| Author |
Message |
    
vozveratu
Advanced Member
Username: vozveratu
Post Number: 653
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:03 am: | 
|
Just as an example, one Monday night myself and another server did a wine dinner. Tips were not included and we worked 6 hours that day. Each of us walked out with 391.00.
Doing the math of 6 hours divided into the amount of money I made, plus the hourly 2.13 equals, 67.29 an hour for that night.
Does anyone know a server career in which I can get paid that much per hour in a restaurant?
*hears crickets* |
ddock123
New member
Username: ddock123
Post Number: 22
Registered: 06-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 01:47 pm: |
|
Not I!
*hears coyotes* |
jammie
Senior Member
Username: jammie
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 05:40 pm: |
|
Dealing drugs. |
tipqueen
Member
Username: tipqueen
Post Number: 110
Registered: 03-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 08:04 am: |
|
Prostitution?!?!? |
tipqueen
Member
Username: tipqueen
Post Number: 111
Registered: 03-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 08:06 am: |
|
*hears self laughing out loud*
 |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 14
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 06:25 am: |
|
That's also really good evidence that demonstrates that tipping leads to economically inefficient outcomes. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 953
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 07:18 am: |
|
Our society here in America is based on economic inefficiency in virtually every sector. In fact, I'd maintain that irrationality and "inefficiency" is what drives our economy and actually drives most businesses.
So? |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 16
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 07:34 am: |
|
[I'd maintain that irrationality and "inefficiency" is what drives our economy and actually drives most businesses.]
On what basis to you claim that? How does inefficiency drive our economy? |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 955
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 08:30 am: |
|
How "efficient" is it to pay a single guy a multi-million dollar bonus, especially if the company is underperforming? Happens quite often, you know. How "efficient" is it to sack a CEO because his company isn't meeting expectations but still give him a million dollar golden parachute? How "efficient" is it to base a purchasing decision on the fact that a gecko has told you how cool it is, or that a product is "new and improved" without the benefit of any discernable fact? How "efficient" is it to pay a sliding scale for an automobile, where, if you have the requisite skills and information, you might pay $2000 less than the couple who bought the exact same automobile earlier that morning? How "efficient" is it to pay more on Tuesday for a product than you do on Thursday because you've got a coupon on Thursday (in fact, how efficient" is the whole concept of "a sale")? How "efficient" is it to charge prices that require the presence of a piece of coinage that costs more for the government to mint than it's intrinsically worth? I could go on and on.
Prices are rarely based on "efficiency" - they're based on market forces, and, as stabile as some of those market forces are, they are also often unpredictable, even is human behavior is fairly predictable. It's not "efficient" to go to Morton's and pay $40 for a 24 oz NY strip (if it were "efficient", you'd only pay for the exact amount that you were planning to eat). Is it "efficient" for me to have to buy channel packages for cable when I won't watch 90% of the channels instead of ordering the channels that I want ala carte? I could go on and on and on and on...
In fact, "efficiency" is often bad for the end consumer, even when it benefits a precious few of the society. Think reduction of competition through company buyouts, especially hostile ones. Think of people driven out of work because of "cost-cutting measures".
No, the economic system in the US would wither and die on the vine if "efficiency" were the watchword. That's because human beings are at their core irrational in matters economic (in the main) and the American economy is based, for better or worse, on that very irrationality. There is a case to be made for a purely "rational" economic system, but such systems, such as pure socialism and communism, have their own drawbacks as well. |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 18
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 09:12 am: |
|
How "efficient" is it to pay a single guy a multi-million dollar bonus, especially if the company is underperforming?
That's debated. There are people wo say executive compensation is excessive.
- http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/view_article.asp?intArticle_ID=482
- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID499842_code285033.pdf?abstractid =499842&mirid=1
- http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=blewp
- 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 751
- Greenspan called it "infectious greed": http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2002/july/testimony.htm
- Managerial Power Hypothesis (execs have gotten more power over boards, which has inflated their pay packages): 30 Iowa J. Corp. L. 255
There are people trying to fix what they see as the problem.
[How "efficient" is it to base a purchasing decision on the fact that a gecko has told you how cool it is, or that a product is "new and improved" without the benefit of any discernable fact?]
Assuming the costs of collecting information are low or non-existence, it's probably not a good move. There should probably be more discussion about things like that.
[How "efficient" is it to pay a sliding scale for an automobile, where, if you have the requisite skills and information, you might pay $2000 less than the couple who bought the exact same automobile earlier that morning?]
That's bad for the consumer. Though it probably maximizes the profits of the firm selling the car. If people would inform themselves better, they could work toward fixing that.
[How "efficient" is it to pay more on Tuesday for a product than you do on Thursday because you've got a coupon on Thursday (in fact, how efficient" is the whole concept of "a sale")?]
Actually, coupons are quite efficient. The point of coupons is generally two-fold. First, coupons target "cheapskates," that is, they target people whose elasticities of demand are higher. It's also called price discrimination. It actually ends up benefitting the firm and the consumer because total sales rise. Second, coupons help firms manage their inventory better. Storing, moving, and acquiring inventory isn't free. Sometimes they need to move inventory quickly, and sales are a good way to do that.
[How "efficient" is it to charge prices that require the presence of a piece of coinage that costs more for the government to mint than it's intrinsically worth?]
That's actually a pretty complicated question. Pennies confer transactional efficiency in that they prevent larger round-off errors. But in a narrow sense it currently costs about 1.23 cents to make a penny. Should the penny be abolished? Well, Rep. Kolbe from Arizona has been trying to get rid of it for years. One of the biggest problems is that the amount of money that would be saved is pocket change compared to the national budget. It generally makes sense (and cents) to focus on the bigger issues on the order of tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars instead of worrying about $1 billion in penny savings. The 2007 budget will be about $2.7 trillion. So the penny abolition savings would be 0.037% of the budget.
[It's not "efficient" to go to Morton's and pay $40 for a 24 oz NY strip (if it were "efficient", you'd only pay for the exact amount that you were planning to eat).]
It's possible that it could be more efficient to do it that way, but you're ignoring other considerations. First, there would be increased costs to administer such a system. Second, people are pretty bad at predicting their future psychological and physiological states (e.g. being satisfied and full). And given that the food itself is relatively cheap, it's better to have too much than too little.
[Is it "efficient" for me to have to buy channel packages for cable when I won't watch 90% of the channels instead of ordering the channels that I want ala carte?]
It might not be best for you personally, but there's a huge debate about whether ON WHOLE it's best for consumers. There are economies of scale and negotiation benefits to be had from the current system.
[In fact, "efficiency" is often bad for the end consumer, even when it benefits a precious few of the society. Think reduction of competition through company buyouts, especially hostile ones.]
They also often lead to massive benefits for investors, who are also consumers.
[Think of people driven out of work because of "cost-cutting measures".]
That's generally a good thing. It's better for society to have 10 T-shirts for $100 than 5 T-shirts for $100. Displaced workers can and do produce other goods and services. Instead of having 10 workers making 10 cars, we have 5 workers making 10 cars and 5 workers making motorcycles.
[No, the economic system in the US would wither and die on the vine if "efficiency" were the watchword.]
That's precisely wrong. Economic systems die when they are inefficient. That's why rent control and other price controls virtually always fail. They aren't efficient enough. Soviet Russia couldn't properly allocate its workers in society because it's wages were inefficient. They had bread lines because price caps killed the profit incentive to make more bread. There are broken down houses on Santa Monica beach in California that sit between multimillion dollar houses because rent control keeps the owner of the rent controlled building from being able to properly maintain it.
[That's because human beings are at their core irrational in matters economic (in the main) and the American economy is based, for better or worse, on that very irrationality.]
You seem to not grasp that it's not a binary issue between rationality and irrationality. There are shades in the middle. For the most part, people are rational. They're more rational than irrational. That's why even the neo-classical models of economics are so good at predicting supply and demand changes even without the benefit of current behavioral psychological research into economic decisions.
The two primary groups of economic actors are maximizers and satisficers. Maximizers make very rational economic decisions. Satisficers make "pretty good" or "good enough" decisions. There is no major group of people who make flat out irrational decisions.
[There is a case to be made for a purely "rational" economic system, but such systems, such as pure socialism and communism, have their own drawbacks as well.]
No. My complaint is about efficiency. Both of those systems are economically inefficient in terms of maximizing social economic welfare. I already gave several examples above concerning how their inefficiencies cause problem.
Please don't ignore this: The big picture that you're completely missing is that even if there are other inefficiencies in the economy, so what? It's better to fix some of them than none of them. You presented a whole bunch of alleged inefficiencies (and you were wrong about some of them). But even if all of them are, in fact, inefficiencies, that does not justify having more of them. Fixing some is better than fixing none. |
vitalryan
New member
Username: vitalryan
Post Number: 40
Registered: 03-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 06:06 pm: |
|
I don't think there is anything to fix. The system, in my opinion, works quite well. In fact, you contradict yourself paco my friend.
You claim the tip is totally up to the customer. And the customer in this case, decided the service was good, it was worth $391 a person, yet now you are siding against it as an inefficiency. WHY is it inefficient? Who are YOU to claim what the servers services are worth or not? The customer made that decision for themselves.
You seem to have this belief that servering is robotic. And miss the entire fact that when serving a table, you are taking on a personal role between you and your customer. Through conversation, timing, professionalism, knowledge and many other aspects of the profession, a server is providing the best possible experience for their guest. 15% is the minimum for good service. It's a socially accepted amount that shows respect to those who provided the service to you.
If you enjoyed your experience so much, leaving more is appreciated. You as a person, decided your experience was so well taken care of, parting with more money as a token of appreciation is works for you. I am completely failing to see the inefficiencies here?
I'm not sure if you actually go to retail stores or anything, but I RARELY receive the level of service that you receive in a restaurant. Start paying attention to the blank looks, the un-motivated personel. The "I dont' really care if I'm working slow" attitude.. you take it all for granted. And nearly everywhere tips are not involved, thats what you get.
I think tipping is a prime factor in the quality of service received in restaurants... and as a waiter myself, I KNOW how hard the work is, and how important the work is. We earn every penny. |
penelope
New member
Username: penelope
Post Number: 15
Registered: 05-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 01:09 am: |
|
isn't it funny how when people that are against tipping get all worked up because of the the fact that someone tips us for example, $30 on a $107 check, for take out. i have a customer that always tips me more than $25. is her order perfect, and ready when she comes to pick it up. do i know her order by heart. oh defenitley. why do the anti-tippers think it is socially incorrect, or out of fear when a table leaves more than 30% as a tip. can it be that this people understand and were deeply satisfied with the level of service you gave them. do you think they are going to leave a 30% tip if the server sucked. no. most people leave the standard 15% or 10%, others leave nothing. but then if we get stiffed even when we do our job well, then these anti-tippers think that we probably deserved to get stiffed, because we didn't go above and beyond.
basically if we get tipped too much it is because people are scared, or because it is a social obligation. if we get stiffed well it is because we suck. sure some servers suck, but some people are just plain cheap. it is not an obligation, but it is a service, and you pay accordingly when you get the service.
i am kind of sick of the excuses. why should i pay you when you already get paid $3 an hour. because that is the way it is. using cheap ass excuses and big theories does not make you look less cheap or less ignorant. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 975
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 10:15 am: |
|
"You seem to not grasp that it's not a binary issue between rationality and irrationality. There are shades in the middle".
I wish that you yourself would accept this. It's YOU who seems to be making a "binary issue".
"[There is a case to be made for a purely "rational" economic system, but such systems, such as pure socialism and communism, have their own drawbacks as well.]
No. My complaint is about efficiency".
And in their purest form, they are far more "efficient" than capitalism, which relies on "inefficiencies" like advertising, protectionist tariffs, subsidies, bankruptcies, etc. to thrive and grow.
"Both of those systems are economically inefficient in terms of maximizing social economic welfare. I already gave several examples above concerning how their inefficiencies cause problem".
I was speaking of the systems themselves, not the totalitarian application of those systems. Stalin wasn't a "communist" - he was a mass murderer and a tyrant who distorted the basic tenets of communism by allowing the State to "thin the herd" periodically as well as allowing the State to have privileges not granted to the general populace).
"Please don't ignore this: The big picture that you're completely missing is that even if there are other inefficiencies in the economy, so what? It's better to fix some of them than none of them. You presented a whole bunch of alleged inefficiencies (and you were wrong about some of them). But even if all of them are, in fact, inefficiencies, that does not justify having more of them. Fixing some is better than fixing none".
So you start with the ones that create the least social distruption. And you haven't proven that tipping as implemented in the US is "inefficient" anyway. Face it, the system as we know it we have is inherently inefficient. Virtually all aspects of our economy are inefficient in one way or the other. And yet, in general, the inefficiences are absorbed without much damage to the economy.
The true question that seems to underlie your position is actually, "Is it fair"? IOW, are servers "overpaid"? I maintain that the market has determined that the system IS fair to all parties and that the market has itself determined the wages for servers and this wage varies according to skill level AND setting. I'm going to make far more money in my current job than my last one because the job requires a higher experience level (even though in many ways it's an easier job) as well as the ability to generate higher sales figures per shift. My last training shift was with a server who only had two tables all night. Of course, one of them was a 13 top that spent $2600 (which is twice as much as my highest sales in previous restaurants). The server received a $560 tip on that table. After tipouts, he walked with about $450 (his other table was a deuce that tipped $25 on $105), and he was worth every penny for the 4 hours that he (we) waited on those people. |
eeyore_conspiracy
Junior Member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 53
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 02:24 am: |
|
And in their purest form, they are far more "efficient" than capitalism, which relies on "inefficiencies" like advertising, protectionist tariffs, subsidies, bankruptcies, etc. to thrive and grow.
You're flat out wrong. Tell me how communist systems in their "purest forms" would adjust prices efficiently in response to shifting demand.
Moreover, subsidies and protectionism are not instances which exemplify the free market at work. You've got it precisely wrong. Those are interferences with the market.
So you start with the ones that create the least social distruption.
Fixing some is better than none.
And you haven't proven that tipping as implemented in the US is "inefficient" anyway.
Sure I have. I have shown quite clearly that it is not subject to any strong economizing pressure. Servers on this board have clearly acknowledged that there is distinct social pressure to tip. Others have mentioned that they are essentially always x% tippers unless things are really good or really bad. People have offered altruistic motives when they mention their charitable reasons for tipping (for instance, "I know how hard it can be to live on [some dollar amount] per week"). Those are all inefficiencies. And there are admitted to almost every day on this board.
Face it, the system as we know it we have is inherently inefficient.
I guess that gets me off the hook for having to prove that tipping is inefficient. You admit that it is.
Virtually all aspects of our economy are inefficient in one way or the other. And yet, in general, the inefficiences are absorbed without much damage to the economy.
And reducing inefficiency is still a good thing. There are things to improve. If there's not "much damage to the economy," that's fine. We can make it even less.
The true question that seems to underlie your position is actually, "Is it fair"? IOW, are servers "overpaid"?
And the answer is, yes, they are overpaid. If they are not overpaid, then they have little to fear by having their wages controlled by the restaurant instead of customers who are following a social convention.
I maintain that the market has determined that the system IS fair to all parties and that the market has itself determined the wages for servers and this wage varies according to skill level AND setting.
How did the market decide that? What role does social convention have? And what on earth makes you think markets care about fairness?
The server received a $560 tip on that table. After tipouts, he walked with about $450 (his other table was a deuce that tipped $25 on $105), and he was worth every penny for the 4 hours that he (we) waited on those people.
Would the restaurant ever pay him well over $100/hour to wait on people? Not a chance in hell. He was largely the beneficiary of something that had little to do with the value he created or the value he had to others.
But if you don't believe me, that's fine. But you also shouldn't have anything to fear by having servers be paid by the restaurant alone. If they are, in fact, being paid the market equilibrium rate with the current tipping system, they will also get that same pay if the restaurant pays it. But servers know that they're getting overpaid. That's why they react so strongly to those who disagree with tipping. They know that if tipping disappears, cost-cutting managements would hack out all the altruistic fluff that's found in tips, and the restaurant would pay the lowest amount necessary to get the quality of worker they desire. |
penelope
New member
Username: penelope
Post Number: 17
Registered: 05-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
why take it out on servers if they are "over paid" by your standards. isn't there a lot of people ridiculously over paid? athletes, actors, singers, strippers, the freaking president, senators, etc. some of these people are extremely over paid. oh but i know were your argument is going to come. of course you are going to say that these people do not get tips, they get paid a very different way. ok, but what determines their pay. someone, the studio, the publicist, the goverment, they put a price on their time, etc. or you are going to argue that this people have had college education and that is why they deserve to get overpaid. of course after spending thousand and thousands of dollars on an education it is only fair that they get what they paid for. bulls..t. some people are millionaires and they did not even go to college. sure they worked very hard to get where they are, so do servers. we work hard every freaking night we work. do strippers work hard for their money? cause i know that some make waaaay more money than servers. i mean they have to deal with scum everyday, but it comes with the job right. should we stop tipping them for a lap dance, just have the owner of the club charge a standard price for a lap dance and then divide it by the best lap dancer of the night. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 979
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 12:23 pm: |
|
"And in their purest form, they are far more "efficient" than capitalism, which relies on "inefficiencies" like advertising, protectionist tariffs, subsidies, bankruptcies, etc. to thrive and grow.
You're flat out wrong. Tell me how communist systems in their "purest forms" would adjust prices efficiently in response to shifting demand".
I might answer your demand when you address the economics of running a restaurant that I laid out. You now have all of the info you need.
Until then, I'll just say the same thing that you claim time after time. I'm right and you're wrong. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 980
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 12:26 pm: |
|
"The true question that seems to underlie your position is actually, "Is it fair"? IOW, are servers "overpaid"?
And the answer is, yes, they are overpaid. If they are not overpaid, then they have little to fear by having their wages controlled by the restaurant instead of customers who are following a social convention".
You've got it backwards. We are not overpaid PRECISELY since the bulk of our wages are provided by the customer, who has chosen our level of compensation.
You lose.
Again. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 981
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 12:32 pm: |
|
"The server received a $560 tip on that table. After tipouts, he walked with about $450 (his other table was a deuce that tipped $25 on $105), and he was worth every penny for the 4 hours that he (we) waited on those people.
Would the restaurant ever pay him well over $100/hour to wait on people? Not a chance in hell. He was largely the beneficiary of something that had little to do with the value he created or the value he had to others".
You are absolutely wrong. He had that table only because it was a call table. He was chosen by the consumer to wait of them. He had inherent value to the the people paying for the service. And, just as it's wrong for Voz to talk about making $65 an hour on a specific right, you might as well say that it isn't fair to pay that same server 2.13 an hour without the chance for a tip.
Sorry, but the more you flail, the deeper you dig yourself. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 982
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
"But if you don't believe me, that's fine. But you also shouldn't have anything to fear by having servers be paid by the restaurant alone".
Oh, I have nothing to fear, as long as I'm being compensaqted at the same rate that consumers now feel I'm worth. That means, I'm going to have to make about $25 - 30 an hour in my current restaurant, pr $20 in my previous restaurant. Your musings about "altruism and coersion" makes no difference. We can strip out such "fluff factors" in ANY job, including YOURS.
"If they are, in fact, being paid the market equilibrium rate with the current tipping system, they will also get that same pay if the restaurant pays it".
Of course. So you'd have to provide that equilibrium by matching the current levels of income.
"But servers know that they're getting overpaid".
Nope.
"That's why they react so strongly to those who disagree with tipping. They know that if tipping disappears, cost-cutting managements would hack out all the altruistic fluff that's found in tips, and the restaurant would pay the lowest amount necessary to get the quality of worker they desire".
And that's the quality of service that you would get all right. The lowest amount. Sort of when you walk into a modern supermarket at 1:30am or a department store. |
|