Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Rule of ReciprocationFollow

#252 Dec 14 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,946 posts
Spoonless wrote:
What's the point of Carside to Go anyway? Are you meant to park there and then order, and hang out in your car while they make it? I mean, I've ordered take out from Applebee's before, but I phone it in, and then go pick it up. I just can't really see a situation where I'd make them bring it out to me.

Call it in ahead of time, then pull up to the parking space and they brig it out. I do it infrequently, usually on the way home from work when my wife wants a Quesadilla burger and we don't feel like taking the kids out for the evening.

Nadenu wrote:
As an ex-server/bartender, I don't feel the need to tip the server that brings my food out to the car. A., the server is most likely still waiting tables and this is considered part of her section or duties, just like running food to tables that aren't hers are; or 2., this is the server's designated job for her shift and she's probably making at least minimum wage for the shift.

This is what I assumed, or at least hoped was the case.
____________________________
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.
#253 Dec 14 2012 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
Alma has pretty much already said all there is to be said on the whole minimum wage thing. i'm not going to argue it further because I have nothing to add and I'm sick and don't have the energy for it. And seriously, you write too much. It's ridiculous. I know it's been said before, but I need to say it again.

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

I'll guarantee you servers that work at a Chili's in Oklahoma make less than servers that work at a Chili's in Oregon. That's another part of the issue that bugs me. Yeah, cost of living up here is more, but still. In Oklahoma they make the less than minimum wage wage, and here in Oregon they make minimum wage and their tips. There's probably some people out there who would tip the Oklahoma server more because they know they don't actually make minimum wage, but most people probably don't think about it too much. They just tip because it's customary.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#254 Dec 14 2012 at 10:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
Pig wrote:
Oh and Alma, when someone decides to employ you, it's being "hired" not being "highered." Highered is not a word. I'm sure it's annoying have your spelling corrected, but that's been bugging me tonight while I've been reading the thread, and I saw you use highered several times.


Thank you.. It's not annoying in the least bit, but encouraged. As long as you aren't being pedantic with the fallacy that a misspelling = illogical. To be honest, I'm personally embarrassed when I make those errors, but pointing them out helps me learn. However, given that everyone here make the same mistakes, it isn't a big deal.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#255 Dec 14 2012 at 10:55 PM Rating: Good
If you want to shorten my screen name, I'd much prefer PoD to Pig. I'm sure you aren't intentionally trying to call me a pig, but it's hard to separate that out. Also, you're welcome.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#256 Dec 14 2012 at 11:03 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
I am so confused about what is being argued between Alma and Gbaji. But this is what I THINK is being said:

Alma: Restaurants should pay their waitstaff minimum wage at least, and then tips become optional and not expected.

gbaji: If restaurants had to pay their waitstaff minimum wage, they would have to raise the prices on their meals and would get less customers and make less money.

If that's right.. then I have no idea where the "you should think about tip and tax when you budget" argument came from.

Nads is right. This is ridiculous to argue about. But that makes me feel more stupid that I can't follow it. I blame it on the amount of words the two of you type. You both like analogies FAR too much...
#257 Dec 15 2012 at 2:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,285 posts
Nadenu wrote:
This might not be the most stupid discussion you guys have ever had, but ******* it's close.


/thread
____________________________
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
#258 Dec 15 2012 at 2:27 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,285 posts
Belkira wrote:
You both like analogies FAR too much...


/doublethread

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 12:27am 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
#259 Dec 15 2012 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I'm still a bit astounded by the concept that someone would order take out to avoid paying a server a tip. When I order take out, I do it so I don't have to sit down in a restaurant and wait for my food. I call it in, wait the time the person on the phone said it would take, then go and pick up my food. Mostly, I order take out because I'm feeling lazy. I don't do it to save money, and I think anybody who does is a jack ***.
Smiley: lol So do you tip 15% when you get take out?

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

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 8:55am by Spoonless
____________________________
Banh
#260 Dec 15 2012 at 8:16 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
Belkira wrote:
I am so confused about what is being argued between Alma and Gbaji. But this is what I THINK is being said:

Alma: Restaurants should pay their waitstaff minimum wage at least, and then tips become optional and not expected.

gbaji: If restaurants had to pay their waitstaff minimum wage, they would have to raise the prices on their meals and would get less customers and make less money.

If that's right.. then I have no idea where the "you should think about tip and tax when you budget" argument came from.

Nads is right. This is ridiculous to argue about. But that makes me feel more stupid that I can't follow it. I blame it on the amount of words the two of you type. You both like analogies FAR too much...


I hate to do this to you again, but you're very close, just a tid bit off. Good observation though.

His original response wasn't that employers would get less customers, but that people would subtract the difference of the price raise from the waiter's tip. So, if the meal went up $1.00, then the customer would pay the waiter $1 less.

I countered to say that's ridiculous because our determination on rather or not a meal is a good deal is solely based on the price of the meal. The amount of money that we decide to tip our waiters is based on their performance. Even though a tip may start off based off of what we spend on food, what we spend on food isn't based on a future tip.

In other words, we buy what we want to eat if we deem it a good price, people don't let tips and tax be a deterrent of getting that. If paying for tax and/or a tip is a big enough deal to you to where you have to change your order, then you are spending too much money and should probably go some where cheaper or stay at home.

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 4:18pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#261 Dec 15 2012 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If paying for tax and/or a tip is a big enough deal to you to where you have to change your order, then you are spending too much money and should probably go some where cheaper or stay at home.
This is ridiculous. Say I have a $20 meal budget. I really want that $18 steak, but with tax and tip, it brings me over my budget. Therefore, I should go someplace else or stay home instead of ordering the $14 pasta dish? Or I'm supposed to go over budget because it's a minimal amount? Just because that extra $2.50 isn't a significant amount doesn't mean that I should bring myself over budget. That's why you set a budget. If my budget were $25, I'd get the steak. It's not. It's $20, so I get a less expensive meal.

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

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 12:05pm by Spoonless
____________________________
Banh
#262 Dec 15 2012 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Stop it.
____________________________
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

#263 Dec 15 2012 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Stop it.
Okay.

You know, I was doing quite well for some time.
____________________________
Banh
#264 Dec 15 2012 at 11:14 AM Rating: Excellent
I'll get Kao to make everyone an admin, then alma will ignore everyone and have no one to talk to.
____________________________
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
#265 Dec 15 2012 at 1:46 PM Rating: Good
Spoonless wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I'm still a bit astounded by the concept that someone would order take out to avoid paying a server a tip. When I order take out, I do it so I don't have to sit down in a restaurant and wait for my food. I call it in, wait the time the person on the phone said it would take, then go and pick up my food. Mostly, I order take out because I'm feeling lazy. I don't do it to save money, and I think anybody who does is a jack ***.
Smiley: lol So do you tip 15% when you get take out?

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


No, because they're not putting in the same effort. I'll still tip a little bit most of the time, because it does take effort to package up the food and all. That's irrelevant though, because as I said, it's not the reason I order take out. I order take out because I'm feeling lazy, not because I'm feeling cheap.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#266 Dec 15 2012 at 2:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
Spoonless wrote:
This is ridiculous. Say I have a $20 meal budget. I really want that $18 steak, but with tax and tip, it brings me over my budget. Therefore, I should go someplace else or stay home instead of ordering the $14 pasta dish? Or I'm supposed to go over budget because it's a minimal amount? Just because that extra $2.50 isn't a significant amount doesn't mean that I should bring myself over budget. That's why you set a budget. If my budget were $25, I'd get the steak. It's not. It's $20, so I get a less expensive meal.


Let me clarify my usage of "want". I am using that word in the sense that you actually intend on buying it, not like "I want a mansion with an indoor pool".

If what you want cost $18 and you think that is a fair and legitimate price, but your budget is $20 and the taxes/tip is a big enough deal for you, then yes, you probably shouldn't be paying for the $14 meal either. Don't go into restaurants thinking that you will find a good porter house or T-Bone steak for $14. If you really want that steak, you pay the $2.50 and take that money out of somewhere else in your budget if you really want to maintain it.

Now if you think that price is too high for that steak, then that is a different story. The other scenario is if you are in a financial bind, which in that sense you shouldn't be dinning in at restaurants.

The only times where taxes/tips should ever matter are when there is a difference in the tax rates (i.e. no tax vs 8% tax) and/or when a preset tip is already included. Else you already know the average price of the meals of the restaurant. You already know the the tax rate and the tip is optional. So why are you intentionally putting yourself in that situation?

Would you go to Chilli's, Applebees, Redlobster, etc. with a $6 budget?
Would you go to Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, etc. with a $6 budget?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#267 Dec 15 2012 at 4:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I'm still a bit astounded by the concept that someone would order take out to avoid paying a server a tip. When I order take out, I do it so I don't have to sit down in a restaurant and wait for my food. I call it in, wait the time the person on the phone said it would take, then go and pick up my food. Mostly, I order take out because I'm feeling lazy. I don't do it to save money, and I think anybody who does is a jack ***.
Smiley: lol So do you tip 15% when you get take out?

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


No, because they're not putting in the same effort. I'll still tip a little bit most of the time, because it does take effort to package up the food and all. That's irrelevant though, because as I said, it's not the reason I order take out. I order take out because I'm feeling lazy, not because I'm feeling cheap.
I'm just wondering why I'm a jackass for getting takeout to save some money on the overall cost of the meal while you're not since you get it because your lazy, when in the end we spend the same amount of money. It's not irrelevant, because you're still receiving the lower overall cost. If I'm a jackass because I want to save money, so I get takeout, it should stand to reason that to not be a jackass, I'd have to tip in full so that I'm not saving money, right? So unless you're tipping in full, too, you are a jackass for taking advantage of the lower cost as well.

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 5:35pm by Spoonless
____________________________
Banh
#268 Dec 15 2012 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
I really wish the ignore function made posts completely disappear. Sometimes I just can't help myself and expand them.
____________________________
Banh
#269 Dec 15 2012 at 6:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
Spoonless wrote:
I really wish the ignore function made posts completely disappear. Sometimes I just can't help myself and expand them.


If that's your way of saying that you're wrong, I'll take it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#270 Dec 15 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Alma wrote:
If that's your way of saying that you're wrong, I'll take it.


I don't really pay attention to your arguments because I can't be bothered to read the drivel that spews from your wretched fingers, but comments like these really reveal how congitively challenged you are. It makes me pity you and the people around you who have to put up with your childish ignorance day in and day out. You're the kind of person who makes life harder for others simply by existing. Congratulations on being a waste of skin and bones. I'm sure your family is proud.

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 9:27pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#271 Dec 15 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
That's in need of an edit...
____________________________
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

#272 Dec 15 2012 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
Smiley: lol
____________________________
Banh
#273 Dec 15 2012 at 7:57 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
Dang Spoon, what did you do to him?

Smiley: lol
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#274 Dec 15 2012 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#275 Dec 15 2012 at 11:07 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
Ugly wrote:
That's in need of an edit...


He was right.

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

I don't really pay attention to your arguments because I can't be bothered to read the drivel that spews from your wretched fingers, but comments like these really reveal how congitively challenged you are. It makes me pity you and the people around you who have to put up with your childish ignorance day in and day out. You're the kind of person who makes life harder for others simply by existing. Congratulations on being a waste of skin and bones. I'm sure your family is proud.

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 9:27pm by BrownDuck


Smiley: lol

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

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

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


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

I'm biased against statistics
#276 Dec 15 2012 at 11:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Trust me on this, you don't want to question my categorical value and worth to society.


You're absolutely right, as there is nothing there to question..
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#277 Dec 15 2012 at 11:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Trust me on this, you don't want to question my categorical value and worth to society.


You're absolutely right, as there is nothing there to question..


If that's your way of saying that you're wrong, I'll take it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#278 Dec 15 2012 at 11:34 PM Rating: Default
Spoonless wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I'm still a bit astounded by the concept that someone would order take out to avoid paying a server a tip. When I order take out, I do it so I don't have to sit down in a restaurant and wait for my food. I call it in, wait the time the person on the phone said it would take, then go and pick up my food. Mostly, I order take out because I'm feeling lazy. I don't do it to save money, and I think anybody who does is a jack ***.
Smiley: lol So do you tip 15% when you get take out?

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


No, because they're not putting in the same effort. I'll still tip a little bit most of the time, because it does take effort to package up the food and all. That's irrelevant though, because as I said, it's not the reason I order take out. I order take out because I'm feeling lazy, not because I'm feeling cheap.
I'm just wondering why I'm a jackass for getting takeout to save some money on the overall cost of the meal while you're not since you get it because your lazy, when in the end we spend the same amount of money. It's not irrelevant, because you're still receiving the lower overall cost. If I'm a jackass because I want to save money, so I get takeout, it should stand to reason that to not be a jackass, I'd have to tip in full so that I'm not saving money, right? So unless you're tipping in full, too, you are a jackass for taking advantage of the lower cost as well.

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


Okay, let me rephrase. If you order take out specifically to avoid tipping, then you're a jackass. If you're doing it to save a few bucks, but ordinarily have no problem with tipping, then you're fine. That's really what I meant.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#279 Dec 16 2012 at 12:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
People that don't want to tip won't order take out. They'll still come in and be served like everyone else, THEN stiff you. Trust me, I know.
#280 Dec 16 2012 at 2:47 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Nadenu wrote:
People that don't want to tip won't order take out. They'll still come in and be served like everyone else, THEN stiff you. Trust me, I know.
Or they could be European where we're not used to people having to make a living off of their tips.

I shouldn't forget to remind my mom and brother what kind of tips are expected when they're going to the States in ~2.5 years for his 18th birthday (provided he doesn't change his mind yet again)
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#281 Dec 16 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
Nadenu wrote:
People that don't want to tip won't order take out. They'll still come in and be served like everyone else, THEN stiff you. Trust me, I know.


Hence why waiters shouldn't be paid on the probability of the guest.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#282 Dec 16 2012 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Yeah, or we could go the way of France and include the tip in the check automatically.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#283 Dec 16 2012 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yeah, or we could go the way of France and include the tip in the check automatically.
Coming from a former waiter, bad idea.
____________________________
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

#284 Dec 16 2012 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Depends on how you go about it I think. If the new customary is to tip 20%, and you allow for people to tip more if they wish, it would probably only help servers.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#285 Dec 16 2012 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Maybe, but would probably hurt service overall.
____________________________
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

#286 Dec 16 2012 at 3:10 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
Gbaji wrote:
And anyone who doesn't budget based on value rather than how much they can afford will never be able to afford much.


Fortunately, my argument's premise is decisions based on the value of the food, nothing else. That's what you're not understanding. I've said that several times. We buy things on whether or not something is a good value. Tax is NOT part of that value because that's regulated by the government, NOT by the person selling the product nor is the tax avoidable. No matter what you buy, you will have to pay tax and it will be the same rate. Furthermore, unless tips are already included, then they are completely optional. There is no law mandating that you pay 15%. If all you can afford to tip is 5%, then you tip 5%. Again, if that's the case, you probably shouldn't be eating out.

Gbaji wrote:
Look. I know this is probably a waste of my time, but every single dollar counts. It's measured relative to what you get (or expect to get). This is why different items cost different amounts of money on the menu. Because people don't just pay whatever amount they can afford. They pay what they think the meal is worth to them. So you might decide between two dishes because one of them is $3 less than the other, but both seem equally appealing. If no one cared about the few bucks in tax and tip, then no one would care about a few bucks difference in the price of items on the menu. But they do. If they didn't, then the mac and cheese would cost just as much as the lobster.


Read above. It's not about " a few bucks", if you're paying for something that you believe is a good value, but you can't afford the tax or a worthy tip, then you are probably spending above your budget.

Gbaji wrote:
You're completely missing the point. It's not about "budget". It's about value. If I walk into a restaurant with $5k in my pocket, it doesn't mean that I don't care about the relative prices of the items on the menu. If I don't think that the steak at this restaurant is worth the $40 they're asking, I'm not going to order it.


Of course it's about value. That's what I keep saying. However, if the tax and tip on a fair value meal will affect your budget, then you are spending too much money.

Gbaji wrote:
Similarly, if I think a restaurant as a whole is overpriced for the meal and service and decor, I wont go there.


What scenario is there that you WOULD go to an overpriced restaurant? Does the reason why its overprice matter?

Gbaji wrote:
And every single dollar involved in that calculation is involved in that calculation. Obviously, since tax and tip are relative to menu price, which number I'm using directly doesn't matter. But it does matter if I'm considering whether I want to eat out at a restaurant in the first place.


Unless it's your first time going to a restaurant, then you know the average meal range. I'm not going to go to a dine in restaurant with a $10 budget. Yes, you can buy something, but at some point, you would have to use the common sense factor. With a $10 budget, you would get more for your money at a fast food restaurant. That concept applies to other restaurants.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#287 Dec 16 2012 at 11:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
What scenario is there that you WOULD go to an overpriced restaurant?


Really?Smiley: dubious

1. Wedding
2. Aniversary
3. Major promotion/new job;

to name a few.


People will treat themselves to extravagant things if they are celebrating.

Do you live in a cave or something?

Edited, Dec 16th 2012 10:39pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#288 Dec 17 2012 at 3:00 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Depends on your opinion of what overpriced is, you wouldn't go to an overpriced restaurant for any of those things while you would go to an expensive one. Unless Alma and Gbaji have violated the English language again and they mean expensive when they say overpriced.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#289 Dec 17 2012 at 5:35 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
we mean overprice, hence the argument of value. Just because you can or cannot afford it, doesnt mean it's expensive or cheap.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#290 Dec 17 2012 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Unless Alma and Gbaji have violated the English language again
Unless? Likely.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#291 Dec 17 2012 at 12:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,285 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Depends on your opinion of what overpriced is, you wouldn't go to an overpriced restaurant for any of those things while you would go to an expensive one. Unless Alma and Gbaji have violated the English language again and they mean expensive when they say overpriced.


Yeah, I have no problem going to an expensive restaurant unless it is overpriced.
____________________________
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
#292 Dec 17 2012 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,908 posts
Olorinus wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Depends on your opinion of what overpriced is, you wouldn't go to an overpriced restaurant for any of those things while you would go to an expensive one. Unless Alma and Gbaji have violated the English language again and they mean expensive when they say overpriced.


Yeah, I have no problem going to an expensive restaurant unless it is overpriced.

I enjoy a nice cheap over-priced restaurant.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#293 Dec 17 2012 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,886 posts
There is an incredibly amusing statement somewhere in this thread if you happen to have access to certian admin tools. Something about talking to ones self, or some such. Well that and the whole not responding to admins thing which is amusing in its own right. Especially given i'm probably the admin in reference there.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#294 Dec 17 2012 at 1:09 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,908 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
There is an incredibly amusing statement somewhere in this thread if you happen to have access to certian admin tools. Something about talking to ones self, or some such. Well that and the whole not responding to admins thing which is amusing in its own right. Especially given i'm probably the admin in reference there.
You're such a tease.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#295 Dec 17 2012 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Belkira wrote:
I am so confused about what is being argued between Alma and Gbaji. But this is what I THINK is being said:

Alma: Restaurants should pay their waitstaff minimum wage at least, and then tips become optional and not expected.


I do not believe Alma ever argued that tips should not be expected if the base wage for waitstaff was increased. He only argued that customers do not consider tips as part of the cost of the meal because "they are optional and extra". I have no problem at all with the argument that if waitstaff are paid a full normal wage that they should not expect tips. But I don't think that's what Alma was arguing.

Quote:
If that's right.. then I have no idea where the "you should think about tip and tax when you budget" argument came from.


Because if two meals are otherwise identical and one is less expensive than the other, customers will tend to buy the less expensive one, right? Thus, if we assume that the cost of the meal must increase to some degree if the waitstaff is paid a higher base salary, then that meal will be more expensive if we're expected to tip in both cases. Thus, everything else being the same, paying the waitstaff a higher wage while expecting customers to tip them will decrease the number of customers who will come to your restaurant. Ergo, it hurts the employer business to do this and is not at all unfair to pay that staff less *if* they are expected to receive tips which will make up for the difference.

Almalieque wrote:
His original response wasn't that employers would get less customers, but that people would subtract the difference of the price raise from the waiter's tip. So, if the meal went up $1.00, then the customer would pay the waiter $1 less.


Nope. Not even remotely close. My point was that the employer would get less customers because the relative price of the meal will be higher with no increase in quality. My position assumes that customers will tip a standard amount and will take that into account when making their initial purchasing decision. How the **** have you managed to respond to like a dozen of my posts where I've said this repeatedly and you still don't actually know what I'm arguing?

Quote:
I countered to say that's ridiculous because our determination on rather or not a meal is a good deal is solely based on the price of the meal.


Sure. But you argued that this doesn't include the tip. I argue that it does. This is relevant when we're arguing whether waitstaff can be paid less because they get tips.

Quote:
The amount of money that we decide to tip our waiters is based on their performance. Even though a tip may start off based off of what we spend on food, what we spend on food isn't based on a future tip.


Ignoring that last clause because it makes no sense at all, most people base their tip on the cost of the meal itself. Hence why most people express tips as a percentage rather than a set dollar amount. Again though, this still kinda misses the larger point that people do account for the full price of the meal when making a decision to buy it in the first place.

Quote:
In other words, we buy what we want to eat if we deem it a good price, people don't let tips and tax be a deterrent of getting that.


Sorry, but that's insane. I simply disagree with you on this.


Quote:
If paying for tax and/or a tip is a big enough deal to you to where you have to change your order, then you are spending too much money and should probably go some where cheaper or stay at home.


And every single person who does that is a sale the employer doesn't get. See how that works?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#296 Dec 17 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Fortunately, my argument's premise is decisions based on the value of the food, nothing else.


Only because you keep insisting that everything except the price of the food somehow magically doesn't count. Kinda circular IMO.

Quote:
That's what you're not understanding. I've said that several times. We buy things on whether or not something is a good value. Tax is NOT part of that value because that's regulated by the government, NOT by the person selling the product nor is the tax avoidable. No matter what you buy, you will have to pay tax and it will be the same rate.


False. I can buy all the ingredients for a steak dinner at the grocery store and make my own dinner. Guess what? No sales tax. I order the exact same dinner in a restaurant, I'm paying the cost for the decor, the service, for someone else to cook my meal, and the tax on the whole meal cost *and* a tip.. When making the decision to eat at said restaurant, I'm going to assess whether those extra costs are worth it. I'm going to take into account the fact that I don't have to cook it, the meal may very well be higher quality than I could cook at home, the value of the environment for a social occasion, etc.

Tax is absolutely avoidable when it comes to food. You *only* pay tax on food when someone else prepares it for you. You only pay tips on food when someone else serves it too you. Those are the costs (some of them anyway) of those things. Pretending they don't matter is pretty darn silly.

Quote:
Furthermore, unless tips are already included, then they are completely optional. There is no law mandating that you pay 15%. If all you can afford to tip is 5%, then you tip 5%. Again, if that's the case, you probably shouldn't be eating out.


Sure. But I think you are grossly misunderstanding how people respond to things like higher costs for a meal.

Quote:
Read above. It's not about " a few bucks", if you're paying for something that you believe is a good value, but you can't afford the tax or a worthy tip, then you are probably spending above your budget.


Do you understand the concept of a budget? If a few bucks pushes you over your budget, you'll find something else to buy that is under your budget. That might be a lower cost item on the menu at the same restaurant, it might be a meal at a different restaurant, or it might mean you just choose not to eat out in the first place. Any/all of these represent a decrease in revenue to the restaurant owner. This is not freaking rocket science here.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
You're completely missing the point. It's not about "budget". It's about value. If I walk into a restaurant with $5k in my pocket, it doesn't mean that I don't care about the relative prices of the items on the menu. If I don't think that the steak at this restaurant is worth the $40 they're asking, I'm not going to order it.


Of course it's about value. That's what I keep saying. However, if the tax and tip on a fair value meal will affect your budget, then you are spending too much money.


I'll repeat my observation that you and I have completely different concepts of "budget". You seem to think budget means what you can afford. I think budget means what you are willing to pay. Smart people tend to set budgets for things that are well below what they can actually afford. They do this because if they don't, then they will always spend the maximum they can afford, and will never be able to save up any money.

This is why I said that anyone who budgets based on what he can afford will not be able to afford much.

Quote:
Does the reason why its overprice matter?


In the context of this discussion, if the reason is because the employer is paying the waitstaff a higher wage and expecting their customers to tip, then it absolutely does matter.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
And every single dollar involved in that calculation is involved in that calculation. Obviously, since tax and tip are relative to menu price, which number I'm using directly doesn't matter. But it does matter if I'm considering whether I want to eat out at a restaurant in the first place.


Unless it's your first time going to a restaurant, then you know the average meal range. I'm not going to go to a dine in restaurant with a $10 budget. Yes, you can buy something, but at some point, you would have to use the common sense factor. With a $10 budget, you would get more for your money at a fast food restaurant. That concept applies to other restaurants.


So what? Nothing you are babbling on about actually addresses what I'm saying. WTF? If the cost of the meal is more than you're willing to pay, then you wont pay it. Thus, if an increase in base pay for the waitstaff across the board reduces by even some small amount the number of people willing to pay for those meal, the employer will lose money. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#297 Dec 17 2012 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Elinda wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
There is an incredibly amusing statement somewhere in this thread if you happen to have access to certian admin tools. Something about talking to ones self, or some such. Well that and the whole not responding to admins thing which is amusing in its own right. Especially given i'm probably the admin in reference there.
You're such a tease cnut.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#298 Dec 17 2012 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
There's no sales tax in grocery stores in California...?
#299 Dec 17 2012 at 6:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,975 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Since I don't remember what it was you said that prompted my response, then no I don't realize that. Smiley: tongue


Yet, you continue to argue....

Your created a fallacy that the prices of the meals will HAVE to increase if you increase the waiter's wages. I countered that there are plenty of other ways to make up for that difference, to include increasing the price of the meals. You responded that was moronic.

Gbaji wrote:
Again. Only vaguely remember the options (perhaps if you were going to make an entire post about how I was wrong to disagree with something you said, you could have included the statement in question? Just a suggestion).


I quoted your response and my response. If you need further memory, then you can look at the post in question. I'm not going to quote the entire argument for you. This is just evidence that you were countering arguments that you didn't understand.

Gbaji wrote:
Im not sure what Papa John's selling point is. Great pizza at a great price? Something like that. You get that the point is to maximize profits for the company though, right? I mean, they wouldn't make "great pizza" if they didn't think they'd make more money doing so then making "crappy pizza". So coming in and saying that they could make up for paying their servers more by making better pizza is kinda moronic (ok, maybe I am starting to remember).


Ok, now stay with me. Papa John's phrase is "Better ingredients, Better pizza". "Better" is in reference to their competition. As I said, "mom and pop" restaurants typically have higher prices, but better quality food. As they get bigger, the quality usually decreases with cheaper ingredients. Papa Johns decided to go against the grain and continue to use better ingredients to cater to the crowd who are willing to pay more than their competition for better quality pizza.

"crappy pizza" uhhhhh.. have you not heard of "Little Ceasars"? That's their selling point. Why spend a lot of money on pizza and have to wait when you can pay $5 for a hot & ready pizza? That pizza is good for about 10 mins before it turns into cardboard. Other restaurants play the middle field. So, there are plenty of options other than raising your prices.

Gbaji wrote:
Uh... Okay. Maybe I have to hold your hand through each step of the logic. The reason they "maintain their servers" is so that they can "maintain sufficient quality of service for their customers".


You give employers too much credit. Do you think employers care about quality of service to solely please the customer or to ensure business to bring more money? I would agree that there are people who care more about their customers than their business, but when an employer is working monopolistically with steady customers, then there is no desire to fix something that isn't broken.

Gbaji wrote:
If my customers don't care about the quality of service, then there's no reason to pay more for my servers.


Yes, you are correct in this sentence; however, everything else you say is based on a slippery slope.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#300 Dec 17 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Belkira wrote:
There's no sales tax in grocery stores in California...?


On basic food? No. Non food items are taxed though. So a can of soup, bag of frozen veggies, rice, meat, etc are all not subject to sales tax. Some exceptions apply when you get into single serving bottles and cans of stuff (plus we have CRV on those kinds of things), but as a general rule buying food in a store and preparing it yourself is "rewarded" by you not paying taxes for it, while anything that is prepared is subject to sales tax.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#301 Dec 17 2012 at 6:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Your created a fallacy that the prices of the meals will HAVE to increase if you increase the waiter's wages.


If all other factors remain the same, then that is the truth, not a fallacy. I'm not sure why you can't grasp this.

Quote:
I countered that there are plenty of other ways to make up for that difference, to include increasing the price of the meals. You responded that was moronic.


Yes, and I stand by that.

Quote:
You give employers too much credit. Do you think employers care about quality of service to solely please the customer or to ensure business to bring more money?


Those are not mutually exclusive. They care about quality of service if it brings in more money. If they can make more profit by paying more for better decor, paying more for chefs who can make better food, and/or paying more for waitstaff who can provide better service, then they will do those things. If they can't, then they wont. Again, this is not rocket science.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
If my customers don't care about the quality of service, then there's no reason to pay more for my servers.


Yes, you are correct in this sentence; however, everything else you say is based on a slippery slope.


Huh? No, it's not. If my customers don't care about the quality of service, then I will not make more money by increasing it. Thus, paying more more experienced and better quality waitstaff will not generate any more profit. It will, however, increase the cost to my customers which might reduce my profits. I'm not arguing absolutes here. I'm not saying that it's always better to pay more or less or whatever. I'm saying that each business will make that decision based on their own conditions and customers.

But everything else staying the same if I pay my waitstaff more money, I will lose money. When people argue that waitstaff who currently receive a lower minimum wage (plus tips) should have their pay increased to the normal minimum wage (plus tips) we are not increasing the quality of the service or any other factor of the business. All we are doing is increasing the cost of the waitstaff. Thus, nothing else changes, so the owner will lose money. This is not a matter of speculation. It's a fact.


If you just want waitstaff to make more money, and restaurant owners to makes less money, then this is a great idea. But let's cut the crap about this being about fairness or whatever. It's about ends justifying the means, nothing else.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 58 All times are in CDT
Allegory, DSD, Elinda, Poldaran, Smasharoo, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (52)