The Rule of ReciprocationFollow

Alma has pretty much already said all there is to be said on the whole minimum wage thing. i'm not going to argue it further because I have nothing to add and I'm sick and don't have the energy for it. And seriously, you write too much. It's ridiculous. I know it's been said before, but I need to say it again.

Oh and Alma, when someone decides to employ you, it's being "hired" not being "highered." Highered is not a word. I'm sure it's annoying have your spelling corrected, but that's been bugging me tonight while I've been reading the thread, and I saw you use highered several times.

I'll guarantee you servers that work at a Chili's in Oklahoma make less than servers that work at a Chili's in Oregon. That's another part of the issue that bugs me. Yeah, cost of living up here is more, but still. In Oklahoma they make the less than minimum wage wage, and here in Oregon they make minimum wage and their tips. There's probably some people out there who would tip the Oklahoma server more because they know they don't actually make minimum wage, but most people probably don't think about it too much. They just tip because it's customary.

If you want to shorten my screen name, I'd much prefer PoD to Pig. I'm sure you aren't intentionally trying to call me a pig, but it's hard to separate that out. Also, you're welcome.

/thread

So do you tip 15% when you get take out?

I mean, it's certainly more respectful to the waitstaff than sitting down to eat, ordering that same meal, and then not tipping. Which you can do, because you're not required to tip.

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 8:55am by Spoonless

This is ridiculous. Say I have a $20 meal budget. I really want that $18 steak, but with tax and tip, it brings me over my budget. Therefore, I should go someplace else or stay home instead of ordering the $14 pasta dish? Or I'm supposed to go over budget because it's a minimal amount? Just because that extra $2.50 isn't a significant amount doesn't mean that I should bring myself over budget. That's why you set a budget. If my budget were $25, I'd get the steak. It's not. It's $20, so I get a less expensive meal.

Over budget is over budget. Maybe I only have $100 in cash on me, and don't want to put any money on a credit card. It doesn't mean I can't afford to go over; it means I don't want to. If your $100 budget is for the meal price alone and doesn't include the tax and tip, you don't have a $100 budget. You have a $122 budget, or however much the total comes to. Just because you say it's $100 doesn't make it so, when you are fully expecting to spend more than that to include the other costs of a meal.

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 12:05pm by Spoonless

Okay.

You know, I was doing quite well for some time.

No, because they're not putting in the same effort. I'll still tip a little bit most of the time, because it does take effort to package up the food and all. That's irrelevant though, because as I said, it's not the reason I order take out. I order take out because I'm feeling lazy, not because I'm feeling cheap.

I'm just wondering why I'm a jackass for getting takeout to save some money on the overall cost of the meal while you're not since you get it because your lazy, when in the end we spend the same amount of money. It's not irrelevant, because you're still receiving the lower overall cost. If I'm a jackass because I want to save money, so I get takeout, it should stand to reason that to not be a jackass, I'd have to tip in full so that I'm not saving money, right? So unless you're tipping in full, too, you are a jackass for taking advantage of the lower cost as well.

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 5:35pm by Spoonless

If that's your way of saying that you're wrong, I'll take it.

That's in need of an edit...

Dang Spoon, what did you do to him?

He was right.





To avow your ignorance and opposition, yet still vehemently stay engaged in these conversations is quite emblematic of this forum. If my posts, more specifically the aforementioned quote, can cause you to be in such a corybantic state of mind that you continue to waste time creating fulsome posts, then simply ignore me.

That's the problem with you posters on this forum who "ignore" me, you all don't. I don't have to acclaim my abhorrence towards a person and waste time "panning" and carping nonsensical, biased, prejudiced, illogical and overall specious arguments. As admitted several times, I am disputatious, but how many times do you see me responding to the "varusus" of this site? Exactly. When posters get into "failing troll mode", I simply ignore them, for real, for real. I don't make acclamations of every person I decide to ignore and why. I simply ignore them. I only made my statement of not responding to people using Admin accounts because I didn't want to come off as douchebag by not responding to an admin for something another admin done in a completely different thread in the past.

So, your lamentation is not necessary. Your self-image is obviously skewed and your comments on this forum along with your existence in life are supererogatory. You are nothing but a dramatic callow attention *****. My success in life is probably beyond what you can attain in the next 10 years and I'm just getting started. Trust me on this; you don't want to question my categorical value and worth to society. That's not a contest that you either want to partake in or even possible to win at. Your best bet at this point is to either remain tacit or live with the comeuppance that you created.


Edited, Dec 16th 2012 7:18am by Almalieque