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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.