mind that they get small amounts because they aren't supporting their families. If its working parents, we believe they need to make a living wage.
Ok.
Do we enact a law to force people to pay more for parents than for single kids under the age of 18?
How many parents or people over 18 will find jobs then?
So the question is, do we aim the minimum wage at the people we hope are most likely to use it, or at those we know are most likely to need more money?
There is a lot of talk that minimum wage hikes reduce jobs, but has anyone checked to see if increases in the minimum wage would increase jobs, since people in need would not be needing two or more jobs to pay thier bills?
Finally there is the idea that we don't need to increase the minimum wage for people working menial tasks, since such tasks somehow "feels wrong" for someone with a family.
This is despite the common conservative demand that if you are an unemployed family person you should take any job, no matter how demeaning, to earn money to pay for your family. (I am not against that attitude. I am only pointing out that this attitude flies in the face of the attitude that working menial jobs is wrong for someone supporting a family)
There has been no increase in the minimum wage for 15 years or so. That means Joe took a job in the mail room in 1991 at the same rate that Mary takes a job today. Every year both get the same raise as they move up the corporate ladder. By the time they reach managerial level they were making $10.00/hr. Yet what Joe could buy with that $10 is much more than what Mary is able to buy when she reaches that level. Its not just 4% less, which may be average for inflation. Its 4% yearly. If Joe is able to invest his discretionary income, in things like health care, education, etc, he will be much better off than Mary, who has less discretionary income since inflation ate away at her money.
Finally, AR, what doesn't seem right to me is the dismissing of teen labor's rights. You are suggesting that the Inheritance Tax needs to keep up with inflation--so that the children of Millionares can rest easier, but don't say much of anything about the minimum wage needing to keep up with inflation, so the children of the middle class, who don't inherit their spending money, but who actually work for it, can rest easier.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I still argue--Tipping = Capitalism. Forced Tips, Auto-tipping, or dependence on social norms for determining tips are Socialist. No tipping, but governmental regulated minimum wages = Communism.
How do you feel about the way we buy cars and houses or used goods? Personally, I resent the whole adventure. I pay what's on the sticker, and if I can't afford what's on the sticker, then I can't afford the item. I think that haggling is distasteful to extent of immoral. How does that fit into your scheme?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think that haggling is distasteful to extent of immoral.
I intensely dislike haggling when I'm dealing with a corporation (like buying a car), but I don't mind it when I'm dealing with a person (like buying somebody's used guitar or buying their house).
I certainly wouldn't call it immoral.
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
quote:Do we enact a law to force people to pay more for parents than for single kids under the age of 18?
If we did, companies would discriminate against parents.
quote:I think that haggling is distasteful to extent of immoral.
Really? I see nothing morally wrong with the negotiating process. I want a car that is listed for 2,000 and I offer 1,000 initially and we finally settle on 1,500 how is that a bad thing. Sticker prices on cars are put extra high with the expectation of negotiations.
One thought I had is this: minimum wage hikes will most likely raise product prices in industries with lots of minimum wage workers. Like Grocery stores and Walmart. These product price increases will most adversely affect the poor - which are the very people we are trying to help. There are many people that are poor and are on fixed incomes, many of whom are barely able to get by because of low prices on food and other essentials. If Walmart is forced to pay people more, its products will inevitably go up in price hurting people on minimum wage workers and especially people on fixed incomes.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: As for the minimum wage in general, I don't like it being confused with a living wage.
Amen to that. Not every worker in America needs to support themselves or their family.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And those that do? Welfare?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Really? I see nothing morally wrong with the negotiating process. I want a car that is listed for 2,000 and I offer 1,000 initially and we finally settle on 1,500 how is that a bad thing.
Besides the incentive to be dishonest, which isn't a big deal and I, generally, I don't like talking in terms of incentives.
What I don't like is the process seems to invite a sort of opportunism, which I think is unbecoming in public or private affairs. It's a sort of snatch and grab, take what you can ethics which I find monstrously gross.
[ August 06, 2006, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Dan, I didn't know that about the estate tax. It's not as bad as I thought it was.
As for the wages, I suppose I am a bit dismissive of the teens. They work a crap job for a few years and leave it for something better. Why do they need a wage that keeps up with inflation? And how could employers afford it?
If a teen is working part time to cover insurance and a full tank a week, he can do that easily. $100 for insurance and $40 a week in gas is $260. Divide by 80 hours, and he needs to make $3.25 an hour - not counting taxes.
He probably can't swing a car payment on minimum wage, and it may not be as good as what someone got 15 years ago, but it's not a slave wage. To my understanding, that's the point of the minimum wage.
I agree people should do what it takes to help their families, but I don't think a minimum living wage is it. How many people will never bother to do better for themselves if they can make ten bucks an hour with no experience and no effort? Where's the incentive?
But my own bias would be that my pay becomes worth less as minimum wage catches up to it. My bank job and 3% a year is all down the tubes because a bunch of bleeding hearts think I ought to pay more for everything so some high school drop out can make almost as much as me. Maybe your job at the paper is safe, but I work service. Nicer service (no one's asked me about my panties at the bank) but service with service pay none the less.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It seems a woman was given a $10,000 tip by one of her patrons on a $26 check. That's pretty impressive.
What's also impressive is that the US Government took $3,700 of it in taxes. Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Stupid government.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He should've given her the money separately. At least then the gift tax wouldn't have kicked in.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think minimum wage should absolutely be raised. It's awful to decide that because a group doesn't have power, it is okay to pay as little as possible. Inflation means that the price of the burger has gone up but the wage of the person making it has not. That difference in price is going to the owner of the business, so the owner is getting richer while the person who makes the burger is getting poorer.
I am NOT a communist (my family owns a business and I have heard of the terrors of making payroll), but that's very unfair.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Every job pays as little as possible -- if a company could pay less to get the amount of work they need done, done, they would. Since most job's salaries are not dropping, this implies that companies need to pay at least what they're paying to get the work they need done, done. This seems counterintuitive, but it does follow (in general; there are always exceptions).
What if we raise the minimum wage so it is larger than inflation? Now we're stealing from the businesses in order to transfer money to the workers. Also, there is no good measure of inflation as applied to any subset of workers (inflation is not the same for everybody).
BTW, taking the burger example, prices don't work like that. Companies don't look at inflation, say "oh, inflation was 5%, I need to increase the price of all my products 5%". Instead, the raw material (possibly including labor) a company uses increases in price, and the company adjusts their prices based on those adjustments, and the buying power of profits decreases so a company adjusts prices to achieve the same real profits. This tends to be about the same across the economy because prices are typically almost exactly marginal cost. When there's 5% inflation, a $1 burger doesn't automatically go up 5%, it goes up enough to compensate for the increased prices of the inputs, and by the nominal profit increase necessary to keep real profits the same, meaning the company isn't making anything more on the burger -- now, if the worker isn't making more wages, he or she might be making less, but the number of tasks where only minimum wage is earned is actually very small, and those wages not going up reflects the marginal value of having someone doing that job being less than the minimum wage. But inflation does not cause increased real profit for companies (this is practically definitional; inflation is the adjustment in prices that doesn't affect real value).
I agree that someone earning the current minimum wage does not in most places have enough money to properly support him or herself in society, and that a person should have enough such money. However, the minimum wage is a bad way to go about achieving this, for reasons I've outlined above and linked to articles on. The best argument is from one of the articles, and I'll go over it here.
Any minimum wage increase is a transfer directly from companies that employ minimum wage workers to minimum wage workers, resulting in companies having to pay individual workers more than the value that they produce (since jobs in general all pay the least they can), creating market inefficiencies -- specifically, a surplus of minimum wage labor, meaning a lot of people who want work don't get it, a lot of companies that would hire at a lower wage don't, and the products involving minimum wage inputs have higher than optimal prices. Generally speaking, the transfer to minimum wage workers is the goal -- the intent is to give them sufficient income to live what is considered a minimally decent life.
However, a minimum wage increase is a bad way to achieve that goal. The best way to achieve that goal is to spread the transfer out around the whole economy (that is, have a general tax, then provide the money from that tax to those making too little in wage income), and not make those businesses employing minimum wage workers comparatively inefficient to other businesses (as that causes even more inefficiency in the general economy than the general tax). The general tax is a way to achieve the desired decrease in poverty with a smaller increase in the inefficiency of the economy. This is especially true because many of the companies employing minimum wage workers are providing products and services to minimum wage workers, so a direct transfer has to be quite large to compensate for its counterproductive effects on the standard of living for people on low wages.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)