The Rule of ReciprocationFollow

Once again, we're arguing two completely different things. I'm not comparing two restaurants. This is why you continually fail to comprehend.

Your choices are either go out and eat or stay at home. Therefore, you don't know which one is higher unless you take everything in consideration. Even under your assumption, eating at home is an option as well. You would have to calculate the power/heat used to cook your food, the gas used to go to the grocery store, which then goes into car maintenance.



Read above. Two completely different scenarios.


Not comparing two restaurants, even then, if they could find a better deal, then the customers would more than likely not consider it a "good deal". The customer would classify the other restaurant as a good deal. If for some odd reason the customer classified both as a "good deal", then the customer is more likely willing to pay for both. Or they both wouldn't be a "good deal".

Correct. If the customer thinks the meal (which includes the wait service in case you're confused) is worth $20, but not worth $24, the owner will lose business.



You were SOOOOOOOOO close. I am not saying that the customer will not pay the tip. I have never said that. I'm assuming the customer knows that he'll be expected to pay a $4 tip on a $20 meal, but since he doesn't think the meal is worth $24, he simply will not go to that restaurant. He'll stay home. Go to another restaurant with better prices. Whatever. In any case, the owner will lose business. It's bizarre that you correctly stated the whole "he'll lose business bit", but then transformed it into "waiter will lose tip" here. That's baffling.



What's also baffling is your continued insistence about this. It makes no sense. A logical person with a sense of money management will consider the total amount of dollars he's going to pay for something when deciding whether to purchase it. You have a very different definition of "sense of money" than anyone else I've ever encountered. While you can certainly argue that *you* completely segregate these things when making purchasing decisions, you are clearly in the absolute minority here. And since the business owner will make business decisions based on the typical response to a pricing change and not one one strange person on the internet claims he'd do, he's going to resist anything that raises the total cost of meals at his restaurant.



So you're claiming that that waiters tip is completely independent of the food? It's based purely on the customers perception of the quality of the service, and should not count at all as part of the pay the employer is providing? If that were true, then you should not only be ok with the employer paying a lower wage, but with the employer not paying the waiter a direct wage at all. Because in your world, the waiter doesn't actually work for the owner at all. He's an independent contractor working for, and paid directly by, the customer.

We absolutely could manage pay for waitstaff this way. But for ease of paperwork (and things like benefits, payroll taxes, etc), we treat them as an employee. But since they also get money directly from the customer, we allow the employer to pay them a lower hourly wage. You're getting so caught up in how the money gets from point A to point B, that you're missing the bigger picture. At the end of the day, the waitstaff gets paid. And usually they get paid quite well.



Not as much as I tip a waiter. Want to know why? Because the pizza driver is a full wage employee of the business. He's already being paid for his time (and gas and wear/tear on his vehicle) delivering the pizza, no different than the guy who makes the pizza. The waiter is not, which is why we tip them more. Arguing that we should both pay them a full wage *and* tip them artificially increases the cost of waitstaff relative to other employees who often have just as much to do with the total value of the meal.

There's a reason why in many restaurants, the waitstaff don't just keep their tips for themselves. It's divided up between the waiter, the bartender, and the busboys (sometimes the cooks well). This is because as the base price increases, the value of the tip relative to the time it takes to earn it increases dramatically. It takes no more time to wait a table at a $100/meal restaurant than at a $20/meal one. But the tip will be 5 times as much. Allowing the waiter to just keep all that extra cash is unfair to everyone else, because while the service certainly will be better, it's probably not 5 times better. Most of what people are are willing to pay more for in a higher cost restaurant is the better quality ingredients, better chefs and preparations, better decor, better ambiance, location, etc.

The tip money tends to get spread around, so thinking of it being just a reward to the server for doing a good job, and somehow separate from the other costs/value associated with the meal is just plain wrong. When you tip, you are rewarding the guys who bussed your table, and the person who seated you there, and the person who made your food, and the person who made you drinks, and yes, the person who actually waited at the table. You cannot separate that the way you seem to want to insist on doing. Well, you can, but you'd be doing it wrong. The waitstaff gets the largest share of those tips (and it offsets their lower base pay), but there really is a money calculation going on behind the scenes that I suspect you are completely unaware of.

BTW. This is precisely why restaurants often include the tip on large party meals. That tip is calculated into the entire restaurants bottom line, including pay for their staff. A single large table failing to pay the correct tip can basically wipe out the profits for everyone for that night.



Yeah. Welcome to the real world.



No. You adjust their wages based on an expected average amount of wage they will get from tips. This isn't rocket science.



Um... What everyone else has said.



Correct, but irrelevant. It's not about cost limits. It's about how much someone is willing to pay for something. No one's going to pay $100 for a bowl of soup they could get at home in a can for $2. The employer has to figure out how much he can charge for a meal without unduly affecting his business, and has to make sure he can stay in business at that price (supply vs demand). He doesn't have to know anything about each individual customer, just know the market in general.



Only if the meals are worth the price. You can't just declare a price range of $20-$30 for your meals, and then put dog food on the table and expect people to go to your restaurant. The food and service and decor has to justify that price range you are charging. If it doesn't, you will lose business.



You have the most muddled thinking I've ever encountered. I'm honestly not sure if it's a comprehension issue (like you just don't know how to read or understand certain words), of if it's a critical thinking issue. None of what you're talking about has anything to do with the issue we're discussing. The restaurant owner doesn't care what exactly any given person will order. He cares that on average, he will get enough customers willing to pay enough money to eat at the restaurant to cover the costs of the restaurant and make him some money as well. That's it. Anything that increases his costs more than it increases the amount customers are willing to pay will hurt his business. Anything that increases the amount customers will pay more than it increases his costs will help his business.



They don't have to know exactly how much gas. What they do know is that if they place their restaurant 50 miles down a dead end dirt road with nothing else around, they'll get fewer customers than if they place it in the middle of a heavily populated area. Location is a key factor to opening a restaurant because... wait for it... people will go to a restaurant closer to them unless your restaurant offers some other value to them to offset the increased distance. You're getting way too caught up in details and missing the bigger pictures. Even if you don't know the specifics, there are certain trends that you can count on.

[quote]Employers also don't know how much you are willing to tip either. The only known factor is the value of the meals.[/quote]

"You" meaning that specific customer right there? Correct. "You" meaning the average of the next 100 customers who walk though the door? Absolutely they do. They can precisely calculate the average tip relative to average price of meal purchased. Why the hell do you think so many people talk about tips as a percentage? The business owner absolutely can count on a total volume of money coming into the restaurant that is at least 10% higher than the total cost of all the meals sold. And he will use that number to cover part of his labor costs when calculating the costs to run his restaurant.

Do you know anything at all about business?

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.




So you agree to my statement to your fallacious counter of paying waiters min. wage means higher sales prices which means less tips and business.

I'm not sure how you don't see that.



But you have. You didn't say it explicitly, but implicitly. You agreeing to the quote means just that. Reread it again if you have to. If 1,2 and 3 are true, then you are saying that is true as well.

Seriously, it's not that complicated to grasp.



It doesn't make sense to you because we're arguing two completely subjects and you insist that its the same. I'm referring to exactly one scenario and one scenario only. You keep thinking in an overall sense.



The waiter's tip is completely independent on the VALUE of the food, not the physical food itself, else they wouldn't be serving you anything. You tip the waiter based on the service that they provide, just like in any other scenario when you tip. You don't tip the bell-boy a percentage of your room. You don't tip taxi drivers a percentage of your cab fare, etc.

The percentage is a good rule of thumb under the assumption that more money = more food ordered = more work. However, that isn't always the case.

Would you tip a waiter the same regardless on how good or crappy he or she is?



Wait, let me get this straight. So when you order a take out pizza and you pick up your pizza, you find a random pizza delivery guy (not the person who handed you your pizza at the counter, but an actual pizza delivery guy) and give that person a tip? I call BS



I've only being saying that from the start. Welcome to my argument.



And that's the problem.


Which has been my argument for the entire time. so we finally agree.


Remember that question that you conveniently ignored? Its completely relevant to your fallacy. If an employer is forced to pay waiters like normal people, then why are you increasing your sale prices or concerned about losing business unless you are making assumptions?



I thought that was understood, but yes.



People go out to eat for the food. You can pretend that it's about the service and decor if you want. Have you eaten at Logan's or Rhinehart's? Service and decor just have to be good enough not to disgust or offend anyone if the food is at a good value. Now, if you're charging customers more than what the food is worth, i.e. an expensive restaurant, then yes, people will expect high class service and decor.



Once you realize that we are talking about two different scenarios, it will make sense.



And that restaurant "50 miles away" from your restaurant is close to another "heavily populated area" 50 miles away from your restaurant. Do you think the other restaurant opened in the middle of nowhere? Do you think those people are traveling 50 miles to visit your place?

[quote=Gbaji]

Do you know anything at all about business?[/quote]

Based off what you're saying, it's obvious that you don't know anything about business. Everyone doesn't tip the same nor order the same. Nor do all waiters state 100% of their tips.



Edited, Dec 24th 2012 4:20pm by Almalieque

So, basically the only time someone makes sense is when you agree?
Given that he isn't even arguing on topic, I am confident that you don't know the topic as well.

Stop quoting him.

.

Joph's post gave me an idea how we can settle this between Gbaji and Alma. Just give both of them a knife and ask them one simple question:
"Who's special?"
Win-win!

This debate is actually relevant to me right now. Husband and I trying to figure out which steak house we shall celebrate my birthday. A local family-owned steakhouse we frequent, Ruth's Chris or Donovan's. The family restaurant is closest. Donovan's is further and Ruth's Chris is the furthest. We could go to different Ruth's Chris or Donovan's in downtown San Diego, but Ray doesn't want to deal with the parking costs and issues in downtown and would rather go to other areas of the city for the steakhouse. We're already planning to spend over half a grand for dinner. At this point, Ray is actually figuring in the commute because he doesn't want to be so full that the drive home is agony for him.

We've thought about that. But if that was the case, I'd be more or less looking at the house and thinking I'd need to clean up. Putting on a nice outfit with the lingerie underneath and heading out with the husband is needed at times.

Check, and mate.

The difference between you and the ****** on the playground who doesn't realize he's being laughed at rather than laughed with: One might feel pity for the ******.