3 ms·

Exploitative was GP's assertion, not mine. The entire argument is suspect and self-serving.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
It doesn't matter which word you use. If a worker whose employer you're paying to do something is underpaying them, is it your obligation to make up the difference?
- rendall 3y ago
  At least now you no longer pretend that your stance against tipping is but selfless regard for the plight of the exploited worker. Choose: a) Establishment A charges 40% more and pays the workers fairly with benefits and actively refuses tips, or b) Establishment B has the same menu and quality, only charges normal prices and has an expectation of tipping the staff 15%. Maybe from the inherently altruistic goodness of your heart you only ever go to Establishment A, lighter of wallet but warmed by your moral virtue, but most people will go to Establishment B and pay the tip. That's your choice. You might not like it but that's the reality. What you don't get to do is have establishment B's prices with establishment A's tipping policy. Maybe, being clever, you think c) Establishment C charges 15% more and pays it directly to the workers but they must actively refuse tips Believe it or not, C has been tried and it is universally disliked by staff and customers. Staff will happily go to work at B where they can earn more through hard work. Because most people are not no-tip assholes. Customers would rather go to B (and tip) where they can get better service for the same cost. To answer you directly, yes. Yes. If the convention is that the business charges less and you make up the difference, then yes you do. You have an obligation to make up the difference.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > At least now you no longer pretend that your stance against tipping is but selfless regard for the plight of the exploited worker. Is it not? The status quo persists in the absence of some change. You're essentially arguing that a local maxima is preferable to descending the slope to reach the global one. > Customers would rather go to B (and tip) where they can get better service for the same cost. The reason businesses charge $9.99 instead of $10.00 is that psychology plays a large role in consumer behavior. The "false advertising" component of culturally mandated tipping is a competitive advantage in the absence of something to counteract it. It's like saying companies should just avoid hidden fees because customers don't like them. The trouble is the companies that use them get more customers because their prices appear lower. > Staff will happily go to work at B where they can earn more through hard work. Because most people are not no-tip assholes. So in order to make C work you need customers to make B unsustainable. (Also somewhat obviously, if staff "can earn more" the other way then you haven't added the amount to their base wages that makes up for the lack of tips.) And you have a similar psychological component with workers as with customers, because it's harder for workers to evaluate the risk of slow business. Tipping is very casino psychology. People remember the time they got a $50 tip, not the time they stood around all day for $2/hour and there were no customers. They do the math for this week and don't consider what this compensation structure is going to do to them in an economic downturn. If you knew C doesn't work without doing something to counteract the dark patterns in B, why did you recommend it as a solution? Do you have an actual alternate proposal that could feasibly lead to the end of tipping? > If the convention is that the business charges less and you make up the difference, then yes you do. You have an obligation to make up the difference. What if you want to change the convention?
    - rendall 3y ago
      I've already addressed all of these questions. Bottom line is if your stance made your life more difficult while making workers lives easier, I'd be more inclined to listen and take what you say seriously. But it doesn't. The workers earn less and conveniently you get to keep more money in your pocket, all while you get to tell yourself and anyone who will listen that you are fighting racism and exploitation or whatever. Ok, I'm done with this conversation. I will read whatever response you have and it will likely be the last word.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        I feel like you have a situation where some employers are racist and are paying black people less than white people, and I propose a solution, which is to offer to everyone only the prevailing wage that black workers get. Which would actually work. I might hire proportionally more black workers, but they're just as good and now I have lower average labor costs and can outcompete anyone not doing this. Which would ultimately raise the prevailing wage for black workers, because in order to compete with me the other businesses would either have to lower their labor costs or raise mine, which they can only do by narrowing the gap between what they offer to black workers and white workers. You're now upset with me and accuse me of wickedness because I'm not actually sacrificing anything, I'm only paying the white workers less. You say that in order to prove that I'm not just a selfish jerk I would have to pay everyone the prevailing wage for white workers. But then it would be me who is driven out of business because my average labor costs would be higher rather than lower than the competition. Which doesn't help anybody, because a business that immediately goes under changes nothing. Your criteria is structured to condemn effective solutions. If it has to disadvantage you then only affluent people with surplus to burn can do it, which inhibits widespread adoption and commonly turns it into a vapid virtue signaling exercise which is more about showing other members of your own social class what an altruist you are. The real test is whether it's a viable path to effective change. That all you have to do is act in your own self-interest and not have to be a self-sacrificing social activist is a great advantage, because it enables you to get the people who don't care about that to do the thing. I'm also not sure what self-interested benefit I'm supposed to be receiving by trying to convince strangers I don't otherwise want anything from to do this. If anything it would be the opposite, right? If I succeeded in convincing everyone else to stop tipping then the cost of paying workers would end up being reflected in the price of the services and I would lose the ability to pay less than other people.

It doesn't matter which word you use. If a worker whose employer you're paying to do something is underpaying them, is it your obligation to make up the difference?

rendall 3y ago
At least now you no longer pretend that your stance against tipping is but selfless regard for the plight of the exploited worker. Choose: a) Establishment A charges 40% more and pays the workers fairly with benefits and actively refuses tips, or b) Establishment B has the same menu and quality, only charges normal prices and has an expectation of tipping the staff 15%. Maybe from the inherently altruistic goodness of your heart you only ever go to Establishment A, lighter of wallet but warmed by your moral virtue, but most people will go to Establishment B and pay the tip. That's your choice. You might not like it but that's the reality. What you don't get to do is have establishment B's prices with establishment A's tipping policy. Maybe, being clever, you think c) Establishment C charges 15% more and pays it directly to the workers but they must actively refuse tips Believe it or not, C has been tried and it is universally disliked by staff and customers. Staff will happily go to work at B where they can earn more through hard work. Because most people are not no-tip assholes. Customers would rather go to B (and tip) where they can get better service for the same cost. To answer you directly, yes. Yes. If the convention is that the business charges less and you make up the difference, then yes you do. You have an obligation to make up the difference.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > At least now you no longer pretend that your stance against tipping is but selfless regard for the plight of the exploited worker. Is it not? The status quo persists in the absence of some change. You're essentially arguing that a local maxima is preferable to descending the slope to reach the global one. > Customers would rather go to B (and tip) where they can get better service for the same cost. The reason businesses charge $9.99 instead of $10.00 is that psychology plays a large role in consumer behavior. The "false advertising" component of culturally mandated tipping is a competitive advantage in the absence of something to counteract it. It's like saying companies should just avoid hidden fees because customers don't like them. The trouble is the companies that use them get more customers because their prices appear lower. > Staff will happily go to work at B where they can earn more through hard work. Because most people are not no-tip assholes. So in order to make C work you need customers to make B unsustainable. (Also somewhat obviously, if staff "can earn more" the other way then you haven't added the amount to their base wages that makes up for the lack of tips.) And you have a similar psychological component with workers as with customers, because it's harder for workers to evaluate the risk of slow business. Tipping is very casino psychology. People remember the time they got a $50 tip, not the time they stood around all day for $2/hour and there were no customers. They do the math for this week and don't consider what this compensation structure is going to do to them in an economic downturn. If you knew C doesn't work without doing something to counteract the dark patterns in B, why did you recommend it as a solution? Do you have an actual alternate proposal that could feasibly lead to the end of tipping? > If the convention is that the business charges less and you make up the difference, then yes you do. You have an obligation to make up the difference. What if you want to change the convention?
  - rendall 3y ago
    I've already addressed all of these questions. Bottom line is if your stance made your life more difficult while making workers lives easier, I'd be more inclined to listen and take what you say seriously. But it doesn't. The workers earn less and conveniently you get to keep more money in your pocket, all while you get to tell yourself and anyone who will listen that you are fighting racism and exploitation or whatever. Ok, I'm done with this conversation. I will read whatever response you have and it will likely be the last word.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      I feel like you have a situation where some employers are racist and are paying black people less than white people, and I propose a solution, which is to offer to everyone only the prevailing wage that black workers get. Which would actually work. I might hire proportionally more black workers, but they're just as good and now I have lower average labor costs and can outcompete anyone not doing this. Which would ultimately raise the prevailing wage for black workers, because in order to compete with me the other businesses would either have to lower their labor costs or raise mine, which they can only do by narrowing the gap between what they offer to black workers and white workers. You're now upset with me and accuse me of wickedness because I'm not actually sacrificing anything, I'm only paying the white workers less. You say that in order to prove that I'm not just a selfish jerk I would have to pay everyone the prevailing wage for white workers. But then it would be me who is driven out of business because my average labor costs would be higher rather than lower than the competition. Which doesn't help anybody, because a business that immediately goes under changes nothing. Your criteria is structured to condemn effective solutions. If it has to disadvantage you then only affluent people with surplus to burn can do it, which inhibits widespread adoption and commonly turns it into a vapid virtue signaling exercise which is more about showing other members of your own social class what an altruist you are. The real test is whether it's a viable path to effective change. That all you have to do is act in your own self-interest and not have to be a self-sacrificing social activist is a great advantage, because it enables you to get the people who don't care about that to do the thing. I'm also not sure what self-interested benefit I'm supposed to be receiving by trying to convince strangers I don't otherwise want anything from to do this. If anything it would be the opposite, right? If I succeeded in convincing everyone else to stop tipping then the cost of paying workers would end up being reflected in the price of the services and I would lose the ability to pay less than other people.