Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Rule of ReciprocationFollow

#152 Dec 06 2012 at 6:47 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Just a few before I go to work

Gbaji wrote:
Actually, that was my point. What's interesting is that you agree with this, but then disagree with the result that this causes. If everyone is greedy, then the forces of their greed will result in an agreed upon price for goods, and wage levels. Stepping in from the side and insisting that someone's pay is unfair when those working the job are perfectly willing to accept that pay is meaningless. Which is what I've been saying all along.


No... you said that McDonald's employers would pay their employees 100k a year if they could. I said that they wouldn't. They would pay them just enough to keep them hired. That is exactly what you said in the bold. I'm specifically referring to your 100k a year comment and it's inaccuracy.

Gbaji wrote:
If they knew they could always pass the cost on to consumers without affecting sales volume? Of course they would. Because... wait for it.. the employees are greedy too.


Read the bold above.. which one is it? You can't say that employees are willing to accept that pay is meaningless and then turn around and say that they are soooo greedy that they would DEMAND 100k a year or quit. You're creating another fallacious fantasy land where the amount of employee's greed to work equals the amount of the employer's greed to profit. That's simply untrue.

Employers would only pay their employees just enough to keep them hired, they will not go deep into their profits.

Gbaji wrote:
That's the key point though. What's strange is that you have no problem assuming that the employer will never be satisfied with a given amount of profit if he believes he can make more, but you can't seem to grasp that this applies to the employee as well. The employee will not be satisfied with a small wage if he believes he can make more. That's the factor that will drive wages up if there's potential for them to increase. This is why wages are driven by profits, which in turn are driven by price (that whole supply/demand thing I talked about earlier).


The fact that they are still an employee and not the boss shows that they don't have and/or acting on a desire to earn more money. Employers and employees are not on the same level. The average employee is working to provide for his/her family, college and if he or she is really well off, a foundation for their grandchildren. That's it. If those things are taken care of, then they are more likely than not will stop working. Remember how many people were complaining about having to go to work after they lost the powerball? Employers on the hand is operating at a much higher level. Not only are they trying to do the same, they have to provide enough money for their employers to the very same thing, along with expanding their business. They are in the business of making money.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#153 Dec 06 2012 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,245 posts
Yeah, but all those 900,000 papers are liberal media biased and therefore wrong, whereas gbaji doesn't understand economics at all which makes him the most reliable source of information on the topic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#154 Dec 06 2012 at 2:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
So, I just realized that I overlooked an entire post. I'll address some of this before finishing the other post that I started replying to..

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. Which is based directly on how much the consumers of your product/service are willing to pay for it.

The fact that you intentionally ignored the rest of my statement that contradicts that point, I will conclude that you're in denial.

Just because the amount of the tip comes from the amount spent on the meal DOES NOT mean that the amount of spent on the food is affected by the tip. You're intentionally creating a fallacy.

Gbaji wrote:
If the supply/demand calculation for your steak dinner says that you'll get the ideal return if the cost is $20 (including tip), it doesn't matter how that money is paid out. If it's a $15 meal with a $5 tip, or a $20 meal with no tip, it's the same cost to the consumer and has the same weight when it comes to purchasing decisions.


That's what I said..

Gbaji wrote:
That's why the choice to allow your employees to receive a tip must be balanced with the base salary you pay them.


ORRRRRRR.. the employer pay their employees at or above the minimum wage, so rather or not they receive a tip is irrelevant. You know, the point of my argument?

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. That's the supply/demand curve thing that most of us learned about relatively early in life. The less you charge for a single item, the less you make per sale, but the more sales you will have. Similarly, if you charge more, you'll make more money, but have fewer sales. By calculating both lines, you can find the point where they bisect and determine the ideal amount you should charge for a given item. Econ 101 here, right? Both sides matter.


What you stated is quite amateurish. What you (and often others who only learned supply/demand) make assumptions of either supply or demand based on one factor. Just because the price is low and the supply is high or low doesn't mean that the demand is high.

Gbaji wrote:
Sure. I think you're going off on a tangent here though. We're not talking about how promotional pricing may affect business, but whether paying waitstaff a full salary plus tip will result in higher priced meals for the consumers that if you pay lower salary plus tip.


Quite the antithesis. This is exactly on target. If your claim is that the employers MUST pay their employees less to keep the prices of their goods at a certain level, then you are not able to vary those prices without the necessity or ability to alter the employee's wages.

Gbaji wrote:
Everything else staying the same, it does. It's not like the materials cost for the meal is lower if the person serving it is paid $8/hour plus tips versus being paid $3/hour plus tips. But that extra $5/hour must come from somewhere, right?


You are once again not understanding the argument. The argument is that no one should be paid under the national minimum wage. What you stated is true FOR EVERY business. You haven't stated a reason on why restaurants should be treated any differently. Of course reducing the payroll will gain more for the employer, that's why there's a min. wage in the first place, else we would all be working for nickles and dimes. At that point there wouldn't be a need to ship anything overseas, because we'll have our own sweatshop
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#155 Dec 06 2012 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
So, I just realized that I overlooked an entire post.

You didn't miss much.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#156 Dec 06 2012 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,039 posts
I'd really like to see "free trade" be replaced with "fair trade"

It isn't a fair playing field if one side has to comply with environmental laws and labour standards and the other side can engage in extra-judicial killings, mass pollution and union busting.

And given the option I'd prefer to bring standards up than to be subjected to the horrors that people seem to think are okay for other people. Having rights, clean air and water etc is pretty nice.

Edited, Dec 6th 2012 1:05pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#157 Dec 06 2012 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
And given the option I'd prefer to bring standards up than to be subjected to the horrors that people seem to think are okay for other people. Having rights, clean air and water etc is pretty nice.


Sure, unless you're dead because you don't have the wealth to manufacturing anything using cleaner techniques that yields a profit.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#158 Dec 06 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts
Quote:
Also, labor costs was not even remotely the biggest factor. Do you know how expensive it costs to build and operate a fab in the US? There's a reason why there's only a handful of them left in the US Smash. And it's not the cost to pay the employees. Welcome to my point about taxes and regulation and licensing costs.

I know exactly how much it costs, in fact. I also know what the largest difference is between doing it here and doing in Taiwan. Labor. The loaded labor rate pert FTE employee in the US is about $19 for semiconductor fab. It's $8 for TSMC. That's the deciding factor. Nothing else comes even vaguely close. It's also the reason fab is gradually moving away from places like Japan, and as the rate gets higher in Taiwan it'll move away from there to Zhengzhou. It's a race to the bottom, it's not complicated. As cheaper markets of sufficiently educated workers open up, manufacturing moves to where they are. That's what capitalism is. If you want to have manufacturing in the US, you have to have import tariffs.


Until all boats have risen (or tech become cheap enough) to fully automate. Then other factors become more important than labor, as you can do that remotely, regardless.


Edited, Dec 6th 2012 7:38pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#159 Dec 06 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts
Quote:
You are once again not understanding the argument. The argument is that no one should be paid under the national minimum wage. What you stated is true FOR EVERY business. You haven't stated a reason on why restaurants should be treated any differently. Of course reducing the payroll will gain more for the employer, that's why there's a min. wage in the first place, else we would all be working for nickles and dimes. At that point there wouldn't be a need to ship anything overseas, because we'll have our own sweatshop


Which is why if they make less in tips + wage, the restaurant owners are legally required to make up the difference.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#160 Dec 06 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You are the rare (and perhaps foolish) exception then. Or you're one of those cheapskates who skip out on the tip when it comes time to pay. Most sane people absolutely calculate the likely additional cost of tipping when deciding where to go to eat. You may not sit and do actual math, but you absolutely know that the cost difference between eating at Chilis versus Ruth's Cris is going to include the tip. No one goes in thinking that if one meal is $20 more than the other that it'll just cost them $20 more dollars. They know that it'll cost them that much plus the additional tax plus the higher total tip.

..........
Furthermore, people absolutely make cost decisions based on that when ordering. If you're deciding whether the steak is worth the price on the menu, you are fully aware that there's a tip involved as well. You might absolutely make a different choice if you knew there was no tip involved. And when deciding to go out to eat at all, you're considering the full price of the meal when making that decision as well.



I assure you that no one goes to a nice not-so cheap restaurant and allows a tip to be a catalyst in what they are going to order. 15% is 15% is 15%. So unless you're against tipping a certain percentage, it's not a factor in what you spend in your meal. Tipping is extra, so if tipping is a problem then get take out, go to a fast food restaurant or even better yet, cook at home. I assure you that is the overall belief and your belief is the anomaly.

Gbaji wrote:
And when deciding to go out to eat at all, you're considering the full price of the meal when making that decision as well. No one in their right mind thinks that since the average price on the menu is $50, it'll just cost them $200 dollars to feed four people at said restaurant and think "I can afford $200 bucks for a nice night out for my wife and parents". They think "The entrees are $50. Drinks are $10. We'll probably get that $15 appetizer my folks love. And my wife will probably order a desert for another $15. Dad will order an extra drink too. And after the inevitable questions about why there are no grand kids, I'll order an extra one as well. So that's $290, plus another $25 for tax, plus another $50 for tip, I'd better plan for $400 to cover the price of the meal".


Then you're grossly over thinking it. This is what I do, "I'm going to Chilli's, the meal range is $10-$20 a person. two people is $40+" THAT'S It!! You know the price range of the restaurant and you determine if you're willing to spend that type of money and you bring your card. If you're trippin' over the cost of drinks, desserts and appetizers, then you shouldn't go.

Gbaji wrote:
It's not about how much you can afford, or how much is in your pocket at any given moment. It's whether what you are paying for is worth the cost. And most people learn really quickly to estimate the full cost of something when making such decisions.
.......
You're not getting what I'm saying. The meal is worth X dollars to the consumer. Period.


Yes..I have said that numerous of times...

Gbaji wrote:
Your argument is essentially that people will pay any amount for something as long as they can physically afford it. But that's absolutely not true. Even though I can afford several different varieties of something, I'm going to look at the cost versus benefit when making my choice. If that wasn't true then Denny's would charge $50 for their breakfast. They don't because their breakfast isn't good enough for people to be willing to pay that much even if they could afford $50. People make choices based on relative costs and quality.


At this point, I can only conclude that you aren't fully reading my posts, but merely scanning the first few sentences and assuming the rest.

Gbaji wrote:
Assuming all other costs related to putting that meal on the table in front of the customer remains unchanged, then anything that pushes the cost of the meal over X (which may vary by consumer of course) will cost you all profits (and salaries) associated with the sale. If right now you get Y sales per month at the current cost structure (which includes a $3 base salary plus tips for the waitstaff), then paying the waitstaff a higher base salary, without changing the tip structure will result in less than Y sales (unless you were already grossly undercharging for the meals of course).


You are consistently overlooking the argument. TIPS ARE OPTIONAL AND ARE BONUSES. Because of that, employees should not be paid below the NATIONAL min. wage because your calculations include optional tips.

Gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure why I have to explain this. It's basic economic rules understood by pretty much everyone. I'm not talking at all about whether any specific waiter is being underpaid or taken advantage of.


Well, that's what I AM talking about, hence why you continuously repeat what I say in agreement and wonder why I'm arguing with you. My argument is that employers should not be able to pay employees below the minimum wage.

Gbaji wrote:
I'm saying that it's wrong to simply assume that a lower than minimum wage base pay plus tips is somehow an unfair deal for waitstaff.


I never said it was an unfair deal. I said that it's wrong for an employer to pay an employee under the min wage. However, given the fact that the waiters make so much money in tips, they don't care as much that they are being underpaid, because it's the end result that they care about.

Gbaji wrote:
And given that you seem to agree that waiting is one of the best paying jobs you can get for the skill level involved, I'm not sure what you're really arguing about either.


Employers shouldn't be able to pay anyone UNDER the National min. wage. I'm not so sure why that is such a hard concept to grasp. If you want to lower the National min. wage to $2.00, then say so, but don't act like it makes sense to pay someone a fraction of the National's min. wage.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#161Zymunn, Posted: Dec 06 2012 at 8:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) From what others have said, and what I found out going to Steak n Shake a few nights ago, servers do not take home less then minimum wage. As has been stated, if their pay is not at minimum what they would earn being paid the national minimum then the employer makes up the difference.
#162 Dec 06 2012 at 8:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Employers shouldn't be able to pay anyone UNDER the National min. wage.


From what others have said, and what I found out going to Steak n Shake a few nights ago, servers do not take home less then minimum wage. As has been stated, if their pay is not at minimum what they would earn being paid the national minimum then the employer makes up the difference.

Stop crying that they should be, on paper, paid the minimum wage when that is the least the bring home. If their tips bring them over that way to go.


I'm going out on a limb and say that you didn't read my posts.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#163 Dec 06 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
297 posts
I read all the post on here. Mostly I recall information, bad memory for details. Your last post you kept hammering that an employer shouldn't pay less then minimum wage. If the federal govt has a problem with that I am sure they would have acted years ago.

Server earns minimum wage when averaged, includes 2.25 an hr and tips. They are fine. Server earns less then minimum wage, includes 2.25 an hr and tips. The employer has to pay the difference between when the server doesn't earn minimum wage. So the employer only pays minimum wage (the difference anyway) when the server makes less then that. Why are you crying that the employer shouldn't pay less?
#164 Dec 06 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Zy wrote:
I read all the post on here. Mostly I recall information, bad memory for details. Your last post you kept hammering that an employer shouldn't pay less then minimum wage. If the federal govt has a problem with that I am sure they would have acted years ago.


Funny how that logic is only valid on certain issues... Anyway, I digress. My point is that if it's legal to pay a person less than the Federal Min. wage, then it isn't a min. wage.

Zy wrote:
Server earns minimum wage when averaged, includes 2.25 an hr and tips.


Tips are extra and should not be included in your hourly wage. Of course, as I said a several times over now, no one cares because as people, we only care about how much money we bring home. That is, unless you're going to automatically include a gratuity, like some people do.

Zy wrote:
They are fine. Server earns less then minimum wage, includes 2.25 an hr and tips. The employer has to pay the difference between when the server doesn't earn minimum wage. So the employer only pays minimum wage (the difference anyway) when the server makes less then that. Why are you crying that the employer shouldn't pay less?


Read above. Take your time.. it's really not that difficult to grasp. NO ONE CARES HOW MUCH YOU EARN AN HOUR, ONLY HOW MUCH YOU BRING HOME.. However, you can't say that the national min. wage is one thing and allow people to paid less than that, because then it isn't the min. wage. Seriously, what is so hard to grasp? Until tips are mandated, then they are extra. Allowing an employer to pay an employee below the min wage because they are receiving tips is cheating the employees from being paid the min wage from their employer, like the rest of the nation.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#165 Dec 06 2012 at 9:58 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
297 posts
The underlined text was in regards that a person is earning the minimum wage. When you file taxes the govt taxes tips. Look that is part of wht you are earning, your personal view or anyone elses that it should not be that way doesn't matter.

I mentioned what you earn hourly because that is the federal minimum. It says "federal minimum is X.XX an hour" You keep saying shouldn't, if you hate it that much petition your state rep and have them push to change it. What you can't seem to understand is that the govt says earned income not payed income. Again why an employer must make up the difference if a server is earning under the federal minimum wage which is hourly.
#166 Dec 06 2012 at 9:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Also, labor costs was not even remotely the biggest factor. Do you know how expensive it costs to build and operate a fab in the US? There's a reason why there's only a handful of them left in the US Smash. And it's not the cost to pay the employees. Welcome to my point about taxes and regulation and licensing costs.

I know exactly how much it costs, in fact. I also know what the largest difference is between doing it here and doing in Taiwan. Labor. The loaded labor rate pert FTE employee in the US is about $19 for semiconductor fab. It's $8 for TSMC. That's the deciding factor. Nothing else comes even vaguely close.


Sigh. No and no. Let's assume that's correct. Let's also assume that we have three continuous shifts of 100 employee working at our fab, every day of the year. That's 8760 hours, times 100 employees, times the total dollar/hour. This gives us a total labor cost of $16,644,000 for the fab in the US and $7,008,000. So you save $9,636,000 per year in labor costs operating your plant in Taiwan versus in the US. Great, right? That's a freaking drop in the bucket that is lost in the whitewash of yearly expenses Smash. The materials costs that get run through the plant will be somewhere around $100M/year. Differences in costs to ship materials in or out of the plant will have much more impact on the bottom line than the labor cost. Hell, the yearly budget for computer upgrades in my department is greater than that labor cost differential. That's not total cost to operate our data center (just one of many company wide), but just the actual purchasing cost of new equipment. That does not include power or footprint costs, backup costs, etc.

Additionally, The cost to build a fab that size (which is somewhat modest really) in Taiwan is somewhere around $1B (that B for "billion"). The yearly savings in labor therefore accounts for about 1% of the cost of building the damn thing in the first place. Even a tiny relative difference in construction cost between two sites will dwarf that yearly labor cost difference. If it costs 10% more to build in Taiwan than in the US (for example), that factor balances with 10 years of labor advantage to operating in Taiwan.

Labor costs are one factor, but are not remotely the biggest. I know that liberals always focus on labor costs when discussing things like offshoring, but that's not because it really is the biggest factor, but because it's the factor that most fits the narrative they want to tell (the whole Proletariat versus the Bourgeois). You're so stuck with Marxist assumptions that everything you see is defined in that context.


Quote:
It's also the reason fab is gradually moving away from places like Japan, and as the rate gets higher in Taiwan it'll move away from there to Zhengzhou. It's a race to the bottom, it's not complicated. As cheaper markets of sufficiently educated workers open up, manufacturing moves to where they are. That's what capitalism is. If you want to have manufacturing in the US, you have to have import tariffs.


Like on say raw materials for manufacturing? Do you see how that's counter productive? As usual, you're chasing the wrong end of the market. Making it cheaper to manufacture stuff domestically works much better than trying to make it more expensive to buy stuff manufactured elsewhere. All you do with your approach is put the US even farther behind. Seriously. The cost to import materials is a vastly more significant factor here. Also helps that Taiwan is closer to the biggest sources of materials used in silicon fabs *and* is closer to the biggest emerging markets for the resulting product. Those factors are bigger than labor costs.


Of course, in this case you have those other factors also working against the US, so it's just doubly bad. But what's driving manufacturing from the US is *not* labor costs. It's total costs. And those total costs are far more affected by other factors like the ones I've mentioned several times so far.


Quote:
Yes, I understand. You're just completely wrong, which can be trivially established by typing "global trade labor cost" into Google Scholar and reading any of the first 900000 papers returned.


Yeah. Remember what I said about the word "academic"? No matter how many people keep repeating the same wrong economic assumptions they were taught in school it doesn't make what they're repeating correct. Look at actual cost breakdowns sometime, not the imagined models that college professors pass on to their students as fact.

Edited, Dec 6th 2012 8:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#167 Dec 06 2012 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

Sigh. No and no. Let's assume that's correct. Let's also assume that we have three continuous shifts of 100 employee working at our fab, every day of the year. That's 8760 hours, times 100 employees, times the total dollar/hour. This gives us a total labor cost of $16,644,000 for the fab in the US and $7,008,000. So you save $9,636,000 per year in labor costs operating your plant in Taiwan versus in the US. Great, right? That's a freaking drop in the bucket that is lost in the whitewash of yearly expenses Smash. The materials costs that get run through the plant will be somewhere around $100M/year. Differences in costs to ship materials in or out of the plant will have much more impact on the bottom line than the labor cost.


No. They won't.

Yeah. Remember what I said about the word "academic"? No matter how many people keep repeating the same wrong economic assumptions they were taught in school it doesn't make what they're repeating correct. Look at actual cost breakdowns sometime, not the imagined models that college professors pass on to their students as fact.

Good idea. If only fortune 50 corporations paid me absurd amounts of money to do that I could have stopped working and stayed home and raised my kids by now.

Oh wait.

Edited, Dec 6th 2012 11:08pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#168 Dec 06 2012 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

Like on say raw materials for manufacturing? Do you see how that's counter productive? As usual, you're chasing the wrong end of the market. Making it cheaper to manufacture stuff domestically works much better than trying to make it more expensive to buy stuff manufactured elsewhere.


I'm not in favor of tariffs, but they are the obvious mechanism for retaining manufacturing jobs in the US. Something else I'm not particularly in favor of, for the record.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#169 Dec 06 2012 at 10:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,227 posts
Alma, good servers make more than you realize. That's why they're servers. That's why *I* was a server and bartender for so many years. They bring home a sh*tload of money.

Now go clean your toy gun or something.
#170 Dec 06 2012 at 11:15 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,618 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah. Remember what I said about the word "academic"? No matter how many people keep repeating the same wrong economic assumptions they were taught in school it doesn't make what they're repeating correct. Look at actual cost breakdowns sometime, not the imagined models that college professors pass on to their students as fact.

Good idea. If only fortune 50 corporations paid me absurd amounts of money to do that I could have stopped working and stayed home and raised my kids by now.

Oh wait.

I thought you made that money card-sharking at Foxwoods.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#171 Dec 07 2012 at 8:11 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
I thought you made that money card-sharking at Foxwoods.

Only some of it. Not a lifestyle that meshes well with having a family, though. I haven't played seriously for probably 5 years or so.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#172 Dec 07 2012 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hannah's not too young to be a cigarette girl.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#173 Dec 07 2012 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
gbaji wrote:
No matter how many people keep repeating the same wrong economic assumptions they were taught in school it doesn't make what they're repeating correct.
Maybe, but it doesn't make the person who ignores what they should have learned in school who is repeating the same wrong economic assumptions over and over again correct either. The major difference is that the one who paid attention is usually right and the person who didn't is just repeating a politically biased view he overheard on the radio on the way to work.

And in case you're feeling the need to play your dense card, that would be you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#174 Dec 07 2012 at 3:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Um... Because we're talking about pay for wait staff? As you say, the chef gets paid more already.
You stated that we factor in tips based on what we think we should pay for food. I countered to say that the money we decide to pay for a meal is completely irrelevant to the tip that we give a waiter. A supporting statement is that the work that we acknowledge waiters for doing has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the food, so why are you calculating the tip before hand in your spending money if it's based on the value? It doesn't matter if the chef gets paid more. If that's the best steak that you've tasted, you should tip the Chef, because s/he is the one who cooked it, not the waiter. You tip the waiter for servicing you. If you're going to tip the waiter because your food was good, why not tip the person who greeted you at the door and gave you a seat?

Gbaji wrote:
The question is whether it's unfair to pay less than minimum wage for waitstaff who earn tips. My opinion is that it's not inherently unfair at all.


No, that is not the question. The question is why are people allowed to be paid under the National min. wage?

Gbaji wrote:
My opinion is that it's not inherently unfair at all. Any system that works is acceptable, but to suggest that it ought to be a violation of some kind of human wage rights or something to be paid this way is a bit over the top. If it's so terribly bad, why do so many people choose that type of work over a host of other jobs requiring similar skill? They choose it because they get tips, and the tips vastly more than make up for the less than minimum wage base salary.

At the end of the day, that's really the only thing that matters, isn't it?


You just don't get it...Smiley: oyvey

My concern is simply based on the fact that employers shouldn't be able to pay less than the National min. wage because then it isn't National Min. wage.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#175 Dec 07 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Alma, good servers make more than you realize. That's why they're servers. That's why *I* was a server and bartender for so many years. They bring home a sh*tload of money.

Now go clean your toy gun or something.


Smiley: lol If I weren't saying that the entire time, then you wouldn't look as silly. Then again, you trying to counter me IS pretty silly.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#176 Dec 07 2012 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,227 posts
I spoke to Alma. I had a moment of weakness. I'm sorry.
#177 Dec 07 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
Nadenu wrote:
I spoke to Alma. I had a moment of weakness. I'm sorry.
That'll be a 3 hour time-out in the corner; without your Snoopy plushie, young lady!! Smiley: mad
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#178 Dec 07 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Gbaji wrote:
In the case of a waiter earning tips, their wage is based directly on the cost of the goods sold (cause it's a percentage of the cost of a meal).


If that were true, for every restaurant promotion would reflect on the employee's salaries, but they don't, because there's a line where the profit being made exceeds the accumulative money necessary to pay the staff. That's how EVERY OTHER BUSINESS works. Restaurants are no different.

Gbaji wrote:
Thus, instead of him having to constantly assess whether his employer is making enough money off his labor that he can justify asking for a raise, his wage automatically goes up based on the "value" of the goods/services he's providing. That's why he's less likely to care about the base wage level, and why it's ok to have that base wage level lower than the standard minimum wage.


That explains why employers and employe have no issue with it. That doesn't explain how it is "ok" to have the base wage level below the National min.

Gbaji wrote:
I get that you keep saying this, but you've yet to give a good argument for why that is the case. If waiters are satisfied with their total wages, then that's a fair wage. Passing arbitrary rules to force them to be higher is unnecessary.


Because it's then no longer the national min. wage. People working at sweatshops and illegal immigrants are as equally satisfied earning nickles and dimes a day along with their employers. Does it make it ok? Just because both party members are in agreement, doesn't make it "ok". That concept applies to many things in life.....

Gbaji wrote:
Again, you keep saying this, but haven't supported your claim.


WTFRU talking about? Unless there's a gratuity included, it's optional, not guaranteed and therefore inconsistent.

Gbaji wrote:
Tips are part of the total cost of a meal at a restaurant.


Read above. You even stated that I could be the "cheap skate" that skips out on a tip. How is that possible if the tip is in the meal? I do not have to tip anyone anything. The only thing that I'm required to pay is the price of the meal. If the "tip" is included and not mentioned as "gratuity", then it isn't a tip, it's the price of the meal. The meals (to include drinks) are what makes you money. So EVERYTHING comes from meals if you want to look at it like that, to include your base wage, electricity, water, furniture, etc. However, if you look at it like that, you can't arbitrarily differentiate the $.20 going towards your wage from the $.05 going towards your tip, the electricity, the water, the furniture, T.V's, cable/sat, etc.

The food is given a value based on the ratio of worth vs what people will pay and you sell the food at that price. Once you earn enough money to make profit, THEN and only THEN do you give people raises, buy more furniture, add better/more T.V.'s etc. Doing it the other way will only increase your chances of failure. While you might be able to pull it off, it is not a business move that I would believe most sane people would want to do. I would wager that most people would like to make a nice profit before investing or expanding.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#179 Dec 07 2012 at 9:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

Um... Because we're talking about pay for wait staff? As you say, the chef gets paid more already.
You stated that we factor in tips based on what we think we should pay for food.


EDIT: Since this aspect of your confusion pops up later, let me clarify here that we're talking about the cost of the meal, not the food. If all I was buying was the food, I'd go to the supermarket and buy it there.

Yes. Why would you think otherwise? I know this is hard for you to grasp, but the consumer of a product doesn't care if the product costs $1 with $99 of taxes/tips/licensing_fees/whatever, or if the product costs $100 with no other costs involved. From the consumers point if view, he spends $100 to buy the product. More importantly, from an economic point of view that product costs the consumer $100 to buy. So if the meal I eat costs $20 plus $2 tax plus $3 tip, it costs me $25 dollars. Why? Because it actually cost me $25. When considering whether to purchase that meal, I'm going to compare the value of that meal to me to what other things I could spend $25 on in the economy. That's why the tip cost matters (and sales taxes as well).
Quote:
I countered to say that the money we decide to pay for a meal is completely irrelevant to the tip that we give a waiter.


I know you said this. But you are wrong. We decide to pay the full price the meal actually costs us. I'm honestly puzzled why you keep trying to argue otherwise.

Quote:
A supporting statement is that the work that we acknowledge waiters for doing has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the food, so why are you calculating the tip before hand in your spending money if it's based on the value?


Huh? You're paying for the meal, not just the food. That includes the service, the decor, and everything else. Why the hell do you think people pay much more money to go out to eat than to buy the exact same food as take out? You're playing semantic games now. I'm talking about the consumers purchasing decision. If you decide to go out to eat, you are making a decision to pay the full cost of that action. That includes the tip you're going to pay.

Do you even have a reason for making this absurd distinction? Yes, the service and the food are two different things, but they both add to the price of the meal. And guess what? Customers will make decisions about whether to eat at a given restaurant based on the total cost of the meal. So anything that increases that total cost will influence that decision. Thus, paying the waitstaff a higher wage (regardless of how that is derived) will impact total sales. Again, this is why waiters at top end restaurants can earn more than those working at Denny's. And guess what? It's not just the service. You can be the best darn server in the universe working at Denny's, but you wont earn as much as a mediocre server at a $100/plate restaurant.


The point is that the better servers gravitate to the better restaurants because the owners of those restaurants know that they need the best servers if they are to justify the high prices they are charging for the meal. No one will pay $100 for a meal at Denny's no matter how good the service. Get it? This also means that the server's salary will tend to increase based on the servers skill at his or her job. Also, the employer will be forced to pay the server more in these situations because if he doesn't, his competition will, and people will stop attending his restaurant. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, all three factors (desire for employer to make the most money possible, desire for employee to make the most money possible, and desire for the consumer to pay the least amount possible) all conspire to makes sure that people get paid what their labor is actually worth.

Quote:
It doesn't matter if the chef gets paid more. If that's the best steak that you've tasted, you should tip the Chef, because s/he is the one who cooked it, not the waiter. You tip the waiter for servicing you. If you're going to tip the waiter because your food was good, why not tip the person who greeted you at the door and gave you a seat?


I'm not sure how that's relevant at all to the discussion we're having, but sure. If you really want to go wander back to the kitchen and hand the chef some money, go for it. Kinda doesn't have anything to do with the question about whether it's fair to have waitstaff pay based on a lower minimum wage.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
The question is whether it's unfair to pay less than minimum wage for waitstaff who earn tips. My opinion is that it's not inherently unfair at all.


No, that is not the question. The question is why are people allowed to be paid under the National min. wage?


Um... Because they are waitstaff who earn tips which makes up for the lower minimum wage. See how I've already moved past the really dumb question and on to the one we're actually discussing? Was this really a question to anyone? I thought it was a given in the topic itself?


Quote:
My concern is simply based on the fact that employers shouldn't be able to pay less than the National min. wage because then it isn't National Min. wage.


Seriously? That's.... ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it is. That's like saying that poor people should pay higher taxes because the national tax rate is 35% and no one should be allowed to pay less than the national tax rate.

Oh wait! That doesn't make sense because there are multiple "national tax rates". Just like there are multiple national minimum wages. In this case, there is a separate minimum wage for wait staff. Silly me for assuming that you actually had an opinion on the existence or level of said minimum wage. But since your only concern is people getting paid less than the legally defined minimum wage, and that isn't happening in this case, then I guess you have been arguing for a page and a half over absolutely nothing.


Wow. You really don't have an opinion of your own?

Edited, Dec 7th 2012 7:26pm by gbaji

Edited, Dec 7th 2012 7:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#180 Dec 07 2012 at 9:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Sigh. No and no. Let's assume that's correct. Let's also assume that we have three continuous shifts of 100 employee working at our fab, every day of the year. That's 8760 hours, times 100 employees, times the total dollar/hour. This gives us a total labor cost of $16,644,000 for the fab in the US and $7,008,000. So you save $9,636,000 per year in labor costs operating your plant in Taiwan versus in the US. Great, right? That's a freaking drop in the bucket that is lost in the whitewash of yearly expenses Smash. The materials costs that get run through the plant will be somewhere around $100M/year. Differences in costs to ship materials in or out of the plant will have much more impact on the bottom line than the labor cost.


No. They won't.


Yes. They will. See how easy it is to counter a really poor argument. How about providing some actual examples or numbers to back up your position. You know, something like break downs of shipping and material consumption costs at some kind of plant in relation to the cost to pay the folks working there?

Your position is so staggeringly wrong, that there is no defense for it. I can only assume that's why your entire arguing methodology consists of just repeating "I'm right and you're wrong" over and over and hoping nobody notices.

Want to know why labor is insignificant to many offshoring decisions? Because in the aforementioned fab example, it would have taken three times as many years to construct and 2.5 times as much money to build the same plant in the US. Ignoring the time factor (which is significant all by itself but harder to directly calculate), just the 150% increase in total fab construction cost means that for labor differences to equal that difference would require that the fab operate for 150 years (with no major refit or rebuild costs). The major considerations had nearly nothing to do with ongoing labor costs. It is absolutely not about trying to find ways to screw over employees. That's the Marxism talking.


Do it the other way around though, and labor differences don't matter either. If somehow the US decided to be really friendly to fabs, and it would only cost half a billion to construct the same fab in the US, then that factor would offset 50 years off lower labor costs in Taiwan. You'll build the fab in the US, bringing jobs and economic benefits to all.

The problem (well, one of them) with the liberal economic approach is that it involves trying to take an increasingly larger share of a shrinking pie in order to maintain revenue. As you increase taxes, tariffs, regulations, and yes wages as well, you increase the likelihood that new ventures will occur outside the US. This decreases the number of jobs and the tax base causing a loss of revenue. The liberals then respond by increasing taxes, tariffs, regulations, etc on the employers left in the country. Which causes more jobs to flee, which reduces the size of the pie, rinse and repeat until the whole economy grinds to a crashing stop.


The correct answer is to remove barriers to job creation. Make it profitable for people to create jobs in the US and they will. It's that simple.

Quote:
Yeah. Remember what I said about the word "academic"? No matter how many people keep repeating the same wrong economic assumptions they were taught in school it doesn't make what they're repeating correct. Look at actual cost breakdowns sometime, not the imagined models that college professors pass on to their students as fact.

Good idea. If only fortune 50 corporations paid me absurd amounts of money to do that I could have stopped working and stayed home and raised my kids by now.


And yet you can't give a single dollar calculation which supports your argument. I'd think someone who claims to do this for a living would be able to snap one off the top of his head. Yet the only example you came up with I was able to trivially show proved my point and not yours.

If people actually pay you for your advice in these matters then either you lie like crazy when posting on this forum or you are really really bad at your job.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#181 Dec 07 2012 at 9:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,227 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I spoke to Alma. I had a moment of weakness. I'm sorry.
That'll be a 3 hour time-out in the corner; without your Snoopy plushie, young lady!! Smiley: mad

Smiley: cry

I said I was sorry!
#182 Dec 08 2012 at 6:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Where the hell did I say that? Of course it's about money. My point is that labor costs alone are not always the biggest factor (I would argue they are rarely the biggest factor). Regulations and taxes affect the amount of money you can make. Other cost factors (like infrastructure, construction, power, etc) all affect the bottom line as well. All of those are about money. You're not paying attention to what I'm writing. Nothing in the paragraph you quoted suggested that money isn't the biggest factor.


Gbaji wrote:
Yes. But do you get that many things affect how much money you can make. Customer satisfaction affects how much money you make. Efficiency of your operations affects how much money you make. Electricity costs and downtime percentage affect how much money you make. Transportation and shipping costs affect how much money you make. Licensing costs affect how much money you make. Tax rates and tariffs affect how much money you make.

Trying to simplify this whole thing down to employers always attempting to decrease labor costs no matter what ignores a whole host of factors, many of which can (and often are) much larger than those labor costs.

.....

. There are a host of other factors to consider.


Almalieque first on the topic wrote:
I'm just not buying it. What I see are employers realizing that their employees are making extra money in tips, so they decided to pay them less. World wide, employers are always looking for ways to get more by paying less. Hence the whole shipping jobs overseas, sweatshops and illegal workers.


Gbaji's response to my comment above wrote:
True, but you're implying that this is some sort of exception, when it's not. The customers are always looking for ways to get more by paying less. The employees are always looking for ways to get more by working less (or less hard). That's the nature of a free market. All the forces are working for their own best interests. It's more than unfair to condemn just one part for this while ignoring the rest.

And at least in this context (service industry), the main competition for business is the guy running a similar restaurant just down the street, so can we lay off the whole "shipping jobs overseas" rhetoric?


This was never exclusively about "labor costs" as demonstrated by my original comment and your response. I stated that employers always wanted more for less and that's why they ship jobs over seas. You countered with that was true but employers weren't an exception to the rule. Then you said that McDonald's employers would pay their employees 100k a year if they could. However, doing so, contradicts the first statement. If the employers are always trying to get more for less, as you agreed, then they will only pay the waiters just enough to keep them working, not go over into their profit.

I'll go ahead and tie this together... So, therefore, the price fluctuations of the meals have more to do with the sales of the customers and less to do with the staff. As long as the staff is getting paid just enough not to quit, the employer will NOT give any unreasonable or unrealistic raises. They will only give raises just enough to keep satisfaction high. So, by enforcing the employer to pay their staff at the National min. wage, will not cause a successful business to raise their prices of products, but to cut into their profits. If an employer decides to raise prices to counter that profit loss, that's a choice made, nothing mandatory to stay successful.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#183 Dec 08 2012 at 10:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Zymunn wrote:
T What you can't seem to understand is that the govt says earned income not payed income. Again why an employer must make up the difference if a server is earning under the federal minimum wage which is hourly.


What you can't seem to understand is that tips ARE EXTRA, not wages from an employer. Tips are extra money given by customers out of kindness that are not required nor standardized. So, therefore, your hourly wage (earned income or paid income) from a specific employer should not include tips because you were not paid that by your employer, but given that as a gift from the customers. Since the government still taxes gifts, prizes and wages, you're not cheating the government. However, allowing a gift to count as earned income from a salary is a loop hole that can be taken advantage from both sides. Especially since there is no paper trail.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#184 Dec 08 2012 at 10:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
T What you can't seem to understand is that the govt says earned income not payed income. Again why an employer must make up the difference if a server is earning under the federal minimum wage which is hourly.


What you can't seem to understand is that tips ARE EXTRA, not wages from an employer. Tips are extra money given by customers out of kindness that are not required nor standardized. So, therefore, your hourly wage (earned income or paid income) from a specific employer should not include tips because you were not paid that by your employer, but given that as a gift from the customers. Since the government still taxes gifts, prizes and wages, you're not cheating the government. However, allowing a gift to count as earned income from a salary is a loop hole that can be taken advantage from both sides. Especially since there is no paper trail.


Actually, that's one of the reasons why they do. It increases taxable income.

Tips are not 'extra' for servers. large tips are, and they ostensibly have a backstop of the minimum wage should they have junk tips. But having the small wage + tips with a minimum wage forces the server to at least pay taxes on tips up to the minimum wage.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#185 Dec 08 2012 at 11:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,405 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
T What you can't seem to understand is that the govt says earned income not payed income. Again why an employer must make up the difference if a server is earning under the federal minimum wage which is hourly.


What you can't seem to understand is that tips ARE EXTRA, not wages from an employer. Tips are extra money given by customers out of kindness that are not required nor standardized. So, therefore, your hourly wage (earned income or paid income) from a specific employer should not include tips because you were not paid that by your employer, but given that as a gift from the customers. Since the government still taxes gifts, prizes and wages, you're not cheating the government. However, allowing a gift to count as earned income from a salary is a loop hole that can be taken advantage from both sides. Especially since there is no paper trail.


Actually, that's one of the reasons why they do. It increases taxable income.

Tips are not 'extra' for servers. large tips are, and they ostensibly have a backstop of the minimum wage should they have junk tips. But having the small wage + tips with a minimum wage forces the server to at least pay taxes on tips up to the minimum wage.


I can neither confirm nor deny that when I earned tips, the amount reported to the IRS was accurate. However, this was in Oregon, and the minimum wage is the same for everyone, including servers.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#186 Dec 09 2012 at 7:35 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Gbaji wrote:
EDIT: Since this aspect of your confusion pops up later, let me clarify here that we're talking about the cost of the meal, not the food. If all I was buying was the food, I'd go to the supermarket and buy it there.
.....
Huh? You're paying for the meal, not just the food.
....
Do you even have a reason for making this absurd distinction?


Almalieque wrote:

The meals (to include drinks) are what makes you money. So EVERYTHING comes from meals if you want to look at it like that, to include your base wage, electricity, water, furniture, etc. However, if you look at it like that, you can't arbitrarily differentiate the $.20 going towards your wage from the $.05 going towards your tip, the electricity, the water, the furniture, T.V's, cable/sat, etc.

The food is given a value based on the ratio of worth vs what people will pay and you sell the food at that price. Once you earn enough money to make profit, THEN and only THEN do you give people raises, buy more furniture, add better/more T.V.'s etc. Doing it the other way will only increase your chances of failure. While you might be able to pull it off, it is not a business move that I would believe most sane people would want to do. I would wager that most people would like to make a nice profit before investing or expanding.


Gbaji wrote:
Why? Because it actually cost me $25. When considering whether to purchase that meal, I'm going to compare the value of that meal to me to what other things I could spend $25 on in the economy. That's why the tip cost matters (and sales taxes as well).


Unless you're about to spend more than what you have, then tips and tax shouldn't be a deciding factor if you get something or not. Taxes will always be there at the same percentage, it doesn't change just because you spend more money. Alternatively, tips often work the same way. So, if you're at the point where tax and tips are deciding factors then you're already spending too much money.
Gbaji wrote:

I know you said this. But you are wrong. We decide to pay the full price the meal actually costs us. I'm honestly puzzled why you keep trying to argue otherwise.
...
Customers will make decisions about whether to eat at a given restaurant based on the total cost of the meal.


Read above. If you're an anomaly, that's fine, but don't act like that's the norm. If a person has a $30 budget, that person isn't going to go to place like Chilli's and spend $10 for a glass of Coke, $13 for a dinner roll, $2.50 in taxes and $5 on a tip. If the prices of food are absurd, then they will not purchase the food, resulting in no money spent on tax and/or tips. It's the meal prices that people are concerned about. As mentioned, if tax and tips are a concern for you, then you're already spending too much.

Gbaji wrote:
Thus, paying the waitstaff a higher wage (regardless of how that is derived) will impact total sales.


That's a fallacy that would only be true if your business weren't successful. As an owner, you have options, dip into your profit, decrease the amount of money spent on items not being sold, create other avenues of revenue, buy cheaper products, increase the sale prices, etc. . The last two options should be your last resort as your profit is made by the number of product sales and not the actual price of the product. Increasing the price may very well decrease your customer base, thus reducing your overall profit.




____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#187 Dec 10 2012 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,245 posts
gbaji wrote:
See how easy it is to counter a really poor argument.
Sure, every argument you tend to make.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#188 Dec 10 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Gbaj wrote:
Again, this is why waiters at top end restaurants can earn more than those working at Denny's. And guess what? It's not just the service. You can be the best darn server in the universe working at Denny's, but you wont earn as much as a mediocre server at a $100/plate restaurant.
.....
This also means that the server's salary will tend to increase based on the servers skill at his or her job.


The reason why waiters make more money at more expensive restaurants is because the people there spend more money. It has nothing to do with their service, but the fact that the customers spend more money. They are not doing anything more than a waiter at Chilli's. Just like baggers at a grocery store. The bagger who gets the old retired couple or money makers on paydays will get more money than another bagger. It has nothing to do with their service or the products. but the amount of money of the customer has.

Gbaj wrote:
The point is that the better servers gravitate to the better restaurants because the owners of those restaurants know that they need the best servers if they are to justify the high prices they are charging for the meal.


False. Read above. I'm not taking away any difficulty from any expensive restaurant, but to believe that a waiter at $20-$30 restaurant can't fill the shoe at a more premiere restaurant, you're sadly mistaken.

Gbaj wrote:
No one will pay $100 for a meal at Denny's no matter how good the service. Get it?


Because the FOOD there isn't worth $100, nor is that the target audience. You're just proving my point. People only care about the value of the meal. People don't ponder on taxes or tips, because if they are, then they are already spending too much money. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp? It's not that people don't think about those additional expenses, but they are never a factor of paying.

Gbaj wrote:
Also, the employer will be forced to pay the server more in these situations because if he doesn't, his competition will, and people will stop attending his restaurant.


Complete slippery slope. If that employer was able to higher people with those wages, people will continue apply for the job. Competition has "limitations". As long as your products are good and consistent, you will continually have customers.

Gbaj wrote:
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, all three factors (desire for employer to make the most money possible, desire for employee to make the most money possible, and desire for the consumer to pay the least amount possible) all conspire to makes sure that people get paid what their labor is actually worth.


I agree, but you are somehow applying them incorrectly.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#189 Dec 12 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Customers will make decisions about whether to eat at a given restaurant based on the total cost of the meal.


Read above. If you're an anomaly, that's fine, but don't act like that's the norm.


I'm not an anomaly. Anyone who doesn't take into account the total cost of dining out, including tax and tip is an idiot.

Quote:
If a person has a $30 budget, that person isn't going to go to place like Chilli's and spend $10 for a glass of Coke, $13 for a dinner roll, $2.50 in taxes and $5 on a tip. If the prices of food are absurd, then they will not purchase the food, resulting in no money spent on tax and/or tips. It's the meal prices that people are concerned about. As mentioned, if tax and tips are a concern for you, then you're already spending too much.


Sigh. You were sooo close. If your dinner budget is $30, that's how much you're aiming to spend including tax and tip. Whether you think in terms of "I can afford to spend $30 total including tax and tip" or "I can afford to spend $30 on dinner plus the tax and tip that will involve" really doesn't matter. There will always be some comparison made by the consumer between the cost of the meal and the quality of the meal. The customer will then make a decision about whether to purchase a meal there.

What you're missing is that if my hypothetical limit is X, then anything which pushes the price over X will mean I wont by the meal. If increasing the servers salary means that my total cost increases over X, then I wont buy the meal. I'm not sure what about this is causing such a mental block.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Thus, paying the waitstaff a higher wage (regardless of how that is derived) will impact total sales.


That's a fallacy that would only be true if your business weren't successful. As an owner, you have options, dip into your profit, decrease the amount of money spent on items not being sold, create other avenues of revenue, buy cheaper products, increase the sale prices, etc. . The last two options should be your last resort as your profit is made by the number of product sales and not the actual price of the product. Increasing the price may very well decrease your customer base, thus reducing your overall profit.


This has got to be one of the more moronic things you've posted. Can't we assume that the business is doing everything it can to maximize profits already? I mean, I thought we already agreed on that. So none of those options work either because the business will already be doing them or it wont want to do them. The business will only pay its servers more *if* they have to in order to maintain a sufficient quality of service for their customers. Unless servers are quitting and going to your competition because you don't pay them enough, you have no reason to pay them more. If they're good enough that you have to do so to avoid losing sales because of poor service then you *will* pay the wait staff more.

You're trying to argue that there's some arbitrarily defined "fair pay" level out there that we should create and should be enforced. But ultimately the "fair wage" is based on those market forces I talked about earlier. If wait staff really can't tolerate working for a lower minimum wage plus tips then they wont work for that much. If they can, they will. If a specific waiter can find better pay elsewhere, he/she will do that. That's why waitstaff are paid more at more expensive restaurants. The expectation is that the quality of the service, food, and decor will be higher, so customers are willing to pay more. Thus the employer *must* pay his staff more. But no one expects high standards at Dennys, so they are not willing to pay as much. Thus the employer will pay his staff less. If you attempt to force higher pay via legislation, all you accomplish is making the "cheap" restaurants cost more to eat at, possibly pricing them out of the market.

At the end of the day though, total cost is the consideration. How you break it up doesn't really matter. How many dollars come out of the consumers pocket in return for what he got does.

Edited, Dec 12th 2012 6:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#190 Dec 12 2012 at 11:08 PM Rating: Excellent
I hate to break tradition, here, but gbaji is right.

If you do not plan to tip then stay the @#%^ home.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#191 Dec 13 2012 at 1:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,622 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I hate to break tradition, here, but gbaji is right.

If you do not plan to tip then stay the @#%^ home.


Or go to McDonald's.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#192 Dec 13 2012 at 1:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
This has got to be one of the more moronic things you've posted.

Not even in the Top 100.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#193 Dec 13 2012 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,227 posts
Belkira wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I hate to break tradition, here, but gbaji is right.

If you do not plan to tip then stay the @#%^ home.


Or go to McDonald's.

Smiley: nod
#194 Dec 13 2012 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,612 posts
I prefer Burger King.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#195 Dec 13 2012 at 7:55 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,618 posts
Hell no, Wendy's all the way.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#196 Dec 13 2012 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,814 posts
twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesoniononasesameseedbun

Smiley: drool
____________________________
LOOK here.
#197 Dec 13 2012 at 8:26 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,245 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I hate to break tradition, here, but gbaji is right.
When two contrarians butt heads, one will usually accidentally be right.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#198 Dec 13 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Belkira wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I hate to break tradition, here, but gbaji is right.

If you do not plan to tip then stay the @#%^ home.


Or go to McDonald's.



Friar Bijou wrote:
I hate to break tradition, here, but gbaji is right.

If you do not plan to tip then stay the @#%^ home.


Given that I said those exact things, I'm assuming that you all didn't read my posts. Also, not factoring in your tip in your total expense before you leave != not tipping. Do you think about taxes every time before you purchase something or do you just hand them your cash or card?



Edited, Dec 13th 2012 11:28pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#199 Dec 13 2012 at 4:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure how that's relevant at all to the discussion we're having, but sure. If you really want to go wander back to the kitchen and hand the chef some money, go for it. Kinda doesn't have anything to do with the question about whether it's fair to have waitstaff pay based on a lower minimum wage.


You stated that we factor in tips based on what we think we should pay for food. I countered to say that the money we decide to pay for a meal is completely irrelevant to the tip that we give a waiter. A supporting statement is that the work that we acknowledge waiters for doing has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the food, so why are you calculating the tip before hand in your spending money if it's based on the value?

Gbaji wrote:
Um... Because they are waitstaff who earn tips which makes up for the lower minimum wage. See how I've already moved past the really dumb question and on to the one we're actually discussing? Was this really a question to anyone? I thought it was a given in the topic itself?


Tips are extra. That's not money coming from their employer. That's money coming from other people. So, what if a customer feels the "Christmas Spirit" and tips a waiter $10k, can the employer now not pay their employee until they work off 10k? If so, do you think that's fair?

Gbaji wrote:
Seriously? That's.... ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it is. That's like saying that poor people should pay higher taxes because the national tax rate is 35% and no one should be allowed to pay less than the national tax rate.


I guess you don't understand the concept of constants? If it varies, then it isn't a constant, but a variable, hence the term "vary". It's very simple. There's nothing wrong with having a variable, just don't label it a constant. Is the "national tax rate" a mandate or an average?

Gbaji wrote:
Oh wait! That doesn't make sense because there are multiple "national tax rates"


Then it isn't a constant, but a variable

Gbaji wrote:
Just like there are multiple national minimum wages. In this case, there is a separate minimum wage for wait staff. Silly me for assuming that you actually had an opinion on the existence or level of said minimum wage. But since your only concern is people getting paid less than the legally defined minimum wage, and that isn't happening in this case, then I guess you have been arguing for a page and a half over absolutely nothing.
.

Read above... Once you realize the difference between a variable and a constant, then you'll understand it's impossible to have a varying constant.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#200 Dec 13 2012 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
I guess somebody missed the point.

If I, personally, order food delivered or go to a sit-down-get-served restaurant I fully plan to be tipping. If you* don't, then you are a class-A douchebag.











*Not you you just an in-general you.







Because I'm not a jerk.























mostly
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#201 Dec 13 2012 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I hate to break tradition, here, but gbaji is right.

If you do not plan to tip then stay the @#%^ home.


Or takeout, that doesn't require a tip.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 76 All times are in CDT
Aethien, klausneck, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (73)