Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Rule of ReciprocationFollow

#152 Dec 06 2012 at 6:47 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#153 Dec 06 2012 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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
#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
****
9,526 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.


#157 Dec 06 2012 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
*****
13,221 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
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#159 Dec 06 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 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.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#160 Dec 06 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.

#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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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
******
34,851 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. ****, 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 **** 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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
*****
16,299 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 ******** of money.

Now go clean your toy gun or something.
#170 Dec 06 2012 at 11:15 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
******
49,650 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#175 Dec 07 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#176 Dec 07 2012 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I spoke to Alma. I had a moment of weakness. I'm sorry.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 103 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (103)