Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Rule of ReciprocationFollow

#352 Dec 19 2012 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
I can honestly say that distance from my home via gas costs has never factored into a decision to eat out for me. I don't think it would even if I ate out on a regular basis, because then money wouldn't be as much of an issue. I know people that are that OCD about budgets exist, but that's just ridiculous.
#353 Dec 19 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
If it costs $5 more to travel to one restaurant than another, it will affect your choice exactly the same as if the menu price is $5 higher, or the requirement for a tip increases the cost by $5. It's the same amount of money. It does not matter what the difference in total cost is exactly. That's not the point at all.


As I said.. if the restaurants are .3 miles away, you will not take the distance in consideration. You will effectively ignore that difference until it hits a limit in which you care.

Gbaji wrote:
It's just an arbitrary number to make the point that people make choices based on relative total cost versus perceived value.


In other words, you realize that there is a point where people don't think about the nickels and dimes.

If you want to go that route, then you would have to factor in oil changes and other car maintenance, because every time you go out, you are pushing your car closer to an oil change, new air filter, windshield fluid, etc. Not only that, if you change your clothes, now you're creating more laundry, which equals more water, more laundry detergent and electricity for both your washer and dryer. The stupidity can keep going on.

ORRRRRR you can be smart about it and segregate your car expenses from your power expenses from your eating expenses, realizing that those costs come with the territory of owning a car, having a washer/dryer and eating out.

You obviously have no concept of managing money.

Gbaji wrote:
You're arguing exceptions instead of the rule. The rule is that people take into account the total cost of two things when comparing their costs to other factors.


For the topic of this thread (giving a smaller tip because the price of the meal went up), I acknowledged that several times over. I even gave two exceptions, which are different tax rates and/or included tips. However, for the vast majority of the remaining time, a person at a restaurant will not let tax and a tip be a deterrent of getting the meal that they want if that meal is at a good value.


I'm not talking about in every scenario, only the topic of this thread! Once again, you are doing the exact thing that you accuse me of, arguing the exceptions as opposed to the normal.


Gbaji wrote:
You can contrive cases where the difference is so small that most people wont care, but that is just sidestepping the issue. Just because saving a buck isn't super important to you, doesn't mean that saving money isn't important to you. It's just a matter of how much.


Read above. My entire argument was not saying that no one at all ever cares about a few dollars, but in the case of the topic of this thread, people don't care about the few dollars towards taxes and tips at a restaurant when getting a good value on their desired meal.

There exist plenty of scenarios where that extra buck does matter, but taxes and tips in a dine in restaurant, where you are getting your desired meal at a good value, is not one of them (assuming you're already there). If the customer doesn't feel that they got a good deal for their meal, then they are more likely to let the price of the meal affect the tip that they are giving. If the customer believes that they got a good deal for their meal, then they are less likely to let the price of the meal affect the tip that they are giving.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 3:02am by Almalieque
#354 Dec 19 2012 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I can honestly say that distance from my home via gas costs has never factored into a decision to eat out for me.


I didn't say it factored into the decision to eat out, but the decision about where you eat out. Remember that my whole argument has been about choices. Restaurants compete with each other for customers, so every seemingly tiny little factor affects their bottom line.

You do this all the time, but it's so automatic that you don't think about it. If you want to go to McDonalds and there's one right down the street, and another 5 miles away, which one do you go to? The one right down the street, right? You don't think about it, but you're making that choice because it's closer and will therefore take less time (and cost less gas) to get there.

Quote:
I don't think it would even if I ate out on a regular basis, because then money wouldn't be as much of an issue. I know people that are that OCD about budgets exist, but that's just ridiculous.


Sure. But my original example was that all other factors are identical. It's not about what choices you would actually make, but to illustrate the point that money does factor in to the decision. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is closer than the other, you'll go to the closer one every single time. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is less expensive, you'll go to the less expensive restaurant every time.

You don't have to be OCD about budgets to not throw away money for no reason.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 5:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#355 Dec 19 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
As I said.. if the restaurants are .3 miles away, you will not take the distance in consideration. You will effectively ignore that difference until it hits a limit in which you care.


Really? So you would drive even one extra block to go to an identical restaurant to eat? I'm serious. Let's test this by eliminating all other factors.

Assume two absolutely identical restaurants. One is 1 mile away, the other is .3 miles further away down the same road. You have to drive past the first to get to the second. Assume every other thing is identical. You'd never go to the one .3 miles further, would you? That extra third of a mile makes all the difference for your decision in that case.

Contrived? Sure. But it's not about real world cases, but to get you to grasp the concept itself. That's proving far harder than I though it would be though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#356 Dec 19 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Read above. My entire argument was not saying that no one at all ever cares about a few dollars, but in the case of the topic of this thread, people don't care about the few dollars towards taxes and tips at a restaurant when getting a good value on their desired meal.


They do if they can get the exact same desired meal for a few bucks cheaper. I'm honestly shocked that you can't seem to grasp this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#357 Dec 19 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I didn't say it factored into the decision to eat out, but the decision about where you eat out


Well then.. I guess we found the disconnect.

This debate was about rather or not waiters should get paid minimum wage. Your counter was the fallacy that paying them min. wage means higher sales prices which means less tips/business. My counter was that as long as the customer feels that they are getting a good value, then the waiter's tip will not be affected nor will the sales of the said meal decrease.

Gbaji wrote:
Remember that my whole argument has been about choices. Restaurants compete with each other for customers, so every seemingly tiny little factor affects their bottom line.


Then you were arguing about something completely irrelevant to the topic. As, we're talking about waiters and how your management affects their pay.

Gbaji wrote:
You do this all the time, but it's so automatic that you don't think about it. If you want to go to McDonalds and there's one right down the street, and another 5 miles away, which one do you go to? The one right down the street, right? You don't think about it, but you're making that choice because it's closer and will therefore take less time (and cost less gas) to get there.


Which has nothing to do with rather or not a customer will allow the tax/tip deter them from their order. Which is the topic of the discussion. There are times where that few cents make a difference, this isn't one of them.

Gbaji wrote:
Sure. But my original example was that all other factors are identical. It's not about what choices you would actually make, but to illustrate the point that money does factor in to the decision. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is closer than the other, you'll go to the closer one every single time. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is less expensive, you'll go to the less expensive restaurant every time.


We're just discussing two completely scenarios.
#358 Dec 19 2012 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Really? So you would drive even one extra block to go to an identical restaurant to eat? I'm serious. Let's test this by eliminating all other factors.

Assume two absolutely identical restaurants. One is 1 mile away, the other is .3 miles further away down the same road. You have to drive past the first to get to the second. Assume every other thing is identical. You'd never go to the one .3 miles further, would you? That extra third of a mile makes all the difference for your decision in that case.

Contrived? Sure. But it's not about real world cases, but to get you to grasp the concept itself. That's proving far harder than I though it would be though.


If you want to go that route, then you would have to factor in oil changes and other car maintenance, because every time you go out, you are pushing your car closer to an oil change, new air filter, windshield fluid, etc. Not only that, if you change your clothes, now you're creating more laundry, which equals more water, more laundry detergent and electricity for both your washer and dryer. The stupidity can keep going on.

ORRRRRR you can be smart about it and segregate your car expenses from your power expenses from your eating expenses, realizing that those costs come with the territory of owning a car, having a washer/dryer and eating out.

My entire argument was not saying that no one at all ever cares about a few dollars, but in the case of the topic of this thread, people don't care about the few dollars towards taxes and tips at a restaurant when getting a good value on their desired meal.

There exist plenty of scenarios where that extra buck does matter, but taxes and tips in a dine in restaurant, where you are getting your desired meal at a good value, is not one of them (assuming you're already there). If the customer doesn't feel that they got a good deal for their meal, then they are more likely to let the price of the meal affect the tip that they are giving. If the customer believes that they got a good deal for their meal, then they are less likely to let the price of the meal affect the tip that they are giving.

Gbaji wrote:

They do if they can get the exact same desired meal for a few bucks cheaper. I'm honestly shocked that you can't seem to grasp this.


See Post 357...



Edited, Dec 20th 2012 3:48am by Almalieque
#359 Dec 19 2012 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm honestly shocked that you can't seem to grasp this.
Liar.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#360 Dec 19 2012 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I can honestly say that distance from my home via gas costs has never factored into a decision to eat out for me. I don't think it would even if I ate out on a regular basis, because then money wouldn't be as much of an issue. I know people that are that OCD about budgets exist, but that's just ridiculous.
It's factored into things for me before, though not in a direct, calculating way. I've never calculated gas costs and said, "that's $2 above budget!" but I've certainly chosen restaurants based on proximity when money is tighter.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the 'States, but where I am, there's no shortage of most kinds of restaurants, and so I may choose an inferior place based on proximity, if it'll save me a longer trip when I don't want to put gas in the car. In my case, gas mileage is typically not thought of in terms of dollars per mile, but in terms of "how long can I go before I have to put $20 in the tank". So, I'm more likely to travel farther for food immediately after I've put gas in the car than when I'm closer to E. I know it's relatively silly, but it does play a role in my decisions.
#361 Dec 19 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Spoon wrote:
It's factored into things for me before, though not in a direct, calculating way. I've never calculated gas costs and said, "that's $2 above budget!" but I've certainly chosen restaurants based on proximity when money is tighter.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the 'States, but where I am, there's no shortage of most kinds of restaurants, and so I may choose an inferior place based on proximity, if it'll save me a longer trip when I don't want to put gas in the car. In my case, gas mileage is typically not thought of in terms of dollars per mile, but in terms of "how long can I go before I have to put $20 in the tank". So, I'm more likely to travel farther for food immediately after I've put gas in the car than when I'm closer to E. I know it's relatively silly, but it does play a role in my decisions.


But the question is, how and how much does that factor in your order when you arrive to your destination?
#362 Dec 19 2012 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
Only decisions made after arriving at a restaurant factor into your meal?
#363 Dec 19 2012 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I didn't say it factored into the decision to eat out, but the decision about where you eat out


Well then.. I guess we found the disconnect.

This debate was about rather or not waiters should get paid minimum wage. Your counter was the fallacy that paying them min. wage means higher sales prices which means less tips/business. My counter was that as long as the customer feels that they are getting a good value, then the waiter's tip will not be affected nor will the sales of the said meal decrease.


First off. Fixed your statement about what I said. I never said that higher salary for waitstaff would result in lower tips. I've already corrected you on this. I said that higher salary would result in higher menu prices and that this would affect business at the restaurant. Where I think you got confused is that I also made the argument that it was ok to pay a lower salary to waitstaff because the business was effectively paying the waitstaff with tips instead. Thus the business could offset the increased cost to the customer because of the tip by decreasing the salary thus reducing the menu price. That's where we went off on the tangent of you insisting that tips don't matter to the business.


Your counter about "good value" is irrelevant because "good value" is determined by the consumer by comparing the price to the product and service received. If two meals are of identical quality and one costs less than the other, then that one is a better value. Consumers will tend to buy that one more than the other, and that business will do better as a result. At the risk of repeating myself yet again, this is nothing more than the standard demand curve effect we all learned in econ 101.


Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Remember that my whole argument has been about choices. Restaurants compete with each other for customers, so every seemingly tiny little factor affects their bottom line.


Then you were arguing about something completely irrelevant to the topic. As, we're talking about waiters and how your management affects their pay.


Again. Correcting you. I'm not even sure how "how your management affects their pay" fits into this topic at all.

What I said is relevant because their pay affects the cost passed on to the consumer, which in turn affects the consumer's choice as to where to go to eat.

Quote:
Which has nothing to do with rather or not a customer will allow the tax/tip deter them from their order. Which is the topic of the discussion. There are times where that few cents make a difference, this isn't one of them.


You're obsessing over the tax/tip thing. My point is that every single thing that adds to the total cost of the meal affects the demand curve for the meal. Period. It does not matter how the bill is structured, if the same meal costs more at one place than another, people will tend to eat at the less expensive place. You are missing the forest for the trees.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Sure. But my original example was that all other factors are identical. It's not about what choices you would actually make, but to illustrate the point that money does factor in to the decision. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is closer than the other, you'll go to the closer one every single time. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is less expensive, you'll go to the less expensive restaurant every time.


We're just discussing two completely scenarios.


Nope. It's the same thing I've been saying all along. Anything which increases the cost to the consumer affects the consumer's choices. So paying waitstaff a higher salary will affect consumer choices.

My starting argument was that it's ok to pay waitstaff a lower minimum wage because this is offset by tips so they don't actually earn less than minimum wage. You argued that the tips shouldn't count and the employer should pay the full wage anyway. Everything after that point was me trying to get you to understand that the tips count towards the demand of the meal, and thus since those employee receive tips they "cost" the employer just as surely as if he'd paid them out of his pocket.

If you are willing to pay $40 for a meal total (including tip) then you don't care if that $40 was charged directly to you on the bill, with the waitstaff being paid from that money, or the bill was $35 plus a $5 tip paid directly to the waitstaff. It's the exact same relative value either way. If you decide that the meal isn't worth $40, it also should not matter whether it's a single $40 bill with no tip, or a $35 bill and a $5 tip. You're going to decide if the total value of the food, decor, service, etc is worth $40.

That's why I keep saying that one cost is the same as another. Your claim that the tip is considered separately doesn't make sense at all. If you're in a country where tipping is not the custom (let's pretend they refuse to allow you to tip), and you look at the menu and a meal costs $40 and you decide it's not worth that much, are you saying that if you had the exact same meal and service in the US, but the price was $35 and you're expected to pay a $5 tip, that suddenly you'd be willing to pay that price because at $35 it was a good value, and the tip doesn't count? If so, you're more nutty than I thought.

Whether the waitstaff is paid a full normal wage from their employer and tips aren't a factor, or whether the waitstaff is paid a lower wage but tips are expected, should not make any difference. They're just two different ways of passing the money the customer is paying to the waitstaff. It does not matter if the employer simply charges you a higher price on the menu and hands the money in the form of pay to the waiter, or charges less and expect you to tip the difference. The cost is the same to the customer and the effect on customer demand is the same.

You seriously still don't get this?

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 7:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#364 Dec 19 2012 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Really? So you would drive even one extra block to go to an identical restaurant to eat? I'm serious. Let's test this by eliminating all other factors.

Assume two absolutely identical restaurants. One is 1 mile away, the other is .3 miles further away down the same road. You have to drive past the first to get to the second. Assume every other thing is identical. You'd never go to the one .3 miles further, would you? That extra third of a mile makes all the difference for your decision in that case.

Contrived? Sure. But it's not about real world cases, but to get you to grasp the concept itself. That's proving far harder than I though it would be though.


If you want to go that route, then you would have to factor in oil changes and other car maintenance, because every time you go out, you are pushing your car closer to an oil change, new air filter, windshield fluid, etc. Not only that, if you change your clothes, now you're creating more laundry, which equals more water, more laundry detergent and electricity for both your washer and dryer.


No, I don't have to do that. I just have to know if one restaurant is father than the other, all cost factors related to getting there will be higher. I don't need to calculate how much higher. I only need to know they are higher. In exactly the same way I don't need to precisely calculate how much it will hurt to hit myself over the head with a 2x4 versus if I don't to know I'm better off not hitting myself in the head with a 2x4. Why do you even remotely think that's a counter argument?

Quote:
ORRRRRR you can be smart about it and segregate your car expenses from your power expenses from your eating expenses, realizing that those costs come with the territory of owning a car, having a washer/dryer and eating out.


Again, it doesn't matter. All I need to know is that everything else staying the same, I should go to the restaurant that's closer. Only a really obsessive person would need to calculate the exact difference before making that decision. It's something that is so obvious and automatic that no one needs to think about it.

Quote:
My entire argument was not saying that no one at all ever cares about a few dollars, but in the case of the topic of this thread, people don't care about the few dollars towards taxes and tips at a restaurant when getting a good value on their desired meal.


They do if they can get a better value somewhere else. And stop obsessing over just tax and tip. It's the total cost that matters. Anything that affects that total cost affects the purchasing decision (by sane customers anyway).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#365 Dec 19 2012 at 9:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm honestly shocked that you can't seem to grasp this.
Liar.


Ok. Just a little bit though. How about "I'm shocked that there exists someone in the universe who can't seem to grasp this". Better?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#366 Dec 19 2012 at 9:49 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Only decisions made after arriving at a restaurant factor into your meal?


In Alma's world, apparently no one decides where to go to eat based on the relative cost versus quality/distance/service/whatever. Bizarre, but there you have it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#367 Dec 19 2012 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I can honestly say that distance from my home via gas costs has never factored into a decision to eat out for me.


I didn't say it factored into the decision to eat out, but the decision about where you eat out. Remember that my whole argument has been about choices. Restaurants compete with each other for customers, so every seemingly tiny little factor affects their bottom line.

Well no sh*t. Your argument was not difficult to comprehend. As per the McDonalds thing, obviously I am going to go to the McDonalds that is closer over the one that is farther away. They serve the same damn food. I was thinking you meant something more along the lines of going to the local Italian restaurant that was just down the street from where I used to live when I was in Eugene, versus driving 20 minutes to the Olive Garden. The cost of the gas never factored into that decision for me. I would normally choose Olive Garden because I liked their food better. The prices were pretty close to equal, so that wasn't really a factor.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think it would even if I ate out on a regular basis, because then money wouldn't be as much of an issue. I know people that are that OCD about budgets exist, but that's just ridiculous.


Sure. But my original example was that all other factors are identical. It's not about what choices you would actually make, but to illustrate the point that money does factor in to the decision. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is closer than the other, you'll go to the closer one every single time. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is less expensive, you'll go to the less expensive restaurant every time.

You don't have to be OCD about budgets to not throw away money for no reason.

For me, it would depend on what kind of food I was in the mood for. Again, if I had a hankering for Italian food, I would choose to go to the Olive Garden that was 20 minutes away, over the Thai restaurant that was only 10 minutes away. Wouldn't matter that the Thai restaurant is closer and quite a bit cheaper. When I eat out, I do it because there's a specific type of food I'm in the mood for and I don't want to cook it. Sure, I make sure I'm not going to OD my bank account to go eat, but there's not a whole lot of thought into saving money aside from that. So... either I'm weird or you're wrong.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 9:29pm by PigtailsOfDoom
#368 Dec 19 2012 at 10:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Quote:
This debate was about rather or not waiters should get paid minimum wage.


That's the debate?? Why the hell would servers (they're not waiters) take a pay cut??
#369 Dec 20 2012 at 4:42 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
This thread is even dumber than most of the gay marriage threads.
#370 Dec 20 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
This thread is even dumber than most of the gay marriage threads.


We're not even 400 posts in, it still has plenty of time to morph into one of those. Improvement is on the horizon, stay optimistic! Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#371 Dec 21 2012 at 9:13 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Only decisions made after arriving at a restaurant factor into your meal?

Uh.. no, but the premise of this argument is if a person will buy their desired meal if there were a price increase small enough to wear the customer believed it was still a value but high enough to where it placed you over you the eating budget that night.

I've argued several times now that a person who knows how to manage their money would stay at home after factoring in all of the factors PRIOR to arriving to that restaurant IF it were a deal breaker. Any person who is that **** about a few extra dollars spent wouldn't just show up at a restaurant, not knowing the prices. Therefore, if they arrive to the restaurant and notices a price increase as stated above, they would just pay it because the customer still believes that they are getting a good deal. Only in the scenario where the customer believes that s/he is not getting a good deal is when the customer might second guess their choice and/or tip.

Nadenu wrote:
Quote:
This debate was about rather or not waiters should get paid minimum wage.


That's the debate?? Why the hell would servers (they're not waiters) take a pay cut??


HTF is making more money a paycut?
#372 Dec 21 2012 at 10:29 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
First off. Fixed your statement about what I said. I never said that higher salary for waitstaff would result in lower tips. I've already corrected you on this. I said that higher salary would result in higher menu prices and that this would affect business at the restaurant. Where I think you got confused is that I also made the argument that it was ok to pay a lower salary to waitstaff because the business was effectively paying the waitstaff with tips instead. Thus the business could offset the increased cost to the customer because of the tip by decreasing the salary thus reducing the menu price. That's where we went off on the tangent of you insisting that tips don't matter to the business.


See post 89. You can't have it both ways
You said the following:

1. Customers think TOTAL cost. Regardless if it is $16/$4 or $20/0. The customer will only pay $20
2. In order for an employer to pay their staff full wages, they would have to charge the meal $24 to include the $4 tip
3. Since customers wont pay $24, employers will lose business.

So, according to your logic, employers MUST keep their meals below $16 (example) to allow for the $4 tip, else, the customer will not pay the $4 tip, because the customer thinks in total cost ($20). This is opposed to any logical person with a sense of money managing who segregates the value of the food from the tip of the service, since the service is not part of the food, not necessary and at your discretion.

The second one is a complete fallacy as the tip is based on service, a profitable business may not have to make any changes to make profit and there are several other methods of increasing revenue.

Gbaji wrote:


Your counter about "good value" is irrelevant because "good value" is determined by the consumer by comparing the price to the product and service received. If two meals are of identical quality and one costs less than the other, then that one is a better value. Consumers will tend to buy that one more than the other, and that business will do better as a result. At the risk of repeating myself yet again, this is nothing more than the standard demand curve effect we all learned in econ 101.


I never argued with the correction. Why do you think gratuity is added separately to catering if the value of the food involved encompasses the service. You do realize that cooking the food and serving the food are two different tasks done by two different people working for two different wages right? You do realize in restaurants now, you don't have to have the service to get food?

Do you tip the pizza driver when you order take out?

Gbaji wrote:
Again. Correcting you. I'm not even sure how "how your management affects their pay" fits into this topic at all.

What I said is relevant because their pay affects the cost passed on to the consumer, which in turn affects the consumer's choice as to where to go to eat.


Employer = management. The disconnect is that you have gone so far off tangent that you're arguing something completely different. I'm specifically referring to one scenario and one scenario only. You are talking conceptually over all.

Gbaji wrote:
You're obsessing over the tax/tip thing. My point is that every single thing that adds to the total cost of the meal affects the demand curve for the meal. Period. It does not matter how the bill is structured, if the same meal costs more at one place than another, people will tend to eat at the less expensive place. You are missing the forest for the trees.


I'm not comparing restaurants. I'm not talking conceptually. I'm talking specifically about one scenario in which you have totally gotten off mark. In any case, tips are not part of the bill as it is optional. Just because you decided to tip $5 from a $12 meal doesn't mean that it cost more than a $14 meal with a $2 tip. the comparison is $12 to $14, not $17 to $16.

Once again, only if the tip was added into the bill can you make that claim.

Gbaji wrote:
Nope. It's the same thing I've been saying all along.

We're just discussing two completely scenarios. I'm specifically talking about one scenario, not universally.

Quote:
You argued that the tips shouldn't count and the employer should pay the full wage anyway.

So, if a man filled with the Christmas spirit tips a person $1k, do you adjust their wages?

Gbaji wrote:

If you are willing to pay $40 for a meal total (including tip) then you don't care if that $40 was charged directly to you on the bill, with the waitstaff being paid from that money, or the bill was $35 plus a $5 tip paid directly to the waitstaff. It's the exact same relative value either way. If you decide that the meal isn't worth $40, it also should not matter whether it's a single $40 bill with no tip, or a $35 bill and a $5 tip. You're going to decide if the total value of the food, decor, service, etc is worth $40.


No logical person who knows how to manage money thinks like that. I'm not going to pay more for a meal than what its worth just because it falls within my budget nor will I tip a waiter more than s/he deserves because it falls within my budget.

If your budget for a car is $10k, would you spend exactly $10k for a car that's only worth $4k? So, why should I do that with food?

Gbaji wrote:
but the price was $35 and you're expected to pay a $5 tip, that suddenly you'd be willing to pay that price because at $35 it was a good value, and the tip doesn't count? If so, you're more nutty than I thought.


Given the fact that I'm not obligated to pay $5 no matter how much I'm "expected" to pay, yes I would say that is a good value.
1. 35 < 40, the actual prices of the meals
2. I can choose to tip less than $5, which would be less than $40.

Gbaji wrote:

Whether the waitstaff is paid a full normal wage from their employer and tips aren't a factor, or whether the waitstaff is paid a lower wage but tips are expected, should not make any difference


Your fallacy is that it has to be one or the other.

Quote:
You seriously still don't get this?


This is really simple.....

AS LONG AS THE CONSUMER THINKS S/HE IS GETTING A GOOD DEAL, THAN S/HE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY FOR THE MEAL AND TIP ACCORDINGLY. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU INCREASE YOUR PRICES.


As an employer, you can't factor in everyone's "cost limits", because you don't know them. You don't know what those numbers and therefore you can't plan against them. The only thing you can go off of is the price range of your meals. So, therefore, as long as your meals stay within those prices ranges, it is safe to assume that people will continue to pay for them. Just because you decided to order two appetizers, two desserts, non-refillable drinks and decided not to order the 20 oz steak because it would put you over your personal budget doesn't mean that any of those items are outside the targeted price range and/or overpriced. So, therefore an employer can only factor in the value prices of their meals.

Employers don't know how much gas you have to use to get there, so they can't plan against it. Employers also don't know how much you are willing to tip either. The only known factor is the value of the meals.
#373 Dec 21 2012 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
AS LONG AS THE CONSUMER THINKS S/HE IS GETTING A GOOD DEAL, THAN S/HE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY FOR THE MEAL AND TIP ACCORDINGLY. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU INCREASE YOUR PRICES.
I think the point is that if you raise your prices, the consumer might not thing it's a good deal anymore.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#374 Dec 21 2012 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I wish I could board this thread up and set it on fire with everyone in it.

Edited, Dec 21st 2012 10:40am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#375 Dec 21 2012 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
It's like a slinky falling down an 'up' escalator.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#376 Dec 21 2012 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
It's ok, Alma doesn't respond to me unless someone else quotes it.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 359 All times are in CST
Gidono, Anonymous Guests (358)