Options

Tipping/Gratuity Culture

1303133353638

Posts

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The fuckin give away is that they dont say what they're doing for their employees anywhere on that little sign.

    I mean it’s a sign, you can only fit so much on it.

    https://www.mollymoon.com/tipfree

    Free medical, dental, vision, 401k, paid family and medical leave, paid vacation time…not amazing on the whole, but also not outright horrible for the job requirements.

    I can’t recall if this was the one, but I *think* they also offer full pay transparency? I recall reading that. So every employee knows what everyone else makes.

    I’d say they’re doing about as good as you can do while still paying at or near the minimum wage.

    As for the issue of some employees being tipped more for poor reasons, pooling is an option to address that. Though obviously I prefer just going tip free.

    I'll have to check against some of that but several benefits on that list are mandated by law.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    Which is a good thing, right? Government making sure employees get decent benefits even at minimum wage jobs?

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Which is a good thing, right? Government making sure employees get decent benefits even at minimum wage jobs?

    Im not going to confuse mandatory benefits for generosity, despite them attempting to bill it as such.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yes but it's unreasonable to expect minimum wage to cover every use case, especially when the government has a lot more means of addressing specific hardships beyond twisting the minimum wage dial.

    It's not necessarily your employer's responsibility to make sure they can fund every unfortunate situation you might find yourself in. And when we're getting mad at the guy running the ice cream store for only giving his employees $18 an hour plus full benefits, I think maybe expectations need some tweaking.

    The "use case" is being able to afford a room for rent, and a shitty car or a bicycle or a transit pass, and maybe having a tiny amount of money left over so you have some fighting change of climbing out of a poverty trap.

    And while I'd love it if we had UBI, right now our whole country is tuned around employment being the primary way to keep people fed and housed.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2023
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Which is a good thing, right? Government making sure employees get decent benefits even at minimum wage jobs?

    It is a good thing, but the point is that if Molly Moon's is offering the legal minimum compensation and benefits after eliminating tipping, then eliminating tipping didn't benefit the employees.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    I'd be curious what kind of hours-worked requirement are tied to some of those benefits too.

    18.69 an hour with bennies might seem like an endless shrimp and steak trip down the river of easy living, but if you're only getting 16 hours a week,

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    They made the change before the pandemic, and they're still in business, so whatever I'mma say they're doing a good job and leave it at that. If the person making more in tips left and went somewhere else to continue tipping based employment, good for them as well.

    are YOU on the beer list?
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    I know Seattle is a lot more expensive but minimum wage here in TX is still just $7.25/hr., which is bullshit. Two and a half times that amount for scooping some ice cream, cleaning the store, and working the POS seems like it's fair? Unless we're arguing that McDonald's employees should be paid something approaching median wage in Seattle. I'm not trying to be insensitive, just trying to understand what people feel like a fair wage would be for this kind of labor?

    I don't have the personal experience of living there to know exactly how far that pay goes, but I would, generally speaking, like to get away from relying on employers for everything regardless. If this sort of job is all a person can do or get, they should still be able to make it.

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited April 2023
    I know Seattle is a lot more expensive but minimum wage here in TX is still just $7.25/hr., which is bullshit. Two and a half times that amount for scooping some ice cream, cleaning the store, and working the POS seems like it's fair? Unless we're arguing that McDonald's employees should be paid something approaching median wage in Seattle. I'm not trying to be insensitive, just trying to understand what people feel like a fair wage would be for this kind of labor?

    I don't have the personal experience of living there to know exactly how far that pay goes, but I would, generally speaking, like to get away from relying on employers for everything regardless. If this sort of job is all a person can do or get, they should still be able to make it.

    Its minimum wage which is basically no dependents and have roommates assuming you actually work full time and pray you dont get hit with major expenses. Seattle is pricey.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    I know Seattle is a lot more expensive but minimum wage here in TX is still just $7.25/hr., which is bullshit. Two and a half times that amount for scooping some ice cream, cleaning the store, and working the POS seems like it's fair? Unless we're arguing that McDonald's employees should be paid something approaching median wage in Seattle. I'm not trying to be insensitive, just trying to understand what people feel like a fair wage would be for this kind of labor?

    I don't have the personal experience of living there to know exactly how far that pay goes, but I would, generally speaking, like to get away from relying on employers for everything regardless. If this sort of job is all a person can do or get, they should still be able to make it.

    I wouldn't live in or around Seattle for less than $30/hr. That's absolute bare bones minimum for me. $25/hr is a level where I'd be cash strapped but still barely making ends meet.

    This isn't hypothetical for me. I've been on both sides of the hiring and recruitment desk in Seattle, and I've had employees start around $25-$30 (I wanted to pay them more but I wasn't making pay scale decisions) after moving across the country to take the job, only to realize after they got to Seattle that it wasn't actually a lot of money.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 2023
    Is it a 40 hour a week job? Yes it should approach the median income if not exceed it thus that the employee may live within walking or biking distance of the location in which they are required to do their work.

    Sleep on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Right, and I agree that sucks, but I am not convinced the ideal solution is to make ice cream scooping jobs pay $25-30+/hr. I would rather make life livable apart from employment. We're obviously past the days when these jobs were just for high school/college kids who didn't need the pay to survive, but even then I think making the wages tip-based was problematic.

  • Options
    R-demR-dem Registered User regular
    I mean I know nothing about Seattle's cost of living, but I imagine it's high. If 18 an hour gets you a room, a bus pass, groceries, and maybe a bit extra that seems like minimum wage right there. If bennies are included for part timers so they don't have like their teeth rot out of their heads while trying to go to school then that's nice. Obviously if neither of those are true then we are in a different tune.

    I will toss out though that while cost of living indexes may say that places like eg the Wasatch Front in Utah (where I live, hence me calling it out) are low, they always fail to mention that our housing is absolutely absurd. Like apartments and townhomes are springing up everywhere because single family home prices are absolute and utter bullshit.

  • Options
    syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Is it a 40 hour a week job? Yes it should approach the median income if not exceed it thus that the employee may live within walking or biking distance of the location in which they are required to do their work.

    Then it wouldn't be the median income any more.

    Cost of living fucking SUCKS, but working at a McDonalds in Midtown doesn't mean you should be able to afford to live there, especially since there is a good public transit infrastructure that lets you commute inexpensively, and depending on what you make, it might even be free.

    I don't think the answer is for the ice cream scooper and the burger flipper to be able to raise a family of 4 off of that work or cover all of life's bumps.

    The answer should be that those jobs are not where people in their 30s and 40s end up due to much better access to free education, including trades education as a means of getting into more lucrative work, and strengthening the social safety nets such that bumps in the road do not derail you. Minimum wage jobs for high school kids and folks in college as a means to supplement the home they are in, not as a primary income.

    Also, fuck tipping.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited April 2023
    Not being able to live where you work is a big contributor to hollowed out cities that close up shop at 6pm. Shit sucks. Capitol Hill nightlife is worth protecting.

    "Minimum wage is meant for kids and students" is just not reflective of reality.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Is it a 40 hour a week job? Yes it should approach the median income if not exceed it thus that the employee may live within walking or biking distance of the location in which they are required to do their work.

    Then it wouldn't be the median income any more.

    Cost of living fucking SUCKS, but working at a McDonalds in Midtown doesn't mean you should be able to afford to live there, especially since there is a good public transit infrastructure that lets you commute inexpensively, and depending on what you make, it might even be free.

    I don't think the answer is for the ice cream scooper and the burger flipper to be able to raise a family of 4 off of that work or cover all of life's bumps.

    The answer should be that those jobs are not where people in their 30s and 40s end up due to much better access to free education, including trades education as a means of getting into more lucrative work, and strengthening the social safety nets such that bumps in the road do not derail you. Minimum wage jobs for high school kids and folks in college as a means to supplement the home they are in, not as a primary income.

    Also, fuck tipping.

    Fuck this. People should be able to afford to live working any full-time job in the United states.

    No I don't.
  • Options
    MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    I mean if you want to talk about remedying the issues of low housing stock, unaffordable living spaces, and establishing rent subsidization so people can live closer to where they work I'm all for it.

    But I don't think tipping specifically really has anything to do with all of the above. More it's a weird band-aid we've used to cover up NOT taking care of all of the above because "Well they can make a lot of money with tips!!"

  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited April 2023
    Yeah no, people should definitely be able to afford to live working full-time.

    I remain extra unconvinced that making them more reliant on their shitty employers or the tipping lottery is the way.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Yeah no, people should definitely be able to afford to live working full-time.

    I remain extra unconvinced that making them more reliant on their shitty employers or the tipping lottery is the way.

    Yes there are obviously better options than tipping. That doesnt make this sanctimonious shit from the ice cream company pro worker or better than tipping.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Is it a 40 hour a week job? Yes it should approach the median income if not exceed it thus that the employee may live within walking or biking distance of the location in which they are required to do their work.

    Then it wouldn't be the median income any more.

    Cost of living fucking SUCKS, but working at a McDonalds in Midtown doesn't mean you should be able to afford to live there, especially since there is a good public transit infrastructure that lets you commute inexpensively, and depending on what you make, it might even be free.

    I don't think the answer is for the ice cream scooper and the burger flipper to be able to raise a family of 4 off of that work or cover all of life's bumps.

    The answer should be that those jobs are not where people in their 30s and 40s end up due to much better access to free education, including trades education as a means of getting into more lucrative work, and strengthening the social safety nets such that bumps in the road do not derail you. Minimum wage jobs for high school kids and folks in college as a means to supplement the home they are in, not as a primary income.

    Also, fuck tipping.

    Fuck this. People should be able to afford to live working any full-time job in the United states.

    Define 'live'. Do they get a car? What sort of car? Apartment or house? Own or rent? How often should the be going out and to what sort of places?
    If $18/hr is crap wages for Seattle I'll believe them, but maybe come up with what a livable wage for the place might be, because otherwise the question of 'how much should X job make' seems to just be 'more'. At which point we might as well make tree leaves the currency and see how that shakes out.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    Sleep wrote: »
    Is it a 40 hour a week job? Yes it should approach the median income if not exceed it thus that the employee may live within walking or biking distance of the location in which they are required to do their work.

    If you're saying that minimum wage should meet or exceed the median wage I think you might need to remind yourself what some of those words mean.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Right, and I agree that sucks, but I am not convinced the ideal solution is to make ice cream scooping jobs pay $25-30+/hr. I would rather make life livable apart from employment. We're obviously past the days when these jobs were just for high school/college kids who didn't need the pay to survive, but even then I think making the wages tip-based was problematic.

    I guarantee that minimum wage jobs have never been just for high school or college kids. From the first day the minimum wage was implemented in the US, it was intended to be a living wage covering low wage earners of all ages and demographics. FDR, arguing for it in front of Congress in 1937 (emphasis mine):
    Our nation so richly endowed with natural resources and with a capable and industrious population should be able to devise ways and means of insuring to all our able-bodied working men and women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

    The majority of minimum wage earners (roughly 55%) are over the age of 24 per Bureau of Labor Standards data. Twenty years ago per the 2003 BLS report, people under 24 were a slim majority (53%} of minimum wage workers, but obvs that means that 47% were not youths.

    It's an easy mistake of availability bias. "I worked a minimum wage job when I was young, and everybody I knew at the time who was working minimum wage was young, therefore minimum wage jobs were for the young."

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    edited April 2023
    syndalis wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Is it a 40 hour a week job? Yes it should approach the median income if not exceed it thus that the employee may live within walking or biking distance of the location in which they are required to do their work.

    Then it wouldn't be the median income any more.

    Cost of living fucking SUCKS, but working at a McDonalds in Midtown doesn't mean you should be able to afford to live there, especially since there is a good public transit infrastructure that lets you commute inexpensively, and depending on what you make, it might even be free.

    I don't think the answer is for the ice cream scooper and the burger flipper to be able to raise a family of 4 off of that work or cover all of life's bumps.

    The answer should be that those jobs are not where people in their 30s and 40s end up due to much better access to free education, including trades education as a means of getting into more lucrative work, and strengthening the social safety nets such that bumps in the road do not derail you. Minimum wage jobs for high school kids and folks in college as a means to supplement the home they are in, not as a primary income.

    Also, fuck tipping.

    To the bolded, why ? I dont understand the rationale. A job is a job and if the McD is in midtown it probably sees a lot of traffic and thus, makes enough of a profit to compensate the employees a living wage. Same for scooping icecream or any other job, if the business can afford it, why wouldnt they offer a living wage for the area they are settled in ?

    FANTOMAS on
    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    Not being able to live where you work is a big contributor to hollowed out cities that close up shop at 6pm. Shit sucks. Capitol Hill nightlife is worth protecting.

    "Minimum wage is meant for kids and students" is just not reflective of reality.

    Out of curiosity, what would you set the federal minimum wage at? Gimme a number.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Not being able to live where you work is a big contributor to hollowed out cities that close up shop at 6pm. Shit sucks. Capitol Hill nightlife is worth protecting.

    "Minimum wage is meant for kids and students" is just not reflective of reality.

    Out of curiosity, what would you set the federal minimum wage at? Gimme a number.

    I know you didn't ask me, but my number would be somewhere in the $18-20/hr federally right now adjusted for inflation year after year. States/cities could be more than that, but that would be the area I'd want federally.

    No I don't.
  • Options
    HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    It was absolutely one person making $25 an hour while everyone else received barely anything.

    And I'd wager even that person made $25 an hour maybe one day a week and just assumed that's average because people are terrible at math.

    I know when I was in college the expectation was that if you were young, you lived modestly and had one or two roommates to help with the rent so that your low income job could let you get by. Which was perfectly fine, it's not the end of the world having a roommate and a trashy car or maybe just a bicycle or whatever.

    Now the expectation seems to be you should be able to support a family of four in a metro off a single minimum wage job, so we just need to bump federal minimum wage up to $50 an hour to make sure everybody's bases are covered.

    Boomers were able to support a family off of a single worker. Admittedly not minimum wage, but there's been throughout my lifetime a push for both lower paying jobs (transition from manufacturing to service industry) and for both parents (or even kids!) to work to support the family. If businesses are going to push for employees to work for as little as possible for as many hours as possible, then why shouldn't we push back to the other extreme, with a single worker able to support a family?

  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Not being able to live where you work is a big contributor to hollowed out cities that close up shop at 6pm. Shit sucks. Capitol Hill nightlife is worth protecting.

    "Minimum wage is meant for kids and students" is just not reflective of reality.

    Out of curiosity, what would you set the federal minimum wage at? Gimme a number.

    $17/hr, ballpark. That should be minimum for low-income low-rent states like Arkansas and Oklahoma, where 1bd apartments are available for $1000/mo.

    Coastal states should have higher minimum wages, and expensive metro areas in those states even higher still.

    I don't want to speak for styro, but I'm going to take the low-end of rent on a 1BD apartment, multiply it by 3, multiply it by 12 months, and that will determine the absolute barest minimum that a full time worker should make in a year.

    In my ideal situation, we wouldn't have a federally mandated minimum wage, but we would have widespread unionization a'la Iceland, and we would have a UBI or basic income guarantee. I think that as matters of policy those are better ways to guarantee a minimum income for all adults. But in the absence of those policies, a minimum wage is what we can do in the short to medium term.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    I'd be curious what kind of hours-worked requirement are tied to some of those benefits too.

    18.69 an hour with bennies might seem like an endless shrimp and steak trip down the river of easy living, but if you're only getting 16 hours a week,

    Don't move the goalposts. Nobody is expecting someone to make a livable wage on 16 hours of work per week.

  • Options
    SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 2023
    syndalis wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Is it a 40 hour a week job? Yes it should approach the median income if not exceed it thus that the employee may live within walking or biking distance of the location in which they are required to do their work.

    Then it wouldn't be the median income any more.

    Cost of living fucking SUCKS, but working at a McDonalds in Midtown doesn't mean you should be able to afford to live there, especially since there is a good public transit infrastructure that lets you commute inexpensively, and depending on what you make, it might even be free.

    I don't think the answer is for the ice cream scooper and the burger flipper to be able to raise a family of 4 off of that work or cover all of life's bumps.

    The answer should be that those jobs are not where people in their 30s and 40s end up due to much better access to free education, including trades education as a means of getting into more lucrative work, and strengthening the social safety nets such that bumps in the road do not derail you. Minimum wage jobs for high school kids and folks in college as a means to supplement the home they are in, not as a primary income.

    Also, fuck tipping.

    working in the city center should absolutely mean being paid thus that you can live near the city center. No one should be forced into a commute to their jobs centralized location of more than a half hour to 45 minutes. Anything longer than that should be elective. Especially when you’re working an actually physically grueling job like anything at the service layer of our economy.

    The major flaw is thinking that service jobs aren’t what you do with your life and never could be. Might surprise you to find out. Service jobs aren’t just a phase of life job to everyone. Treating them like they should only be phase of life jobs hurts society in general and allows for the wholesale mistreatment of workers in those roles.

    Service industry jobs are a career just as much as programming or plumbing is.

    Sleep on
  • Options
    R-demR-dem Registered User regular
    Yeah no, people should definitely be able to afford to live working full-time.

    I remain extra unconvinced that making them more reliant on their shitty employers or the tipping lottery is the way.

    Yes there are obviously better options than tipping. That doesnt make this sanctimonious shit from the ice cream company pro worker or better than tipping.

    It costs the business more to pay their employees this way, right? Like in Seattle you have to pay people more if they are not in a tipped job? And the business is taking pains to point out the toxic history of tipping?

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    I'd be curious what kind of hours-worked requirement are tied to some of those benefits too.

    18.69 an hour with bennies might seem like an endless shrimp and steak trip down the river of easy living, but if you're only getting 16 hours a week,

    Don't move the goalposts. Nobody is expecting someone to make a livable wage on 16 hours of work per week.

    Im not moving goalposts, im talking about the realities of these shitty jobs everyone was ready to gush over.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    I dunno, this is just kind of turning into an amorphous, generalized labor discussion now so I'm going to bow out of that.

    I'm really, seriously doubtful that (except for the highest-cost restaurants) tipping allowed a lot of these Seattle ice cream service industry workers to live in the same neighborhoods as they worked, though.

  • Options
    HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    I know Seattle is a lot more expensive but minimum wage here in TX is still just $7.25/hr., which is bullshit. Two and a half times that amount for scooping some ice cream, cleaning the store, and working the POS seems like it's fair? Unless we're arguing that McDonald's employees should be paid something approaching median wage in Seattle. I'm not trying to be insensitive, just trying to understand what people feel like a fair wage would be for this kind of labor?

    I don't have the personal experience of living there to know exactly how far that pay goes, but I would, generally speaking, like to get away from relying on employers for everything regardless. If this sort of job is all a person can do or get, they should still be able to make it.

    Seattle isn't just "A little more expensive" compared to Texas. Cost of living in Houston is 95% of the US average, with housing down at 75% of the average. In Seattle, the cost of living is 165-170% of the US average, and housing is a mind blowing 290%. So just to live at the same level of (dis)comfort for a $16.69 wage in Seattle, you'd be looking at ~9.30 / hour.

    Also, while the legal minimum wage in Texas is $7.25, nobody is paying that little. I see signs up all over for restaurants, grocery stores, etc for $15-$18/hour.

  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2023
    syndalis wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Is it a 40 hour a week job? Yes it should approach the median income if not exceed it thus that the employee may live within walking or biking distance of the location in which they are required to do their work.

    Then it wouldn't be the median income any more.

    Cost of living fucking SUCKS, but working at a McDonalds in Midtown doesn't mean you should be able to afford to live there, especially since there is a good public transit infrastructure that lets you commute inexpensively, and depending on what you make, it might even be free.

    Well, "good public transit infrastructure" is relative. And honestly I don't think the US has good public transit infrastructure in any city with the exception of NYC. (San Francisco comes close, but it's still a little shitty.)

    Seattle has a better bus system than most cities in the US, and it has something that might someday grow up to be a light rail system if it eats its vegetables and stays in school. But I'd call it a fair-to-middling public transit infrastructure.

    Public transit is just something the US sucks at.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    I dunno, this is just kind of turning into an amorphous, generalized labor discussion now so I'm going to bow out of that.

    I'm really, seriously doubtful that (except for the highest-cost restaurants) tipping allowed a lot of these Seattle ice cream service industry workers to live in the same neighborhoods as they worked, though.

    Their flagship location is Capital Hill, famous dwelling of drug users, musicians, students, sexual minorities and general ne'er-do-wells. So yeah, lot of people did. Its been getting harder as rents go up, lanyards move in, and wages fall behind.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    It was absolutely one person making $25 an hour while everyone else received barely anything.

    And I'd wager even that person made $25 an hour maybe one day a week and just assumed that's average because people are terrible at math.

    I know when I was in college the expectation was that if you were young, you lived modestly and had one or two roommates to help with the rent so that your low income job could let you get by. Which was perfectly fine, it's not the end of the world having a roommate and a trashy car or maybe just a bicycle or whatever.

    Now the expectation seems to be you should be able to support a family of four in a metro off a single minimum wage job, so we just need to bump federal minimum wage up to $50 an hour to make sure everybody's bases are covered.

    Boomers were able to support a family off of a single worker. Admittedly not minimum wage, but there's been throughout my lifetime a push for both lower paying jobs (transition from manufacturing to service industry) and for both parents (or even kids!) to work to support the family. If businesses are going to push for employees to work for as little as possible for as many hours as possible, then why shouldn't we push back to the other extreme, with a single worker able to support a family?

    Boomers were able to support an entire family off one manufacturing income because essentially the industrial base of the entire rest of the planet got blown the fuck up. It was a wild outlier and was never going to be sustainable. Two-income (or more) households have always been the standard outside of a very brief period post-WWII.

    uH3IcEi.png
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    Feral wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Not being able to live where you work is a big contributor to hollowed out cities that close up shop at 6pm. Shit sucks. Capitol Hill nightlife is worth protecting.

    "Minimum wage is meant for kids and students" is just not reflective of reality.

    Out of curiosity, what would you set the federal minimum wage at? Gimme a number.

    $17/hr, ballpark. That should be minimum for low-income low-rent states like Arkansas and Oklahoma, where 1bd apartments are available for $1000/mo.

    Coastal states should have higher minimum wages, and expensive metro areas in those states even higher still.

    I don't want to speak for styro, but I'm going to take the low-end of rent on a 1BD apartment, multiply it by 3, multiply it by 12 months, and that will determine the absolute barest minimum that a full time worker should make in a year.

    In my ideal situation, we wouldn't have a federally mandated minimum wage, but we would have widespread unionization a'la Iceland, and we would have a UBI or basic income guarantee. I think that as matters of policy those are better ways to guarantee a minimum income for all adults. But in the absence of those policies, a minimum wage is what we can do in the short to medium term.

    I think your "monthly rent times 36" guideline is pretty reasonable. In Sacramento, you can get a cheap 1bd or studio for about $1000 if you shop around. Minimum wage in California is $15.50, which is about $32k per year, and I ran some numbers awhile ago to see if my 18 year old daughter could theoretically get by with a minimum wage job, and found that she could if she was frugal. (It was academic - she's living here rent free while she's in college at least, so it's not like she'll need to, but I was curious.)

    Someplace like my ex wife's hometown has 1bds avaliable for $600 or so, so minimum wage would be comparatively cushy there.

    I generally hate the idea of a federal minimum wage as a straight number, since by its very nature it's going to be either useless or onerous in most states. What they need is one indexed to the COL in each state, or something. I recognize that in our current climate any kind of intelligent minimum wage policy is impossible, but a man can dream.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I dunno, this is just kind of turning into an amorphous, generalized labor discussion now so I'm going to bow out of that.

    I'm really, seriously doubtful that (except for the highest-cost restaurants) tipping allowed a lot of these Seattle ice cream service industry workers to live in the same neighborhoods as they worked, though.

    And even if it did provide some of them high enough incomes to live in central Seattle, that’s still not a great argument for it, because it’ll largely boil down to “sure if you’re pretty enough you can make more scooping ice cream than a teacher with a graduate degree.” And that ain’t the sign of healthy labor policy.

  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Not being able to live where you work is a big contributor to hollowed out cities that close up shop at 6pm. Shit sucks. Capitol Hill nightlife is worth protecting.

    "Minimum wage is meant for kids and students" is just not reflective of reality.

    Out of curiosity, what would you set the federal minimum wage at? Gimme a number.

    $17/hr, ballpark. That should be minimum for low-income low-rent states like Arkansas and Oklahoma, where 1bd apartments are available for $1000/mo.

    Coastal states should have higher minimum wages, and expensive metro areas in those states even higher still.

    I don't want to speak for styro, but I'm going to take the low-end of rent on a 1BD apartment, multiply it by 3, multiply it by 12 months, and that will determine the absolute barest minimum that a full time worker should make in a year.

    In my ideal situation, we wouldn't have a federally mandated minimum wage, but we would have widespread unionization a'la Iceland, and we would have a UBI or basic income guarantee. I think that as matters of policy those are better ways to guarantee a minimum income for all adults. But in the absence of those policies, a minimum wage is what we can do in the short to medium term.

    I think your "monthly rent times 36" guideline is pretty reasonable. In Sacramento, you can get a cheap 1bd or studio for about $1000 if you shop around. Minimum wage in California is $15.50, which is about $32k per year, and I ran some numbers awhile ago to see if my 18 year old daughter could theoretically get by with a minimum wage job, and found that she could if she was frugal. (It was academic - she's living here rent free while she's in college at least, so it's not like she'll need to, but I was curious.)

    Someplace like my ex wife's hometown has 1bds avaliable for $600 or so, so minimum wage would be comparatively cushy there.

    I generally hate the idea of a federal minimum wage as a straight number, since by its very nature it's going to be either useless or onerous in most states. What they need is one indexed to the COL in each state, or something. I recognize that in our current climate any kind of intelligent minimum wage policy is impossible, but a man can dream.

    This is a bit of a tangent and I'm not going to go too far down it in this thread, but that's one of the reasons I like collective bargaining. Places with high union representation (over 51%, like most of northern Europe) can get away without a nationally-mandated minimum wage because the unions will negotiate wages with and for you. This allows them to negotiate wages that vary based on the industry, position, and region. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark don't have national minimum wage laws. Germany didn't until 2016.

    For this to work correctly I think it needs to be combined with a robust social safety net, so that if anybody falls through the cracks of the union representation system, they aren't facing homelessness or extreme poverty. And we don't have that in the US, either.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    cncaudatacncaudata Registered User regular
    If some folks are arguing that the business paying their workers $18/hour, giving them benefits, and not allowing tips is the bad guy because some workers might have made more money from tips... I don't know what to do.

    Like, I am way better off if men keep getting paid more than women for the same work. That doesn't mean we should keep doing it.

    Put your actual prices on the menu, pay your workers the actual money they're going to earn, and everyone can apply for the job or order the food with full knowledge of the transactions being made. If $18 isn't enough for that work, then workers will go get other jobs, etc.

    I'd also like to address a thread of this conversation that popped up again, wherein people are told that they are dicks for not tipping, because tipping is a good thing to do to provide income for workers that are underpaid by their employers. Um, no. You don't get to tell people they're dicks for making a different choice in how to spend their charity dollars. Money is fungible, and all that tip money you feel so great about handing out isn't necessarily doing what you want, and it's certainly not sure to be doing more good than any other charitable use of that money. The arguments been made over and over, but it's still valid. If you aren't tipping every minimum wage worker you interact with, and all the ones close enough to throw money at that you don't interact with, and donating most of your disposable income to charity, etc., then you don't get to tell someone that their choice of how to spend their money is wrong.

    Folks that say this are actually falling into the social shame game that they claim doesn't exist. Why do you tip your server and not all the servers, busboys, cooks, you see? It's because you want your fancy good (opposite of shame) feeling for supporting the income of somebody that serves you. Heck, you could support the workers more by just going in, handing them a tip, and walking out. No need to take up their time with actually ordering the food.

    Ugh, telling people they shouldn't eat out if they can't afford to tip is no different than telling folks on WIC that they should only be able to buy dry rice and beans. Yes, it's a societal norm that the tip is included, but it's also a commonly held belief that poor people shouldn't have anything nice. Both ideas suck.

    PSN: Broodax- battle.net: broodax#1163
This discussion has been closed.