6 ms·

Larger wages will be put ultimately on consumer. Now you have two Amazon's. There is absolutely no difference between them. Goods are ten percent pricier in se

Larger wages will be put ultimately on consumer. Now you have two Amazon's. There is absolutely no difference between them. Goods are ten percent pricier in second one, but employees are paid more (they appreciate tips anyway). Which company would you buy from? Which company would you invest in?

IanSanders 8y ago
Which company should you buy from? Which company should you invest in? Everyone is responsible here. Problem is, more expensive doesn't necessarily translate to "more ethical".
- dazc 8y ago
  Assuming there is an ethical choice available?
  - IanSanders 8y ago
    Exactly. I read @hamilyon2's comment that majority would not pick the ethical choice, my point was that even if "ethical consumption" becomes widespread enough, it would eventually get abused and end up not much more ethical in the end. Just like organic-labeled products which are not always more organic than non-organic ones.
cjslep 8y ago
And poverty level wages plus tips are also passed onto the consumer in the form of increased social welfare program costs, which require more taxes. An increase of taxes tends to have a disproportionately larger impact on those with less money to begin with. On the one hand you have society paying for this externality, and on the other you force employers to accurately reflect the market conditions and price that externality in.
- acqq 8y ago
  > An increase of taxes tends to have a disproportionately larger impact on those with less money to begin with. Not generally, but probably common in the current political attitude of “reducing the taxes of the rich and taxing the poor.”
  - Xylakant 8y ago
    > Not generally, It depends on the tax. If the tax is a fixed percentage of wage/income/property, then, at least in general, they affect everyone equally. However, taxes such as VAT or sales tax, affect the population with less money harder because they make everything, even the basic necessities, more expensive. People that have a substantial chunk of income that they invest/save are hit substantially less by those taxes since they don't intend to spend the investment in the first place.
    - Qwertystop 8y ago
      If the tax is a fixed percentage, it still hits people with less money harder in that cost-of-living is /not/ a percentage. If your fixed expenses (food, rent, utilities) are 80% of your monthly pay, and the tax reduces everyone's monthly pay by 5%, you're going to have to cut something (cheaper food, small luxuries, or just no longer saving money for emergencies). If you make enough that your cost-of-living is only 50% of your monthly pay, it might dip your savings a little but you'll get through it just fine.
      - acqq 8y ago
        Exactly. That's why the tax should not be fixed percentage, but should have the "starting point" under which you don't tax somebody at all, and it should have "protect the poorest taxpayers" area which also can be different from the "it's effectively equal" area. But somehow in the US people are trained not to think in that direction. It's more common to be aware of such possibilities in Europe, or to expect from the system not to completely ruin the life of the poorest.
      - Xylakant 8y ago
        True in general, but the effect of a consumption tax is substantially more pronounced. A VAT hike of 2% hits people that spend their entire income with the full 2%. But people that spend only 50% of their income in the first place effectively only have a 1% hike.
fipple 8y ago
That’s why one of the Amazons is made illegal — so that individuals don’t have to make this choice. That’s what regulation is for.
CPLX 8y ago
Depends. If the company that pays more gets a more talented stable workforce and a more reliable customer experience then perhaps that one. Ever heard of Costco?
- darkpuma 8y ago
  There is certainly nothing preventing a restaurant from implementing this: offer wait staff a higher salary but tell them they're forbidden from accepting tips. Do you expect such a restaurant will attract the best talent? I do not.
  - improbable22 8y ago
    I forget the names but various high-profile restaurants in the US have tried this, and abandoned it. I don't know whether the problem was with attracting capable waiters, or the price scaring off customers, or just change making people uncomfortable. But there seem to be two equilibria. Opening a restaurant in Paris and telling diners they should tip 20% because you aren't paying the waiters (oh and we left VAT off the menu, another 20%)... even if this were legal, I think you'd have great trouble attracting either customers or waiters.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      In Paris the waiters would not have prior experience telling them it's possible to succeed financially under such a scheme in that market. Without the eagerness of waiters to adopt such a scheme, there would be no public support for it from the customers. I think maybe that's the part of the picture into the American tipping situation that Europeans and 1% Silicon Valley workers alike are missing. Most Americans who support tipping do so because they personally know a waiter who knows they make out like a bandit from the scheme. Europeans are less likely to be personally acquainted with an American waiter than your average American, as are wealthy tech workers on the spectrum.
  - CPLX 8y ago
    I ate at such a restaurant recently, it was fantastic. Seems like they’re quite busy: https://www.manhattarestaurant.com/ https://www.manhattarestaurant.com/
dazc 8y ago
People sometimes need causal work, forcing companies to treat everyone as a regular 'employee' diminishes choice of where that work comes from. Rather than everyone becoming a happy, well-paid employee what you actually get is people working via rent-seeking agencies and middle-men - each taking their cut from the same pie. I am not saying the current system is perfect but legislation needs to allow for some flexibility in the modern workplace.
deadbunny 8y ago
For the last few years I've been avoiding Amazon where possible even if it costs me a few quid or I have to wait a day extra for delivery (though most places offer next day delivery for a price which I'm happy to pay). This is for a combination of reasons: * The working conditions of Amazon employees (the pickers, the packers, the drivers etc...) is abhorrent IMHO * The huge (legal but scummy) tax dodges they get away with * The amount of fake products on Amazon is completely ridiculous * In relation to the above, the epidemic of fake/paid reviews * Their packing of some products is laughable, I received a £600 HDD in the same packet they send softback books in. It went Cardboard > Antistatic bag > HDD. Fuck that, I sent it back for a refund without even testing it. I built a new PC a couple of months back, it was ~£50 cheaper through Amazon than the retailer I ended up buying it from but I'll choose the smaller (yet still known to me) simply because they offer a better service and don't treat their staff abhorrently. Amazon used to excel at service and quality, now they have most of the market that is gone IMHO. (Shout out to https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/ https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/ for being an awesome tool for PC builders!)

IanSanders 8y ago

Which company should you buy from? Which company should you invest in? Everyone is responsible here. Problem is, more expensive doesn't necessarily translate to "more ethical".

dazc 8y ago
Assuming there is an ethical choice available?
- IanSanders 8y ago
  Exactly. I read @hamilyon2's comment that majority would not pick the ethical choice, my point was that even if "ethical consumption" becomes widespread enough, it would eventually get abused and end up not much more ethical in the end. Just like organic-labeled products which are not always more organic than non-organic ones.

cjslep 8y ago

And poverty level wages plus tips are also passed onto the consumer in the form of increased social welfare program costs, which require more taxes. An increase of taxes tends to have a disproportionately larger impact on those with less money to begin with. On the one hand you have society paying for this externality, and on the other you force employers to accurately reflect the market conditions and price that externality in.

acqq 8y ago
> An increase of taxes tends to have a disproportionately larger impact on those with less money to begin with. Not generally, but probably common in the current political attitude of “reducing the taxes of the rich and taxing the poor.”
- Xylakant 8y ago
  > Not generally, It depends on the tax. If the tax is a fixed percentage of wage/income/property, then, at least in general, they affect everyone equally. However, taxes such as VAT or sales tax, affect the population with less money harder because they make everything, even the basic necessities, more expensive. People that have a substantial chunk of income that they invest/save are hit substantially less by those taxes since they don't intend to spend the investment in the first place.
  - Qwertystop 8y ago
    If the tax is a fixed percentage, it still hits people with less money harder in that cost-of-living is /not/ a percentage. If your fixed expenses (food, rent, utilities) are 80% of your monthly pay, and the tax reduces everyone's monthly pay by 5%, you're going to have to cut something (cheaper food, small luxuries, or just no longer saving money for emergencies). If you make enough that your cost-of-living is only 50% of your monthly pay, it might dip your savings a little but you'll get through it just fine.
    - acqq 8y ago
      Exactly. That's why the tax should not be fixed percentage, but should have the "starting point" under which you don't tax somebody at all, and it should have "protect the poorest taxpayers" area which also can be different from the "it's effectively equal" area. But somehow in the US people are trained not to think in that direction. It's more common to be aware of such possibilities in Europe, or to expect from the system not to completely ruin the life of the poorest.
    - Xylakant 8y ago
      True in general, but the effect of a consumption tax is substantially more pronounced. A VAT hike of 2% hits people that spend their entire income with the full 2%. But people that spend only 50% of their income in the first place effectively only have a 1% hike.

fipple 8y ago

That’s why one of the Amazons is made illegal — so that individuals don’t have to make this choice. That’s what regulation is for.

CPLX 8y ago

Depends. If the company that pays more gets a more talented stable workforce and a more reliable customer experience then perhaps that one. Ever heard of Costco?

darkpuma 8y ago
There is certainly nothing preventing a restaurant from implementing this: offer wait staff a higher salary but tell them they're forbidden from accepting tips. Do you expect such a restaurant will attract the best talent? I do not.
- improbable22 8y ago
  I forget the names but various high-profile restaurants in the US have tried this, and abandoned it. I don't know whether the problem was with attracting capable waiters, or the price scaring off customers, or just change making people uncomfortable. But there seem to be two equilibria. Opening a restaurant in Paris and telling diners they should tip 20% because you aren't paying the waiters (oh and we left VAT off the menu, another 20%)... even if this were legal, I think you'd have great trouble attracting either customers or waiters.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    In Paris the waiters would not have prior experience telling them it's possible to succeed financially under such a scheme in that market. Without the eagerness of waiters to adopt such a scheme, there would be no public support for it from the customers. I think maybe that's the part of the picture into the American tipping situation that Europeans and 1% Silicon Valley workers alike are missing. Most Americans who support tipping do so because they personally know a waiter who knows they make out like a bandit from the scheme. Europeans are less likely to be personally acquainted with an American waiter than your average American, as are wealthy tech workers on the spectrum.
- CPLX 8y ago
  I ate at such a restaurant recently, it was fantastic. Seems like they’re quite busy: https://www.manhattarestaurant.com/ https://www.manhattarestaurant.com/

dazc 8y ago

People sometimes need causal work, forcing companies to treat everyone as a regular 'employee' diminishes choice of where that work comes from. Rather than everyone becoming a happy, well-paid employee what you actually get is people working via rent-seeking agencies and middle-men - each taking their cut from the same pie. I am not saying the current system is perfect but legislation needs to allow for some flexibility in the modern workplace.

deadbunny 8y ago

For the last few years I've been avoiding Amazon where possible even if it costs me a few quid or I have to wait a day extra for delivery (though most places offer next day delivery for a price which I'm happy to pay). This is for a combination of reasons: * The working conditions of Amazon employees (the pickers, the packers, the drivers etc...) is abhorrent IMHO * The huge (legal but scummy) tax dodges they get away with * The amount of fake products on Amazon is completely ridiculous * In relation to the above, the epidemic of fake/paid reviews * Their packing of some products is laughable, I received a £600 HDD in the same packet they send softback books in. It went Cardboard > Antistatic bag > HDD. Fuck that, I sent it back for a refund without even testing it. I built a new PC a couple of months back, it was ~£50 cheaper through Amazon than the retailer I ended up buying it from but I'll choose the smaller (yet still known to me) simply because they offer a better service and don't treat their staff abhorrently. Amazon used to excel at service and quality, now they have most of the market that is gone IMHO. (Shout out to https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/ https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/ for being an awesome tool for PC builders!)