Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Rule of ReciprocationFollow

#352 Dec 19 2012 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
I can honestly say that distance from my home via gas costs has never factored into a decision to eat out for me. I don't think it would even if I ate out on a regular basis, because then money wouldn't be as much of an issue. I know people that are that OCD about budgets exist, but that's just ridiculous.
____________________________
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.
#353 Dec 19 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Gbaji wrote:
If it costs $5 more to travel to one restaurant than another, it will affect your choice exactly the same as if the menu price is $5 higher, or the requirement for a tip increases the cost by $5. It's the same amount of money. It does not matter what the difference in total cost is exactly. That's not the point at all.


As I said.. if the restaurants are .3 miles away, you will not take the distance in consideration. You will effectively ignore that difference until it hits a limit in which you care.

Gbaji wrote:
It's just an arbitrary number to make the point that people make choices based on relative total cost versus perceived value.


In other words, you realize that there is a point where people don't think about the nickels and dimes.

If you want to go that route, then you would have to factor in oil changes and other car maintenance, because every time you go out, you are pushing your car closer to an oil change, new air filter, windshield fluid, etc. Not only that, if you change your clothes, now you're creating more laundry, which equals more water, more laundry detergent and electricity for both your washer and dryer. The stupidity can keep going on.

ORRRRRR you can be smart about it and segregate your car expenses from your power expenses from your eating expenses, realizing that those costs come with the territory of owning a car, having a washer/dryer and eating out.

You obviously have no concept of managing money.

Gbaji wrote:
You're arguing exceptions instead of the rule. The rule is that people take into account the total cost of two things when comparing their costs to other factors.


For the topic of this thread (giving a smaller tip because the price of the meal went up), I acknowledged that several times over. I even gave two exceptions, which are different tax rates and/or included tips. However, for the vast majority of the remaining time, a person at a restaurant will not let tax and a tip be a deterrent of getting the meal that they want if that meal is at a good value.


I'm not talking about in every scenario, only the topic of this thread! Once again, you are doing the exact thing that you accuse me of, arguing the exceptions as opposed to the normal.


Gbaji wrote:
You can contrive cases where the difference is so small that most people wont care, but that is just sidestepping the issue. Just because saving a buck isn't super important to you, doesn't mean that saving money isn't important to you. It's just a matter of how much.


Read above. My entire argument was not saying that no one at all ever cares about a few dollars, but in the case of the topic of this thread, people don't care about the few dollars towards taxes and tips at a restaurant when getting a good value on their desired meal.

There exist plenty of scenarios where that extra buck does matter, but taxes and tips in a dine in restaurant, where you are getting your desired meal at a good value, is not one of them (assuming you're already there). If the customer doesn't feel that they got a good deal for their meal, then they are more likely to let the price of the meal affect the tip that they are giving. If the customer believes that they got a good deal for their meal, then they are less likely to let the price of the meal affect the tip that they are giving.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 3:02am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#354 Dec 19 2012 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I can honestly say that distance from my home via gas costs has never factored into a decision to eat out for me.


I didn't say it factored into the decision to eat out, but the decision about where you eat out. Remember that my whole argument has been about choices. Restaurants compete with each other for customers, so every seemingly tiny little factor affects their bottom line.

You do this all the time, but it's so automatic that you don't think about it. If you want to go to McDonalds and there's one right down the street, and another 5 miles away, which one do you go to? The one right down the street, right? You don't think about it, but you're making that choice because it's closer and will therefore take less time (and cost less gas) to get there.

Quote:
I don't think it would even if I ate out on a regular basis, because then money wouldn't be as much of an issue. I know people that are that OCD about budgets exist, but that's just ridiculous.


Sure. But my original example was that all other factors are identical. It's not about what choices you would actually make, but to illustrate the point that money does factor in to the decision. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is closer than the other, you'll go to the closer one every single time. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is less expensive, you'll go to the less expensive restaurant every time.

You don't have to be OCD about budgets to not throw away money for no reason.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 5:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#355 Dec 19 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Almalieque wrote:
As I said.. if the restaurants are .3 miles away, you will not take the distance in consideration. You will effectively ignore that difference until it hits a limit in which you care.


Really? So you would drive even one extra block to go to an identical restaurant to eat? I'm serious. Let's test this by eliminating all other factors.

Assume two absolutely identical restaurants. One is 1 mile away, the other is .3 miles further away down the same road. You have to drive past the first to get to the second. Assume every other thing is identical. You'd never go to the one .3 miles further, would you? That extra third of a mile makes all the difference for your decision in that case.

Contrived? Sure. But it's not about real world cases, but to get you to grasp the concept itself. That's proving far harder than I though it would be though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#356 Dec 19 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Read above. My entire argument was not saying that no one at all ever cares about a few dollars, but in the case of the topic of this thread, people don't care about the few dollars towards taxes and tips at a restaurant when getting a good value on their desired meal.


They do if they can get the exact same desired meal for a few bucks cheaper. I'm honestly shocked that you can't seem to grasp this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#357 Dec 19 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I didn't say it factored into the decision to eat out, but the decision about where you eat out


Well then.. I guess we found the disconnect.

This debate was about rather or not waiters should get paid minimum wage. Your counter was the fallacy that paying them min. wage means higher sales prices which means less tips/business. My counter was that as long as the customer feels that they are getting a good value, then the waiter's tip will not be affected nor will the sales of the said meal decrease.

Gbaji wrote:
Remember that my whole argument has been about choices. Restaurants compete with each other for customers, so every seemingly tiny little factor affects their bottom line.


Then you were arguing about something completely irrelevant to the topic. As, we're talking about waiters and how your management affects their pay.

Gbaji wrote:
You do this all the time, but it's so automatic that you don't think about it. If you want to go to McDonalds and there's one right down the street, and another 5 miles away, which one do you go to? The one right down the street, right? You don't think about it, but you're making that choice because it's closer and will therefore take less time (and cost less gas) to get there.


Which has nothing to do with rather or not a customer will allow the tax/tip deter them from their order. Which is the topic of the discussion. There are times where that few cents make a difference, this isn't one of them.

Gbaji wrote:
Sure. But my original example was that all other factors are identical. It's not about what choices you would actually make, but to illustrate the point that money does factor in to the decision. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is closer than the other, you'll go to the closer one every single time. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is less expensive, you'll go to the less expensive restaurant every time.


We're just discussing two completely scenarios.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#358 Dec 19 2012 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Really? So you would drive even one extra block to go to an identical restaurant to eat? I'm serious. Let's test this by eliminating all other factors.

Assume two absolutely identical restaurants. One is 1 mile away, the other is .3 miles further away down the same road. You have to drive past the first to get to the second. Assume every other thing is identical. You'd never go to the one .3 miles further, would you? That extra third of a mile makes all the difference for your decision in that case.

Contrived? Sure. But it's not about real world cases, but to get you to grasp the concept itself. That's proving far harder than I though it would be though.


If you want to go that route, then you would have to factor in oil changes and other car maintenance, because every time you go out, you are pushing your car closer to an oil change, new air filter, windshield fluid, etc. Not only that, if you change your clothes, now you're creating more laundry, which equals more water, more laundry detergent and electricity for both your washer and dryer. The stupidity can keep going on.

ORRRRRR you can be smart about it and segregate your car expenses from your power expenses from your eating expenses, realizing that those costs come with the territory of owning a car, having a washer/dryer and eating out.

My entire argument was not saying that no one at all ever cares about a few dollars, but in the case of the topic of this thread, people don't care about the few dollars towards taxes and tips at a restaurant when getting a good value on their desired meal.

There exist plenty of scenarios where that extra buck does matter, but taxes and tips in a dine in restaurant, where you are getting your desired meal at a good value, is not one of them (assuming you're already there). If the customer doesn't feel that they got a good deal for their meal, then they are more likely to let the price of the meal affect the tip that they are giving. If the customer believes that they got a good deal for their meal, then they are less likely to let the price of the meal affect the tip that they are giving.

Gbaji wrote:

They do if they can get the exact same desired meal for a few bucks cheaper. I'm honestly shocked that you can't seem to grasp this.


See Post 357...



Edited, Dec 20th 2012 3:48am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#359 Dec 19 2012 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm honestly shocked that you can't seem to grasp this.
Liar.
____________________________
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

#360 Dec 19 2012 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I can honestly say that distance from my home via gas costs has never factored into a decision to eat out for me. I don't think it would even if I ate out on a regular basis, because then money wouldn't be as much of an issue. I know people that are that OCD about budgets exist, but that's just ridiculous.
It's factored into things for me before, though not in a direct, calculating way. I've never calculated gas costs and said, "that's $2 above budget!" but I've certainly chosen restaurants based on proximity when money is tighter.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the 'States, but where I am, there's no shortage of most kinds of restaurants, and so I may choose an inferior place based on proximity, if it'll save me a longer trip when I don't want to put gas in the car. In my case, gas mileage is typically not thought of in terms of dollars per mile, but in terms of "how long can I go before I have to put $20 in the tank". So, I'm more likely to travel farther for food immediately after I've put gas in the car than when I'm closer to E. I know it's relatively silly, but it does play a role in my decisions.
____________________________
Banh
#361 Dec 19 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Spoon wrote:
It's factored into things for me before, though not in a direct, calculating way. I've never calculated gas costs and said, "that's $2 above budget!" but I've certainly chosen restaurants based on proximity when money is tighter.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the 'States, but where I am, there's no shortage of most kinds of restaurants, and so I may choose an inferior place based on proximity, if it'll save me a longer trip when I don't want to put gas in the car. In my case, gas mileage is typically not thought of in terms of dollars per mile, but in terms of "how long can I go before I have to put $20 in the tank". So, I'm more likely to travel farther for food immediately after I've put gas in the car than when I'm closer to E. I know it's relatively silly, but it does play a role in my decisions.


But the question is, how and how much does that factor in your order when you arrive to your destination?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#362 Dec 19 2012 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
Only decisions made after arriving at a restaurant factor into your meal?
____________________________
Banh
#363 Dec 19 2012 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I didn't say it factored into the decision to eat out, but the decision about where you eat out


Well then.. I guess we found the disconnect.

This debate was about rather or not waiters should get paid minimum wage. Your counter was the fallacy that paying them min. wage means higher sales prices which means less tips/business. My counter was that as long as the customer feels that they are getting a good value, then the waiter's tip will not be affected nor will the sales of the said meal decrease.


First off. Fixed your statement about what I said. I never said that higher salary for waitstaff would result in lower tips. I've already corrected you on this. I said that higher salary would result in higher menu prices and that this would affect business at the restaurant. Where I think you got confused is that I also made the argument that it was ok to pay a lower salary to waitstaff because the business was effectively paying the waitstaff with tips instead. Thus the business could offset the increased cost to the customer because of the tip by decreasing the salary thus reducing the menu price. That's where we went off on the tangent of you insisting that tips don't matter to the business.


Your counter about "good value" is irrelevant because "good value" is determined by the consumer by comparing the price to the product and service received. If two meals are of identical quality and one costs less than the other, then that one is a better value. Consumers will tend to buy that one more than the other, and that business will do better as a result. At the risk of repeating myself yet again, this is nothing more than the standard demand curve effect we all learned in econ 101.


Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Remember that my whole argument has been about choices. Restaurants compete with each other for customers, so every seemingly tiny little factor affects their bottom line.


Then you were arguing about something completely irrelevant to the topic. As, we're talking about waiters and how your management affects their pay.


Again. Correcting you. I'm not even sure how "how your management affects their pay" fits into this topic at all.

What I said is relevant because their pay affects the cost passed on to the consumer, which in turn affects the consumer's choice as to where to go to eat.

Quote:
Which has nothing to do with rather or not a customer will allow the tax/tip deter them from their order. Which is the topic of the discussion. There are times where that few cents make a difference, this isn't one of them.


You're obsessing over the tax/tip thing. My point is that every single thing that adds to the total cost of the meal affects the demand curve for the meal. Period. It does not matter how the bill is structured, if the same meal costs more at one place than another, people will tend to eat at the less expensive place. You are missing the forest for the trees.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Sure. But my original example was that all other factors are identical. It's not about what choices you would actually make, but to illustrate the point that money does factor in to the decision. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is closer than the other, you'll go to the closer one every single time. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is less expensive, you'll go to the less expensive restaurant every time.


We're just discussing two completely scenarios.


Nope. It's the same thing I've been saying all along. Anything which increases the cost to the consumer affects the consumer's choices. So paying waitstaff a higher salary will affect consumer choices.

My starting argument was that it's ok to pay waitstaff a lower minimum wage because this is offset by tips so they don't actually earn less than minimum wage. You argued that the tips shouldn't count and the employer should pay the full wage anyway. Everything after that point was me trying to get you to understand that the tips count towards the demand of the meal, and thus since those employee receive tips they "cost" the employer just as surely as if he'd paid them out of his pocket.

If you are willing to pay $40 for a meal total (including tip) then you don't care if that $40 was charged directly to you on the bill, with the waitstaff being paid from that money, or the bill was $35 plus a $5 tip paid directly to the waitstaff. It's the exact same relative value either way. If you decide that the meal isn't worth $40, it also should not matter whether it's a single $40 bill with no tip, or a $35 bill and a $5 tip. You're going to decide if the total value of the food, decor, service, etc is worth $40.

That's why I keep saying that one cost is the same as another. Your claim that the tip is considered separately doesn't make sense at all. If you're in a country where tipping is not the custom (let's pretend they refuse to allow you to tip), and you look at the menu and a meal costs $40 and you decide it's not worth that much, are you saying that if you had the exact same meal and service in the US, but the price was $35 and you're expected to pay a $5 tip, that suddenly you'd be willing to pay that price because at $35 it was a good value, and the tip doesn't count? If so, you're more nutty than I thought.

Whether the waitstaff is paid a full normal wage from their employer and tips aren't a factor, or whether the waitstaff is paid a lower wage but tips are expected, should not make any difference. They're just two different ways of passing the money the customer is paying to the waitstaff. It does not matter if the employer simply charges you a higher price on the menu and hands the money in the form of pay to the waiter, or charges less and expect you to tip the difference. The cost is the same to the customer and the effect on customer demand is the same.

You seriously still don't get this?

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 7:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#364 Dec 19 2012 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Really? So you would drive even one extra block to go to an identical restaurant to eat? I'm serious. Let's test this by eliminating all other factors.

Assume two absolutely identical restaurants. One is 1 mile away, the other is .3 miles further away down the same road. You have to drive past the first to get to the second. Assume every other thing is identical. You'd never go to the one .3 miles further, would you? That extra third of a mile makes all the difference for your decision in that case.

Contrived? Sure. But it's not about real world cases, but to get you to grasp the concept itself. That's proving far harder than I though it would be though.


If you want to go that route, then you would have to factor in oil changes and other car maintenance, because every time you go out, you are pushing your car closer to an oil change, new air filter, windshield fluid, etc. Not only that, if you change your clothes, now you're creating more laundry, which equals more water, more laundry detergent and electricity for both your washer and dryer.


No, I don't have to do that. I just have to know if one restaurant is father than the other, all cost factors related to getting there will be higher. I don't need to calculate how much higher. I only need to know they are higher. In exactly the same way I don't need to precisely calculate how much it will hurt to hit myself over the head with a 2x4 versus if I don't to know I'm better off not hitting myself in the head with a 2x4. Why do you even remotely think that's a counter argument?

Quote:
ORRRRRR you can be smart about it and segregate your car expenses from your power expenses from your eating expenses, realizing that those costs come with the territory of owning a car, having a washer/dryer and eating out.


Again, it doesn't matter. All I need to know is that everything else staying the same, I should go to the restaurant that's closer. Only a really obsessive person would need to calculate the exact difference before making that decision. It's something that is so obvious and automatic that no one needs to think about it.

Quote:
My entire argument was not saying that no one at all ever cares about a few dollars, but in the case of the topic of this thread, people don't care about the few dollars towards taxes and tips at a restaurant when getting a good value on their desired meal.


They do if they can get a better value somewhere else. And stop obsessing over just tax and tip. It's the total cost that matters. Anything that affects that total cost affects the purchasing decision (by sane customers anyway).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#365 Dec 19 2012 at 9:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm honestly shocked that you can't seem to grasp this.
Liar.


Ok. Just a little bit though. How about "I'm shocked that there exists someone in the universe who can't seem to grasp this". Better?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#366 Dec 19 2012 at 9:49 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Only decisions made after arriving at a restaurant factor into your meal?


In Alma's world, apparently no one decides where to go to eat based on the relative cost versus quality/distance/service/whatever. Bizarre, but there you have it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#367 Dec 19 2012 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I can honestly say that distance from my home via gas costs has never factored into a decision to eat out for me.


I didn't say it factored into the decision to eat out, but the decision about where you eat out. Remember that my whole argument has been about choices. Restaurants compete with each other for customers, so every seemingly tiny little factor affects their bottom line.

Well no sh*t. Your argument was not difficult to comprehend. As per the McDonalds thing, obviously I am going to go to the McDonalds that is closer over the one that is farther away. They serve the same **** food. I was thinking you meant something more along the lines of going to the local Italian restaurant that was just down the street from where I used to live when I was in Eugene, versus driving 20 minutes to the Olive Garden. The cost of the gas never factored into that decision for me. I would normally choose Olive Garden because I liked their food better. The prices were pretty close to equal, so that wasn't really a factor.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think it would even if I ate out on a regular basis, because then money wouldn't be as much of an issue. I know people that are that OCD about budgets exist, but that's just ridiculous.


Sure. But my original example was that all other factors are identical. It's not about what choices you would actually make, but to illustrate the point that money does factor in to the decision. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is closer than the other, you'll go to the closer one every single time. If everything else is the same, but one restaurant is less expensive, you'll go to the less expensive restaurant every time.

You don't have to be OCD about budgets to not throw away money for no reason.

For me, it would depend on what kind of food I was in the mood for. Again, if I had a hankering for Italian food, I would choose to go to the Olive Garden that was 20 minutes away, over the Thai restaurant that was only 10 minutes away. Wouldn't matter that the Thai restaurant is closer and quite a bit cheaper. When I eat out, I do it because there's a specific type of food I'm in the mood for and I don't want to cook it. Sure, I make sure I'm not going to OD my bank account to go eat, but there's not a whole lot of thought into saving money aside from that. So... either I'm weird or you're wrong.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 9:29pm by PigtailsOfDoom
____________________________
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.
#368 Dec 19 2012 at 10:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Quote:
This debate was about rather or not waiters should get paid minimum wage.


That's the debate?? Why the **** would servers (they're not waiters) take a pay cut??
#369 Dec 20 2012 at 4:42 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,977 posts
This thread is even dumber than most of the **** marriage threads.
____________________________
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.
#370 Dec 20 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,589 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
This thread is even dumber than most of the **** marriage threads.


We're not even 400 posts in, it still has plenty of time to morph into one of those. Improvement is on the horizon, stay optimistic! Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#371 Dec 21 2012 at 9:13 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Only decisions made after arriving at a restaurant factor into your meal?

Uh.. no, but the premise of this argument is if a person will buy their desired meal if there were a price increase small enough to wear the customer believed it was still a value but high enough to where it placed you over you the eating budget that night.

I've argued several times now that a person who knows how to manage their money would stay at home after factoring in all of the factors PRIOR to arriving to that restaurant IF it were a deal breaker. Any person who is that **** about a few extra dollars spent wouldn't just show up at a restaurant, not knowing the prices. Therefore, if they arrive to the restaurant and notices a price increase as stated above, they would just pay it because the customer still believes that they are getting a good deal. Only in the scenario where the customer believes that s/he is not getting a good deal is when the customer might second guess their choice and/or tip.

Nadenu wrote:
Quote:
This debate was about rather or not waiters should get paid minimum wage.


That's the debate?? Why the **** would servers (they're not waiters) take a pay cut??


HTF is making more money a paycut?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#372 Dec 21 2012 at 10:29 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Gbaji wrote:
First off. Fixed your statement about what I said. I never said that higher salary for waitstaff would result in lower tips. I've already corrected you on this. I said that higher salary would result in higher menu prices and that this would affect business at the restaurant. Where I think you got confused is that I also made the argument that it was ok to pay a lower salary to waitstaff because the business was effectively paying the waitstaff with tips instead. Thus the business could offset the increased cost to the customer because of the tip by decreasing the salary thus reducing the menu price. That's where we went off on the tangent of you insisting that tips don't matter to the business.


See post 89. You can't have it both ways
You said the following:

1. Customers think TOTAL cost. Regardless if it is $16/$4 or $20/0. The customer will only pay $20
2. In order for an employer to pay their staff full wages, they would have to charge the meal $24 to include the $4 tip
3. Since customers wont pay $24, employers will lose business.

So, according to your logic, employers MUST keep their meals below $16 (example) to allow for the $4 tip, else, the customer will not pay the $4 tip, because the customer thinks in total cost ($20). This is opposed to any logical person with a sense of money managing who segregates the value of the food from the tip of the service, since the service is not part of the food, not necessary and at your discretion.

The second one is a complete fallacy as the tip is based on service, a profitable business may not have to make any changes to make profit and there are several other methods of increasing revenue.

Gbaji wrote:


Your counter about "good value" is irrelevant because "good value" is determined by the consumer by comparing the price to the product and service received. If two meals are of identical quality and one costs less than the other, then that one is a better value. Consumers will tend to buy that one more than the other, and that business will do better as a result. At the risk of repeating myself yet again, this is nothing more than the standard demand curve effect we all learned in econ 101.


I never argued with the correction. Why do you think gratuity is added separately to catering if the value of the food involved encompasses the service. You do realize that cooking the food and serving the food are two different tasks done by two different people working for two different wages right? You do realize in restaurants now, you don't have to have the service to get food?

Do you tip the pizza driver when you order take out?

Gbaji wrote:
Again. Correcting you. I'm not even sure how "how your management affects their pay" fits into this topic at all.

What I said is relevant because their pay affects the cost passed on to the consumer, which in turn affects the consumer's choice as to where to go to eat.


Employer = management. The disconnect is that you have gone so far off tangent that you're arguing something completely different. I'm specifically referring to one scenario and one scenario only. You are talking conceptually over all.

Gbaji wrote:
You're obsessing over the tax/tip thing. My point is that every single thing that adds to the total cost of the meal affects the demand curve for the meal. Period. It does not matter how the bill is structured, if the same meal costs more at one place than another, people will tend to eat at the less expensive place. You are missing the forest for the trees.


I'm not comparing restaurants. I'm not talking conceptually. I'm talking specifically about one scenario in which you have totally gotten off mark. In any case, tips are not part of the bill as it is optional. Just because you decided to tip $5 from a $12 meal doesn't mean that it cost more than a $14 meal with a $2 tip. the comparison is $12 to $14, not $17 to $16.

Once again, only if the tip was added into the bill can you make that claim.

Gbaji wrote:
Nope. It's the same thing I've been saying all along.

We're just discussing two completely scenarios. I'm specifically talking about one scenario, not universally.

Quote:
You argued that the tips shouldn't count and the employer should pay the full wage anyway.

So, if a man filled with the Christmas spirit tips a person $1k, do you adjust their wages?

Gbaji wrote:

If you are willing to pay $40 for a meal total (including tip) then you don't care if that $40 was charged directly to you on the bill, with the waitstaff being paid from that money, or the bill was $35 plus a $5 tip paid directly to the waitstaff. It's the exact same relative value either way. If you decide that the meal isn't worth $40, it also should not matter whether it's a single $40 bill with no tip, or a $35 bill and a $5 tip. You're going to decide if the total value of the food, decor, service, etc is worth $40.


No logical person who knows how to manage money thinks like that. I'm not going to pay more for a meal than what its worth just because it falls within my budget nor will I tip a waiter more than s/he deserves because it falls within my budget.

If your budget for a car is $10k, would you spend exactly $10k for a car that's only worth $4k? So, why should I do that with food?

Gbaji wrote:
but the price was $35 and you're expected to pay a $5 tip, that suddenly you'd be willing to pay that price because at $35 it was a good value, and the tip doesn't count? If so, you're more nutty than I thought.


Given the fact that I'm not obligated to pay $5 no matter how much I'm "expected" to pay, yes I would say that is a good value.
1. 35 < 40, the actual prices of the meals
2. I can choose to tip less than $5, which would be less than $40.

Gbaji wrote:

Whether the waitstaff is paid a full normal wage from their employer and tips aren't a factor, or whether the waitstaff is paid a lower wage but tips are expected, should not make any difference


Your fallacy is that it has to be one or the other.

Quote:
You seriously still don't get this?


This is really simple.....

AS LONG AS THE CONSUMER THINKS S/HE IS GETTING A GOOD DEAL, THAN S/HE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY FOR THE MEAL AND TIP ACCORDINGLY. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU INCREASE YOUR PRICES.


As an employer, you can't factor in everyone's "cost limits", because you don't know them. You don't know what those numbers and therefore you can't plan against them. The only thing you can go off of is the price range of your meals. So, therefore, as long as your meals stay within those prices ranges, it is safe to assume that people will continue to pay for them. Just because you decided to order two appetizers, two desserts, non-refillable drinks and decided not to order the 20 oz steak because it would put you over your personal budget doesn't mean that any of those items are outside the targeted price range and/or overpriced. So, therefore an employer can only factor in the value prices of their meals.

Employers don't know how much gas you have to use to get there, so they can't plan against it. Employers also don't know how much you are willing to tip either. The only known factor is the value of the meals.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#373 Dec 21 2012 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
AS LONG AS THE CONSUMER THINKS S/HE IS GETTING A GOOD DEAL, THAN S/HE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY FOR THE MEAL AND TIP ACCORDINGLY. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU INCREASE YOUR PRICES.
I think the point is that if you raise your prices, the consumer might not thing it's a good deal anymore.
____________________________
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
#374 Dec 21 2012 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I wish I could board this thread up and set it on fire with everyone in it.

Edited, Dec 21st 2012 10:40am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#375 Dec 21 2012 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,589 posts
It's like a slinky falling down an 'up' escalator.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#376 Dec 21 2012 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
It's ok, Alma doesn't respond to me unless someone else quotes it.
____________________________
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
#377 Dec 21 2012 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
It's like a slinky falling down an 'up' escalator.

You've seen that car insurance commercial, too, eh?
#378 Dec 21 2012 at 3:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No, I don't have to do that. I just have to know if one restaurant is father than the other, all cost factors related to getting there will be higher. I don't need to calculate how much higher. I only need to know they are higher. In exactly the same way I don't need to precisely calculate how much it will hurt to hit myself over the head with a 2x4 versus if I don't to know I'm better off not hitting myself in the head with a 2x4. Why do you even remotely think that's a counter argument?


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

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

Gbaji wrote:
Again, it doesn't matter. All I need to know is that everything else staying the same, I should go to the restaurant that's closer. Only a really obsessive person would need to calculate the exact difference before making that decision. It's something that is so obvious and automatic that no one needs to think about it.


Read above. Two completely different scenarios.

Gbaji wrote:
They do if they can get a better value somewhere else. And stop obsessing over just tax and tip. It's the total cost that matters. Anything that affects that total cost affects the purchasing decision (by sane customers anyway).

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

I'm biased against statistics
#379 Dec 21 2012 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Quote:
AS LONG AS THE CONSUMER THINKS S/HE IS GETTING A GOOD DEAL, THAN S/HE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY FOR THE MEAL AND TIP ACCORDINGLY. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU INCREASE YOUR PRICES.
I think the point is that if you raise your prices, the consumer might not think it's a good deal anymore.
____________________________
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

#380 Dec 21 2012 at 6:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You said the following:

1. Customers think TOTAL cost. Regardless if it is $16/$4 or $20/0. The customer will only pay $20
2. In order for an employer to pay their staff full wages, they would have to charge the meal $24 to include the $4 tip
3. Since customers wont pay $24, employers will lose business.


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

Quote:
So, according to your logic, employers MUST keep their meals below $16 (example) to allow for the $4 tip, else, the customer will not pay the $4 tip, because the customer thinks in total cost ($20).


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

Quote:
This is opposed to any logical person with a sense of money managing who segregates the value of the food from the tip of the service, since the service is not part of the food, not necessary and at your discretion.


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

Quote:
The second one is a complete fallacy as the tip is based on service, a profitable business may not have to make any changes to make profit and there are several other methods of increasing revenue.


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

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

Quote:
Do you tip the pizza driver when you order take out?


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

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

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

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

Quote:
Once again, only if the tip was added into the bill can you make that claim.


Yeah. Welcome to the real world.

Quote:
Quote:
You argued that the tips shouldn't count and the employer should pay the full wage anyway.

So, if a man filled with the Christmas spirit tips a person $1k, do you adjust their wages?


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

Quote:
AS LONG AS THE CONSUMER THINKS S/HE IS GETTING A GOOD DEAL, THAN S/HE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY FOR THE MEAL AND TIP ACCORDINGLY. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU INCREASE YOUR PRICES.[/b][/u]


Um... What everyone else has said.

Quote:
As an employer, you can't factor in everyone's "cost limits", because you don't know them.


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

Quote:
You don't know what those numbers and therefore you can't plan against them. The only thing you can go off of is the price range of your meals. So, therefore, as long as your meals stay within those prices ranges, it is safe to assume that people will continue to pay for them.


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

Quote:
Just because you decided to order two appetizers, two desserts, non-refillable drinks and decided not to order the 20 oz steak because it would put you over your personal budget doesn't mean that any of those items are outside the targeted price range and/or overpriced. So, therefore an employer can only factor in the value prices of their meals.


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

Quote:
Employers don't know how much gas you have to use to get there, so they can't plan against it.


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

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

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

Do you know anything at all about business?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#381 Dec 21 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Once again, we're arguing two completely different things. I'm not comparing two restaurants. This is why you continually fail to comprehend.


Oh. I comprehend it. I get that *you* are not comparing two restaurant. But, as I've repeatedly argued, that's a mistake. The restaurant owners primary motivation for setting the prices he does, and making the spending decisions he does is competition.

Quote:
Your choices are either go out and eat or stay at home.


Sure. But you're missing the next choice that happens once someone decides to eat out. The restaurant is competing with the other restaurants in the area. People tend to either decide to eat out, or not to eat out. If they decide to eat out, then they decide where to eat out. That choice is the one that the restaurant owner is incredibly conscious of. He wants you to choose to eat at his restaurant. Therefore, he will make the food/decor/service appear as appealing as possible relative to the cost.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Again, it doesn't matter. All I need to know is that everything else staying the same, I should go to the restaurant that's closer. Only a really obsessive person would need to calculate the exact difference before making that decision. It's something that is so obvious and automatic that no one needs to think about it.


Read above. Two completely different scenarios.


Because you've chosen to completely change the subject. We're talking about why a restaurant owner might care about the total cost to his customer (including tip) when making a business decision (like how much base salary to pay his waitstaff). Whether other restaurants do the same thing, and how much that affects the cost of their meals relative to his is a massive factor.

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


Um... Customers don't make decisions like that. Even if you consider paying $300 for a Playstation a "good deal", if the store next door is selling them for $200, that is a "better deal". You will buy it from that store instead, right? No sane person would say "Well, $300 is an acceptable price for a Playstation" and pony up the extra money. That's just throwing money away for no reason.

So no. The customer will not be willing to pay for both. If one is a better deal than the other, he'll go to the place with the better deal.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#382 Dec 21 2012 at 9:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
I'm not comparing restaurants. I'm not talking conceptually. I'm talking specifically about one scenario in which you have totally gotten off mark. In any case, tips are not part of the bill as it is optional. Just because you decided to tip $5 from a $12 meal doesn't mean that it cost more than a $14 meal with a $2 tip. the comparison is $12 to $14, not $17 to $16.


Gbaji wrote:
Correct.


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

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

Gbaji wrote:
You were SOOOOOOOOO close. I am not saying that the customer will not pay the tip. I have never said that.


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

Seriously, it's not that complicated to grasp.

Gbaji wrote:
It makes no sense


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

Gbaji wrote:
So you're claiming that that waiters tip is completely independent of the food?


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

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

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

Gbaji wrote:
Not as much as I tip a waiter. Want to know why? Because the pizza driver is a full wage employee of the business.


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

Gbaji wrote:

Yeah. Welcome to the real world.


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

Gbaji wrote:

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


And that's the problem.

Gbaji wrote:

Um... What everyone else has said.

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

Gbaji wrote:
Correct, but irrelevant.

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

Gbaji wrote:
Only if the meals are worth the price. You can't just declare a price range of $20-$30 for your meals, and then put dog food on the table and expect people to go to your restaurant.


I thought that was understood, but yes.

Gbaji wrote:
The food and service and decor has to justify that price range you are charging. If it doesn't, you will lose business.


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

Gbaji wrote:
You have the most muddled thinking I've ever encountered.


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

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


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

[quote=Gbaji]

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

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



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

I'm biased against statistics
#383 Dec 21 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Gbaji wrote:


Oh. I comprehend it. I get that *you* are not comparing two restaurant. But, as I've repeatedly argued, that's a mistake. The restaurant owners primary motivation for setting the prices he does, and making the spending decisions he does is competition.


How is it a mistake if it's completely irrelevant to the discussion? The discussion is having to pay the wait staff min. wage. Your competition will have to do the same thing, so assuming that your competition will make the same adjustments, it is irrelevant.

Gbaji wrote:
Sure.


We agree. My discussion isn't about competition.

Gbaji wrote:
Because you've chosen to completely change the subject.


Hasn't changed at all. My fault was me replying to your irrelevant comments.

Gbaji wrote:
The customer will not be willing to pay for both. If one is a better deal than the other, he'll go to the place with the better deal.

That's WTF I said. Whichever is the better deal will become the "good deal", else it wouldn't be a good deal. People don't consider deals with such obvious differences both "good deals". Maybe at first as a shock, but generally no.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#384 Dec 21 2012 at 10:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Smiley: banghead
#385 Dec 22 2012 at 12:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Nadenu wrote:
Smiley: banghead

I'm fascinated by this thread, personally. The one time gbaji wants to argue here and uses clear thought and good sense in the process he's arguing with...Alma.
____________________________
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.
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#386 Dec 22 2012 at 7:38 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Smiley: banghead

I'm fascinated by this thread, personally. The one time gbaji wants to argue here and uses clear thought and good sense in the process he's arguing with...Alma.


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

I'm biased against statistics
#387 Dec 22 2012 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Smiley: banghead

I'm fascinated by this thread, personally. The one time gbaji wants to argue here and uses clear thought and good sense in the process he's arguing with...Alma.


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

Smiley: banghead

Edited, Dec 22nd 2012 9:25am by Nadenu
#388 Dec 22 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Smiley: banghead
Stop quoting him. Smiley: mad
____________________________
Banh
#389 Dec 22 2012 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Smiley: banghead
Stop quoting him. Smiley: mad

Smiley: bah

Sorry.
#390 Dec 22 2012 at 10:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
.
Screenshot
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#391 Dec 22 2012 at 10:56 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,530 posts
What Joph said!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#392 Dec 22 2012 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
485 posts
Joph's post gave me an idea how we can settle this between Gbaji and Alma. Just give both of them a knife and ask them one simple question:
"Who's special?"
Win-win!
#393 Dec 27 2012 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Alma wouldn't understand the question, and Gbaji would write 2000 words about how he doesn't understand agree with the definition of simple.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#394 Dec 27 2012 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,776 posts
This debate is actually relevant to me right now. Husband and I trying to figure out which steak house we shall celebrate my birthday. A local family-owned steakhouse we frequent, Ruth's Chris or Donovan's. The family restaurant is closest. Donovan's is further and Ruth's Chris is the furthest. We could go to different Ruth's Chris or Donovan's in downtown San Diego, but Ray doesn't want to deal with the parking costs and issues in downtown and would rather go to other areas of the city for the steakhouse. We're already planning to spend over half a grand for dinner. At this point, Ray is actually figuring in the commute because he doesn't want to be so full that the drive home is agony for him. Smiley: lol
#395 Dec 27 2012 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
Thumbelyna wrote:
We're already planning to spend over half a grand for dinner.
For that much, you could probably just hire a personal chef to come cook you some steaks in your own home. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Banh
#396 Dec 28 2012 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,776 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Thumbelyna wrote:
We're already planning to spend over half a grand for dinner.
For that much, you could probably just hire a personal chef to come cook you some steaks in your own home. Smiley: lol


We've thought about that. But if that was the case, I'd be more or less looking at the house and thinking I'd need to clean up. Putting on a nice outfit with the lingerie underneath and heading out with the husband is needed at times.
#397 Dec 30 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Alma wouldn't understand the question, and Gbaji would write 2000 words about how he doesn't understand agree with the definition of simple.


The irony of it all is that you fall in the same category of ridicule.

With all of the "Fiscal Cliff" talk going on, this concept becomes even more lucid. If an employer MUST increase their prices due to mandatory min. wage laws, the solution will be made up of compromises similar to the propositions for the fiscal cliff solutions.

The employer wouldn't just add 15% to every meal to make up for the difference, but will look at the bigger financial picture with spending cuts and price increases (i.e. spending cuts and tax increases). Employers will spend less on things that the customers care the least about (i.e. condiments, silverware, etc.) with slight increases on other meals. However, these increases will not cause the final prices to exceed the average price range of the restaurant. If done correctly, the price increase should be minimal at most.

Since every restaurant will have to do the same and people tend to have several budgets, i.e. a "food budget", as opposed to just one massive spending budget, people will continue to pay for your meals as long as they are good values and/or consistent with the price range of the restaurant. In other words, there is no reason why a waiter can't be paid min. wage and have affordable meal prices.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#398 Dec 30 2012 at 9:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Alma wouldn't understand the question, and Gbaji would write 2000 words about how he doesn't understand agree with the definition of simple.


The irony of it all is that you fall in the same category of ridicule.

With all of the "Fiscal Cliff" talk going on, this concept becomes even more lucid. If an employer MUST increase their prices due to mandatory min. wage laws, the solution will be made up of compromises similar to the propositions for the fiscal cliff solutions.

The employer wouldn't just add 15% to every meal to make up for the difference, but will look at the bigger financial picture with spending cuts and price increases (i.e. spending cuts and tax increases). Employers will spend less on things that the customers care the least about (i.e. condiments, silverware, etc.) with slight increases on other meals. However, these increases will not cause the final prices to exceed the average price range of the restaurant. If done correctly, the price increase should be minimal at most.

Since every restaurant will have to do the same and people tend to have several budgets, i.e. a "food budget", as opposed to just one massive spending budget, people will continue to pay for your meals as long as they are good values and/or consistent with the price range of the restaurant. In other words, there is no reason why a waiter can't be paid min. wage and have affordable meal prices.


Check, and mate.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#399 Dec 30 2012 at 10:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
TLW wrote:
Check, and mate.

'Twas a good game. Maybe next time champ!



Edited, Dec 31st 2012 6:33am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#400 Dec 31 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Almalieque wrote:
TLW wrote:
Check, and mate.

'Twas a good game. Maybe next time champ!


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


#401 Dec 31 2012 at 1:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Who let Alma and Gbaji quote each other...
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 36 All times are in CDT
Kastigir, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (34)