3 ms·

>But that's the thing tipping creates regardless of this. You don't know if you're going to get 10% or 30%. Abolishing this is the goal. Yes, and a 0%-30% tip

by slg 4y ago

>But that's the thing tipping creates regardless of this. You don't know if you're going to get 10% or 30%. Abolishing this is the goal. Yes, and a 0%-30% tip has more uncertainty than a 10%-30% tip. Also you appear to be arguing as if I'm defending tipping as a practice. I'm not. I'm saying that an individual who refuses to tip despite it being an expected practice is being a bad member of society. >Meanwhile a typical waitress has hundreds of customers per week. That's enough for a statistically valid sample without needing months to figure it out, and it's not likely to change dramatically overnight based on the actions of one individual customer. You are arguing against your own point here. If a single customer is meaningless to the compensation of the service worker, that single customer is not making any meaningful dent in the system that goes way beyond that one individual service worker. >New legislation eliminates some of their jobs, or requires them to work under different conditions because more restrictions are needed to justify paying benefits, or have their hours cut to below whatever threshold is needed to avoid paying them benefits even though they'd have chosen to work more etc. This is true of any labor protections. Having a minimum wage eliminates jobs. Having safety regulations eliminates jobs. Sometimes eliminating jobs is in the best interest of society. >The short-term interests of the customer are aligned with the long-term interests of the service worker and the customer is the one making the decision. That's a great alignment of incentives. Try asking a service worker whether they would prefer a tip today or a hypothetical abolishment of tipping decades in the future. I don't think they are going to make the choice you are implying.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> Yes, and a 0%-30% tip has more uncertainty than a 10%-30% tip. Which is why it should be done away with whatsoever. > Also you appear to be arguing as if I'm defending tipping as a practice. I'm not. I'm saying that an individual who refuses to tip despite it being an expected practice is being a bad member of society. A person who refuses to tip is attacking tipping as a practice and acting to end it. Calling them a bad member of society is by extension defending the alternative. > You are arguing against your own point here. If a single customer is meaningless to the compensation of the service worker, that single customer is not making any meaningful dent in the system that goes way beyond that one individual service worker. No, it's fully consistent. The point is that you can change your individual behavior without causing excessive harm to some hapless service worker in particular, because you're <1% of their customers. What really changes things is what happens in the aggregate, but that works too. If almost everyone tips, that's the status quo. Whatever percentage of people stop, employers will have to make up the difference to retain staff. Some intermediate period where the service worker's pre-tip hourly wage is $4 instead of $2 is fine. When that percentage finally reaches 100%, tipping is abolished. > This is true of any labor protections. Having a minimum wage eliminates jobs. Having safety regulations eliminates jobs. Sometimes eliminating jobs is in the best interest of society. Minimum wage eliminates jobs and we shouldn't have one. Causing some people to be involuntarily unemployed so some others can make slightly more money is a poor trade off when better alternatives exist, like UBI. [Good] safety regulations don't eliminate jobs, because the alternative is safety incidents resulting in legal settlements, which cost the employer more than complying with preventative measures. The preventative measures therefore destroy fewer jobs, and if they don't you've implemented them wrong. Many "labor protections" are paternalistic and net harm workers. > Try asking a service worker whether they would prefer a tip today or a hypothetical abolishment of tipping decades in the future. I don't think they are going to make the choice you are implying. Ask anyone if they would prefer an immediate gain for themselves personally or a larger future gain for a class of people they belong to. You've now discovered collective action problems. Lining up someone other third party's incentives with the better overall outcome is a great way to solve them.

by slg 4y ago

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

> Yes, and a 0%-30% tip has more uncertainty than a 10%-30% tip. Which is why it should be done away with whatsoever. > Also you appear to be arguing as if I'm defending tipping as a practice. I'm not. I'm saying that an individual who refuses to tip despite it being an expected practice is being a bad member of society. A person who refuses to tip is attacking tipping as a practice and acting to end it. Calling them a bad member of society is by extension defending the alternative. > You are arguing against your own point here. If a single customer is meaningless to the compensation of the service worker, that single customer is not making any meaningful dent in the system that goes way beyond that one individual service worker. No, it's fully consistent. The point is that you can change your individual behavior without causing excessive harm to some hapless service worker in particular, because you're <1% of their customers. What really changes things is what happens in the aggregate, but that works too. If almost everyone tips, that's the status quo. Whatever percentage of people stop, employers will have to make up the difference to retain staff. Some intermediate period where the service worker's pre-tip hourly wage is $4 instead of $2 is fine. When that percentage finally reaches 100%, tipping is abolished. > This is true of any labor protections. Having a minimum wage eliminates jobs. Having safety regulations eliminates jobs. Sometimes eliminating jobs is in the best interest of society. Minimum wage eliminates jobs and we shouldn't have one. Causing some people to be involuntarily unemployed so some others can make slightly more money is a poor trade off when better alternatives exist, like UBI. [Good] safety regulations don't eliminate jobs, because the alternative is safety incidents resulting in legal settlements, which cost the employer more than complying with preventative measures. The preventative measures therefore destroy fewer jobs, and if they don't you've implemented them wrong. Many "labor protections" are paternalistic and net harm workers. > Try asking a service worker whether they would prefer a tip today or a hypothetical abolishment of tipping decades in the future. I don't think they are going to make the choice you are implying. Ask anyone if they would prefer an immediate gain for themselves personally or a larger future gain for a class of people they belong to. You've now discovered collective action problems. Lining up someone other third party's incentives with the better overall outcome is a great way to solve them.