4 ms·

Just don't tip automatically, toughen up a little on the frowning looks and remind yourself that for one thing, you're not defrauding anyone for not tipping as

Just don't tip automatically, toughen up a little on the frowning looks and remind yourself that for one thing, you're not defrauding anyone for not tipping as an automatic thing, and secondly, its the cynical shits in the finacial incentive structure above your waiter who are really at fault.

const_cast 1y ago
This sounds good and like a protest but it's not because: 1. You're not hurting the big wigs who exploit workers. They don't care if you don't tip. 2. You ARE hurting the underpaid, exploited worker.
- 9x39 1y ago
  >2. You ARE hurting the underpaid, exploited worker. This is just hope for the hopeless. If an adult needs the few dollars, they have bigger problems. If you can solve the coordination problem between diners and the explosion of tipping (largely due to employers trying to fight for unskilled workers by promising some extra tip revenue) the tipping might be extinguished entirely and a correction can occur.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  > You ARE hurting the underpaid, exploited worker. What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You're going out to eat and expecting to pay for what you ordered, not the life subsidy of someone whose employer can't be bothered to pay them well enough. Either way, it's not and shouldn't be your obligation even if it does screw with the waiter's finances. I too might have financial squeezes that make it difficult for me to fork over an extra 14 to 20% every damn time I've already paid for all that I bought. Your claim just keeps reinforcing the foolish notion that it's a consumer's fault/responsibility if wait staff aren't paid enough by their employers. >You're not hurting the big wigs who exploit workers. They don't care if you don't tip. And I shouldn't have to care if they don't care. At bottom, like I said in my point above, it's not my job to subsidize their wages either way. I didn't make my argument as a description of protest, instead i'm saying it as a practical thing anyone should and has a right to do.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    > What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You are, and it's objective. Does this worker have more, or less, money than before? It's not a matter of opinion. The answer is less, and we know that's the answer because that's specifically what you're seeking out. What you're arguing is if this harm is justified. Maybe, maybe not. In your opinion, it is. My opinion is that the marginal effects of me not tipping will have zero impact on the culture, so, for now, I play by the rules. The rules are stupid, I agree, but I still play by them.
    - imperfect_blue 1y ago
      You're hurting yourself when you tip. You have, objectively, less money than before. Ergo, tipping is self-harm.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is and it's not up for debate. Like I said, the rules are stupid but, for now, I play by them. You might as "why are you hurting yourself?". Because I can afford to hurt myself, the waiter probably can't. 5 bucks is a drop in the bucket for me, but, presumably, not for them. And, on the topic of self-harm, we all make decisions every day that harm us. We sometimes get something in return, but often we don’t. We do it purely for the benefit of other people, often people we don’t know and will never see again. Consider holding a door open. For me, I get in the building 10 seconds later. That’s worse than getting in the door 10 seconds earlier. What did I gain? Nothing. Some stranger got 100% of the benefit, with nothing for me.
    - southernplaces7 1y ago
      No, you're bloody well not. You as an average external consumer did not create the exploitative culture of low wages for hospitality staff or make any one of them join that culture by seeking employment there. There's nothing objective about what you argue except that it's objectively mistaken in its blame. Playing by stupid "rules" (which these aren't in any case, they're social tendencies that can be slowly changed) is the passively damaging thing, a logic of, "yeah, this aspect of the world is shit but i'll chide you for not participating in it because I myself am too inert to not do so". >Does this worker have more, or less, money than before? It's not a matter of opinion. The answer is less, and we know that's the answer because that's specifically what you're seeking out. Do you own a restaurant in which you underpay employees? I'd almost guess you do to come up with such topsy-turvy nonsense. The worker having less money has nothing to do with any fault of your own. You're paying for what you ordered, and stealing nothing from anyone; you're simply seeking not to be squeezed further for no good reason. The owner of the place is however literally underpaying because they're hoping to guilt you into subsidizing part of wages, and convincing their employees that this is the correct thing. A person having less money because you refuse to participate in a subtle bit of exploitation doesn't make you guilty of the exploitation or "seeking it out"

const_cast 1y ago

This sounds good and like a protest but it's not because: 1. You're not hurting the big wigs who exploit workers. They don't care if you don't tip. 2. You ARE hurting the underpaid, exploited worker.

9x39 1y ago
>2. You ARE hurting the underpaid, exploited worker. This is just hope for the hopeless. If an adult needs the few dollars, they have bigger problems. If you can solve the coordination problem between diners and the explosion of tipping (largely due to employers trying to fight for unskilled workers by promising some extra tip revenue) the tipping might be extinguished entirely and a correction can occur.
southernplaces7 1y ago
> You ARE hurting the underpaid, exploited worker. What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You're going out to eat and expecting to pay for what you ordered, not the life subsidy of someone whose employer can't be bothered to pay them well enough. Either way, it's not and shouldn't be your obligation even if it does screw with the waiter's finances. I too might have financial squeezes that make it difficult for me to fork over an extra 14 to 20% every damn time I've already paid for all that I bought. Your claim just keeps reinforcing the foolish notion that it's a consumer's fault/responsibility if wait staff aren't paid enough by their employers. >You're not hurting the big wigs who exploit workers. They don't care if you don't tip. And I shouldn't have to care if they don't care. At bottom, like I said in my point above, it's not my job to subsidize their wages either way. I didn't make my argument as a description of protest, instead i'm saying it as a practical thing anyone should and has a right to do.
- const_cast 1y ago
  > What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You are, and it's objective. Does this worker have more, or less, money than before? It's not a matter of opinion. The answer is less, and we know that's the answer because that's specifically what you're seeking out. What you're arguing is if this harm is justified. Maybe, maybe not. In your opinion, it is. My opinion is that the marginal effects of me not tipping will have zero impact on the culture, so, for now, I play by the rules. The rules are stupid, I agree, but I still play by them.
  - imperfect_blue 1y ago
    You're hurting yourself when you tip. You have, objectively, less money than before. Ergo, tipping is self-harm.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is and it's not up for debate. Like I said, the rules are stupid but, for now, I play by them. You might as "why are you hurting yourself?". Because I can afford to hurt myself, the waiter probably can't. 5 bucks is a drop in the bucket for me, but, presumably, not for them. And, on the topic of self-harm, we all make decisions every day that harm us. We sometimes get something in return, but often we don’t. We do it purely for the benefit of other people, often people we don’t know and will never see again. Consider holding a door open. For me, I get in the building 10 seconds later. That’s worse than getting in the door 10 seconds earlier. What did I gain? Nothing. Some stranger got 100% of the benefit, with nothing for me.
  - southernplaces7 1y ago
    No, you're bloody well not. You as an average external consumer did not create the exploitative culture of low wages for hospitality staff or make any one of them join that culture by seeking employment there. There's nothing objective about what you argue except that it's objectively mistaken in its blame. Playing by stupid "rules" (which these aren't in any case, they're social tendencies that can be slowly changed) is the passively damaging thing, a logic of, "yeah, this aspect of the world is shit but i'll chide you for not participating in it because I myself am too inert to not do so". >Does this worker have more, or less, money than before? It's not a matter of opinion. The answer is less, and we know that's the answer because that's specifically what you're seeking out. Do you own a restaurant in which you underpay employees? I'd almost guess you do to come up with such topsy-turvy nonsense. The worker having less money has nothing to do with any fault of your own. You're paying for what you ordered, and stealing nothing from anyone; you're simply seeking not to be squeezed further for no good reason. The owner of the place is however literally underpaying because they're hoping to guilt you into subsidizing part of wages, and convincing their employees that this is the correct thing. A person having less money because you refuse to participate in a subtle bit of exploitation doesn't make you guilty of the exploitation or "seeking it out"