Tipping Culture in USA?

[THIICUMS]

Things like Barbers, Waitresses and such.

What’s your opinion about tipping culture?

I usually don’t go to fancy barbers, it was my first time and I paid $35 for a cut and it was awkward because I didn’t Tip or forgot I was suppose too?

[RRW359]

Opprinnelig skrevet av 𝖠̶̶̅𝖨̶̶̅𝖬̶̶̅:

Only places that you are "expected" to tip is restaurants and even then, there is no social banishment or law against it. Most people don't care outside of your waiter or waitress, it's more of just an ethics thing. My wife was a waitress, so I understand that's where many get the majority of their pay and I always tip my service. Some places like many restaurants at Disney World have a forced minimal on gratuity, so your tip is in the bill. Otherwise, tip when you receive exceptional service and you'll see how thankful some are here in America. That whole "promise land" thing is a joke honestly. I've gotten generous tips doing my labor jobs that have literally paid for my child's birthday, when I likely would not have been able too. I've given a $20 tip and learned that was someones much needed gas money. It feels good to help out good people.

Wheather or not there are consequences/social banishment depends on who you talk to, some think it's no big deal while others think you are the absolute scum of the earth. Also servers online will also claim to give repeat non-tippers slower service, no refills even when they are free, and threaten illegal food tampering. Also since most States allow restauraunts to profit from tips there have been stories of people being banned for not doing it.

[RRW359]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Xero_Daxter:

When I make my own country I will ban tipping. If you wanna tip from the kindness of your heart then that's on you; but you're never obligated or even encouraged to do so.

The problem is that doing that gets dangerously close to controlling free speech. Any sensible country should ban tip credit but unfortunately when States do that in the US it doesn't really decrease the amount of people who look down on you for not tipping.

[Devsman]

Opprinnelig skrevet av GunsForBucks:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Devsman:

Why would you expect any change in system like an economy to not have side effects?

One low hanging fruit example is it will increase the cost of goods and services.

The logic is if you put in more money they corporations will just increase prices since you can afford it.

Trickle down economics that feeds the top.

To counter that you need taxes on corporate profits over a certain amount at 90%. They would then need to invest in themselves and their employees to retain value.

This is how it used to work. Slow and steady growth.

Nah, that's it how it works in conspiracy theory land. In the real world, the competetive market generally opposes "because why not" price hikes, for the simple reason that all other factors equal, people are going to be attracted to the least-priced option. This means competitors will naturally drive each other's prices lower until it becomes infeasible to drop any more. Now, that's ideally speaking; we don't really have a purely competitive market. But it's a much closer model than the general public's impression of anyone with more money than them (including manufacturers of everything) being an evil mustache twirler and getting away with pricing a candy bar at ten million bucks just because.

The reason increasing minimum wage increases prices is because it increases the cost of production, shifting the supply curve to the left and the equilibrium price upward.

But it's not so pronounced a phenomenon that it would theoretically cancel out. Increasing minimum wage is still good for those paid by it (well, those who continue to be employed, anyway) because you have other costs besides labor and because there's a slope on the supply curve.

[RRW359]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Devsman:

Opprinnelig skrevet av GunsForBucks:

The logic is if you put in more money they corporations will just increase prices since you can afford it.

Trickle down economics that feeds the top.

To counter that you need taxes on corporate profits over a certain amount at 90%. They would then need to invest in themselves and their employees to retain value.

This is how it used to work. Slow and steady growth.

Nah, that's it how it works in conspiracy theory land. In the real world, the competetive market generally opposes "because why not" price hikes, for the simple reason that all other factors equal, people are going to be attracted to the least-priced option. This means competitors will naturally drive each other's prices lower until it becomes infeasible to drop any more. Now, that's ideally speaking; we don't really have a purely competitive market. But it's a much closer model than the general public's impression of anyone with more money than them (including manufacturers of everything) being an evil mustache twirler and getting away with pricing a candy bar at ten million bucks just because.

The reason increasing minimum wage increases prices is because it increases the cost of production, shifting the supply curve to the left and the equilibrium price upward.

But it's not so pronounced a phenomenon that it would theoretically cancel out. Increasing minimum wage is still good for those paid by it (well, those who continue to be employed, anyway) because you have other costs besides labor and because there's a slope on the supply curve.

Don't the twin cities have some of the lowest rates of inflation in the country despite Minnesota increasing minimum wage yearly with CPI (also on the topic of this thread outlawing tip credit)?

[GunsForBucks]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Devsman:

Opprinnelig skrevet av GunsForBucks:

The logic is if you put in more money they corporations will just increase prices since you can afford it.

Trickle down economics that feeds the top.

To counter that you need taxes on corporate profits over a certain amount at 90%. They would then need to invest in themselves and their employees to retain value.

This is how it used to work. Slow and steady growth.

Nah, that's it how it works in conspiracy theory land. In the real world, the competetive market generally opposes "because why not" price hikes, for the simple reason that all other factors equal, people are going to be attracted to the least-priced option. This means competitors will naturally drive each other's prices lower until it becomes infeasible to drop any more. Now, that's ideally speaking; we don't really have a purely competitive market. But it's a much closer model than the general public's impression of anyone with more money than them (including manufacturers of everything) being an evil mustache twirler and getting away with pricing a candy bar at ten million bucks just because.

The reason increasing minimum wage increases prices is because it increases the cost of production, shifting the supply curve to the left and the equilibrium price upward.

But it's not so pronounced a phenomenon that it would theoretically cancel out. Increasing minimum wage is still good for those paid by it (well, those who continue to be employed, anyway) because you have other costs besides labor and because there's a slope on the supply curve.

Your theory is not functional. We are literally seeing the results live in the economy with record profits and struggling workers.

As it is now they just strangle people to prevent competition.

Competition is needed for a healthy market.

Unbridled capitalism is fascism.

[kingjames488]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Devsman:

Nah, that's it how it works in conspiracy theory land. In the real world, the competetive market generally opposes "because why not" price hikes, for the simple reason that all other factors equal, people are going to be attracted to the least-priced option.

tell that to continually rising food prices... and the ridiculous housing market(at least here in canaderp)!

supply/demand only works with non-essentials...

reminds me of some old comedy bit about plungers.
you could charge almost anything for a punger, most people aren't going to reach their hand in there to unclog it.

but back to the point, if everyone is charging the same price for food, or housing, or medicine... well you kinda have to pay that don't you?

I think the capitalist ideals should be left to non-essentials... not like the market is lacking.

[Devsman]

Opprinnelig skrevet av kingjames488:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Devsman:

Nah, that's it how it works in conspiracy theory land. In the real world, the competetive market generally opposes "because why not" price hikes, for the simple reason that all other factors equal, people are going to be attracted to the least-priced option.

tell that to continually rising food prices... and the ridiculous housing market(at least here in canaderp)!

supply/demand only works with non-essentials...

reminds me of some old comedy bit about plungers.
you could charge almost anything for a punger, most people aren't going to reach their hand in there to unclog it.

but back to the point, if everyone is charging the same price for food, or housing, or medicine... well you kinda have to pay that don't you?

I think the capitalist ideals should be left to non-essentials... not like the market is lacking.

If everyone is charging the same price, then either that's the minimum feasible price or there's illegal collusion happening.

Not that illegal collusion would be particularly surprising.

[kingjames488]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Devsman:

Opprinnelig skrevet av kingjames488:

tell that to continually rising food prices... and the ridiculous housing market(at least here in canaderp)!

supply/demand only works with non-essentials...

reminds me of some old comedy bit about plungers.
you could charge almost anything for a punger, most people aren't going to reach their hand in there to unclog it.

but back to the point, if everyone is charging the same price for food, or housing, or medicine... well you kinda have to pay that don't you?

I think the capitalist ideals should be left to non-essentials... not like the market is lacking.

If everyone is charging the same price, then either that's the minimum feasible price or there's illegal collusion happening.

Not that illegal collusion would be particularly surprising.

or just a few greedy people seeing how far they can push things.

tho there are a lot of small town monopolies, especially with grocery stores, that aren't illegal... but the town can't support 2 competing grocery stores and so there's only one and they can charge w.e they want... and those profits can prop up more competitive pricing in other ways...

also there's probably illegal collusion happening... the crooked government keeps saying they're "looking into it" >.>

[Mauserich]

I haven't been there yet, but from my point of view it looks like they don't earn enough and have to supplement their earnings. It doesn't speak for well-paying companies. On the other hand, it's bad for the customer because he doesn't know the price of his order from the start, so the total amount is always somewhat hidden. For people who don't know, it's an additional charge and comes across as trickery.

[RRW359]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Devsman:

Opprinnelig skrevet av kingjames488:

tell that to continually rising food prices... and the ridiculous housing market(at least here in canaderp)!

supply/demand only works with non-essentials...

reminds me of some old comedy bit about plungers.
you could charge almost anything for a punger, most people aren't going to reach their hand in there to unclog it.

but back to the point, if everyone is charging the same price for food, or housing, or medicine... well you kinda have to pay that don't you?

I think the capitalist ideals should be left to non-essentials... not like the market is lacking.

If everyone is charging the same price, then either that's the minimum feasible price or there's illegal collusion happening.

Not that illegal collusion would be particularly surprising.

If someone has an increased price for housing or medicine they can't just not pay it. They might eventually be able to chose a different company but by the time they do their company has proven that their price gauging works and now they will all do it.

[RRW359]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Mauserich:

I haven't been there yet, but from my point of view it looks like they don't earn enough and have to supplement their earnings. It doesn't speak for well-paying companies. On the other hand, it's bad for the customer because he doesn't know the price of his order from the start, so the total amount is always somewhat hidden. For people who don't know, it's an additional charge and comes across as trickery.

Most minimum wage workers in the US don't make enough but servers are the only group you are expected to supplement.