3 ms·

If you live in a tipping society, you should tip (for services like being waited on). As others have said, you don't have to, but that makes you the <explicativ

If you live in a tipping society, you should tip (for services like being waited on). As others have said, you don't have to, but that makes you the <explicative>.

swores 3y ago
Is there anyone who thinks it's actually a better system than European-style tipping (i.e. an entirely optional way to thank people for particularly good service) rather than just a necessity considering the system is what it is? As a Brit I do always tip when visiting the US, because I understand the implications of not doing so, but I've never understood why people on both sides of the equation (tippers and tippees) aren't lobbying politicians to change it such that menu items are priced the amount you'll actually have to pay - and yes, I feel the same way about VAT not being included in the labelled price, but that's been discussed in a different set of comments higher up the thread - and so that workers are paid enough to live on without getting any tips. And then they can choose whether or not to be extra friendly or to go above and beyond their responsibilities in the hope that people will feel they deserve a tip as an extra bonus on top. I can't remember ever hearing anyone in favour of USA-style tipping for any reason other than it being the system they're used to, so would be interested if anyone does have a different argument for it.
- jgwil2 3y ago
  There would be winners and losers if we switched systems, as with any change. The winners would be consumers and workers in lower-end restaurants where tips are generally small. The losers would be restaurant owners and workers in higher-end restaurants who make good money from tips under the current system. Right now, the potential losers are a lot more vocal and engaged than the potential winners (the system is shitty but not so shitty that most consumers get worked up about it, and low-wage workers just don't have a lot of political power).
  - swores 3y ago
    Couldn't the higher-end / more expensive places just put their prices up by x% the same as a low-end place? Is the fear that if both cheap and expensive places moved tipping to higher prices (as an example let's say every single restaurant just raised menu prices by 15%) then more people would choose to go cheaper than do in the current situation of not thinking about accurate total cost until it comes to paying the tip after the meal? I know we all have cognitive biases so it's possible something like that would be the case, but from a purely logical point of view it seems that if people are happy to pay $500 per person for a meal and to tip $100 on top of that, then they should also be happy to pay $600 for a meal that doesn't need tipping, just the same as for meals that cost $15, and I feel that if it were a universal change (ie not just a single restaurant announcing "no tipping here" but a national or at least state-wide law) then there wouldn't be a huge amount of people chenging from visiting expensive to cheap places. > "winners and losers if we switched systems, as with any change" With many, even most, changes that's literally a requirement of the change - with tax changes that keep the total tax revenue the same you have to have some paying more in order to have others paying less. Or if the change is to raise more total tax revenue to fund more social benefits, some tax payers need to pay more in order for some people to get more help. Etc. But in this case the only losers would come from other people acting on illogical cognitive biases (with the exception of people who currently choose not to tip, or to undertip, who would then be forced to pay the real amount - but surely those people aren't a significant lobbying group, not a sympathetic group that others feel need protecting). Unless I'm missing some part of the equation and there is actually a reason higher-end place for necessarily do worse under a system where tips are included in the sticker price?
    - jgwil2 3y ago
      > But in this case the only losers would come from other people acting on illogical cognitive biases (with the exception of people who currently choose not to tip, or to undertip, who would then be forced to pay the real amount - but surely those people aren't a significant lobbying group, not a sympathetic group that others feel need protecting). As I see it, there are two big groups of losers: restaurant owners, who fear that people may dine out less because of the "sticker shock" mentioned in the article, and any tipped staff of restaurants, who fear that their take-home pay will go down if they are paid an hourly wage with no tipping. So even if the "sticker shock" problem corrects itself after an adjustment period, the amount of money to be made as a waiter could very well permanently go down.

If you live in a tipping society, you should tip (for services like being waited on). As others have said, you don't have to, but that makes you the <explicative>.

swores 3y ago

Is there anyone who thinks it's actually a better system than European-style tipping (i.e. an entirely optional way to thank people for particularly good service) rather than just a necessity considering the system is what it is? As a Brit I do always tip when visiting the US, because I understand the implications of not doing so, but I've never understood why people on both sides of the equation (tippers and tippees) aren't lobbying politicians to change it such that menu items are priced the amount you'll actually have to pay - and yes, I feel the same way about VAT not being included in the labelled price, but that's been discussed in a different set of comments higher up the thread - and so that workers are paid enough to live on without getting any tips. And then they can choose whether or not to be extra friendly or to go above and beyond their responsibilities in the hope that people will feel they deserve a tip as an extra bonus on top. I can't remember ever hearing anyone in favour of USA-style tipping for any reason other than it being the system they're used to, so would be interested if anyone does have a different argument for it.

jgwil2 3y ago
There would be winners and losers if we switched systems, as with any change. The winners would be consumers and workers in lower-end restaurants where tips are generally small. The losers would be restaurant owners and workers in higher-end restaurants who make good money from tips under the current system. Right now, the potential losers are a lot more vocal and engaged than the potential winners (the system is shitty but not so shitty that most consumers get worked up about it, and low-wage workers just don't have a lot of political power).
- swores 3y ago
  Couldn't the higher-end / more expensive places just put their prices up by x% the same as a low-end place? Is the fear that if both cheap and expensive places moved tipping to higher prices (as an example let's say every single restaurant just raised menu prices by 15%) then more people would choose to go cheaper than do in the current situation of not thinking about accurate total cost until it comes to paying the tip after the meal? I know we all have cognitive biases so it's possible something like that would be the case, but from a purely logical point of view it seems that if people are happy to pay $500 per person for a meal and to tip $100 on top of that, then they should also be happy to pay $600 for a meal that doesn't need tipping, just the same as for meals that cost $15, and I feel that if it were a universal change (ie not just a single restaurant announcing "no tipping here" but a national or at least state-wide law) then there wouldn't be a huge amount of people chenging from visiting expensive to cheap places. > "winners and losers if we switched systems, as with any change" With many, even most, changes that's literally a requirement of the change - with tax changes that keep the total tax revenue the same you have to have some paying more in order to have others paying less. Or if the change is to raise more total tax revenue to fund more social benefits, some tax payers need to pay more in order for some people to get more help. Etc. But in this case the only losers would come from other people acting on illogical cognitive biases (with the exception of people who currently choose not to tip, or to undertip, who would then be forced to pay the real amount - but surely those people aren't a significant lobbying group, not a sympathetic group that others feel need protecting). Unless I'm missing some part of the equation and there is actually a reason higher-end place for necessarily do worse under a system where tips are included in the sticker price?
  - jgwil2 3y ago
    > But in this case the only losers would come from other people acting on illogical cognitive biases (with the exception of people who currently choose not to tip, or to undertip, who would then be forced to pay the real amount - but surely those people aren't a significant lobbying group, not a sympathetic group that others feel need protecting). As I see it, there are two big groups of losers: restaurant owners, who fear that people may dine out less because of the "sticker shock" mentioned in the article, and any tipped staff of restaurants, who fear that their take-home pay will go down if they are paid an hourly wage with no tipping. So even if the "sticker shock" problem corrects itself after an adjustment period, the amount of money to be made as a waiter could very well permanently go down.