Australia pays fast-food workers $20 an hour???

[NSXCIGAR]

14 hours ago, Lotusguy said:

I just can't take anyone seriously that speaks only in absolutes and has apparently never made a mistake in his life.

I've made lots of mistakes but I blame no one but myself and have never asked for anything I haven't earned, nor would I accept it. Everything I have I owe to making good decisions and avoiding bad ones. I expect no one to come to my rescue because of a bad decision. I refuse to believe that people are so victimized by some economic and social determinism that no matter what they do or how disciplined, hard working, determined and responsible they are they can't make more than a subsistence wage in the west.

 

17 hours ago, 99call said:

You may think 18yr olds that have 3 kids are idiots, but we cannot blindly judge people. Some people have a terrible upbringing, where the vision of 'self betterment' is a foreign concept. In order to fulfil a dream, you need to feel as though it's genuinely possible. Some people simply exist, in depression, in poverty, in addiction. 

I never called them idiots. I said no one can complain nor should anyone be surprised about their economic position if they choose to behave in this way. 

This is a pretty pathetic portrait of humanity you paint. I believe everyone in the west has the power to advance if they so choose--certainly to improve themselves and grow and earn enough to at least support themselves. They are also fully responsible for their own actions--good and bad. There are far more people with terrible upbringings that have managed to lead fine and productive lives than those who haven't despite your casting of their fate as hopeless in these cases. I seem to have a much more humility and empathy than you as you're categorizing these people as essentially feathers in the wind and near-zombies that need to have their hands held and supported and subsidized. I think some have called this the soft bigotry of low expectations. 

I again have a great deal of empathy for those who have suffered through no fault of their own. And in fact, I have empathy for people who make bad decisions as well. I would like to encourage them to make good decisions. Bailing out people who make bad decisions causes more people to make more bad decisions. So what appears to you as "empathy and humility" is actually destructive to those very people and society itself over the long term. Again, the term is moral hazard. 

If people have 3 kids by 18 the good decision and the responsible thing to do is give them up for adoption to one of the many stable and loving families that has been on a waiting list for years and can provide a better life for them. You can not do that but you'd better be prepared to forfeit all your leisure time and work or study for 70 hrs a week to get a leg up and get that promotion or learn a skill or get a degree or certification. 

What I see is that there are many ways to climb out of poverty even after making bad decisions but no one wants to ask anyone to do what's needed to get it. Apparently working 70 hrs a week is too much to ask for a young, able-bodied human being who wants to better themselves. Apparently forfeiting free time if one has kids in their teens is too much to ask? Living frugally is too much to ask?

And the establishment of minimum "living wages" will contribute to less opportunities for the very people it is designed to help. Entry level jobs disappear or move overseas. The idea that minimum wages causes unemployment for youth, unskilled and minorities is well established. 

17 hours ago, 99call said:

Here in the UK Oxford and Cambridge, pretty much refuse to accept kids from poor backgrounds (no matter if their grades are better than rich kids).

I can find absolutely no data or literature supporting the claim that the Oxbridge tandem discriminates against class or race despite academic credentials. I was able to find many articles claiming lower admission percentages for them but no mention of academic records which would to me seem important to mention. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing what you're basing this claim on. 

 

17 hours ago, 99call said:

I can look at my life and career, and I can see, good parents (who had good parents, who's parents had good parents etc etc), I've had hard work, but I've also received help for peers, from kind mentors. Sometimes I've earned breaks, sometimes I haven't. I have the humility to say I've been very lucky. Some who find themselves working in McDonalds at 35, have had none of these things

Nobody achieves anything by themselves, some think they do, but this is just ego. 

I'm sure you are someone who people wanted to help. I have no doubt you showed up on time, you paid attention, you were diligent, you studied, you were respectful. I would argue that this earned you all the "help" you got. Sure, the people that helped or mentored you were kind, but would not have done so if you weren't worth helping. I think you're overestimating the amount of luck you've had. If anything, we are lucky to have been born in the west, and I suppose we can be lucky to have had good upbringings as we choose neither our place of birth or parents. But bad upbringings can be overcome. Living in sub-Saharan Africa or North Korea cannot be. 

True, hard work alone will not achieve greatness. Someone who works their tail off digging ditches but is an unfriendly loner who learns nothing else obviously won't achieve much. It's about more than that. But who does that? That person really doesn't exist. The person who you refer to trapped at McDonald's at 35 clearly has learned nothing, had made no relationships with management and can't handle any responsibility. That to me indicates something may be wrong with them. So perhaps then charity is in order. But this person who has worked the fryalator at McDonald's for 17 years and still makes minimum wage is fantasy. 

[gweilgi]

19 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm all for charity. However charity is supposed to be reserved for people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. Being bailed out for poor decisions simply leads to moral hazard and eliminates the consequences of bad decisions. Why should someone who sat around playing video games get a job at $20 when it took someone several years of working, training and learning to achieve that level of productivity? 

Moral hazard is an issue, definitely.

But it does not solve anything to reduce it all to individual decisions and responsibility when the problem becomes so big that it develops into a genuine headache for all of us, on many levels.  When too many people make bad choices, it turns into a problem for all of us.  And it is a costly one at that.  Youth unemployment, long-term unemployment, crime, failure to create personal wealth, reduction of national productivity, loss of national competitiveness, erosion of the tax base, pressure on social service systems -- we all foot the bill for those individual yet endemic choices, and so we cannot just sit back and say "hey, it's their choice, let them deal with it".  

 

19 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

 

I agree with this. The idea of college has become more like a religion. And government subsidized loans and grants have served to shepherd untold amounts of kids into something that has become insanely expensive due to the subsidies. Used to be anyone could work summers and pay for tuition at Princeton or Yale. Not anymore. And believe me, no private lender would loan anyone $150,000 for an art history degree. The government does. 

I might take a punt on it.  What matters here is not so much the degree itself than the ability to be flexible, a willingness to enter other and possibly unrelated fields, and above all a good technical skill of acquiring, integrating, analysing and using knowledge.  Careers open to an art history graduate (other than the obvious gallery or museum route): marketing, advertising, PR, event management, education, design (including graphic) and media (including broadcasting and online), publishing, interior design ... and that's just off the top of my head.   

Besides, art is big business -- the global art market was worth USD45 billion last year.  Correctly identify a Da Vinci or Pollack, or discover the next Basquiat or Koons, and you stand to recoup enough to pay for several hundred art history degrees with enough profit to spare to finance the country's largest collection of cigars.

 

[99call]

5 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I can find absolutely no data or literature supporting the claim that the Oxbridge tandem discriminates against class or race despite academic credentials. I was able to find many articles claiming lower admission percentages for them but no mention of academic records which would to me seem important to mention. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing what you're basing this claim on. 

Yes the article is taken from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/dec/22/percentage-poor-pupils-oxbridge-one-percent#comments

But the study it references, has done by the Sutton trust, who focuses on social mobility

https://www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/oxbridge-admissions-undergraduate-widen-participation-contextual-data/

A question to you mate. Do you genuinely believe that the upper classes of the UK don't do everything they can, to socially cleanse their Universities, their towns etc?. if so, you're living in a fantasy land. I say this as someone who isn't a blind lefty. I completely agree that aimless benefits to lazy people, is not an answer. 

I agree that people in the working classes, shouldn't be encouraged to settle for something that is not self sustaining. but what I don't think your being realistic about is, the level of support or collusion that is licensed within the Upper classes. You seem to suggest all success in these classes is merit based, I would suggest that is total bullshit. The level of nepotism and soft standards "for there own" that exists in these closeted societies is disgusting.  

There fact that the Price of Wales and the Queen are wrapped up in tax evasion in the Paradise Papers scandal, tells you all you need to know. The Queen holding investments in the failed UK company 'Brighthouse' that operated by profiteering from the very poorest in society, by offering them washing machines etc at hugely inflated prices, on a pay monthly basis!!!!! The Queen!..........really!   what a total disgrace.

 

[Onelove]

https://kitchenette.jezebel.com/the-gratuitous-injustice-of-american-tipping-culture-1608009017/1608464892/+mattnovak

May be of interest

[Projectal]

Wow, the tipping thing was tough to read. Was that a propaganda piece for ROC? I couldn’t even get to the end. I guess my only response is to challenge you to find a server that would choose an hourly wage over tips, considering the standard tip in America to a server is 15% of the bill. Now, I’ll agree that some people don’t tip well, but others tip more than the standard 15%. I’ll also agree that some nights are better than others. That said, servers have the potential to make a so called living wage, and then some. 

The author’s premise that the restaurant owners are somehow guilting the consumer into subsidizing the waitstaff’s wages is also rediculous. The consumer is going to pay their wages regardless, either by tipping their server or paying higher prices for food. There was a movement a couple years ago to have servers paid a much higher hourly wage, and not have consumers tip. The end result is that the prices on the menu went up significantly. In fact, it’s the restaurant owners that stand to gain by ending tipping as the main source of income for wait staff.

Clearly I have a different opinion, but I’ll take it even further. I believe being a server might be the closest one can get to a true meritocracy. Do a good job, and be directly rewarded for it. Do a poor job, maybe not so much.

 

[El Presidente]

12 minutes ago, Projectal said:

Wow, the tipping thing was tough to read. Was that a propaganda piece for ROC? I couldn’t even get to the end. I guess my only response is to challenge you to find a server that would choose an hourly wage over tips, considering the standard tip in America to a server is 15% of the bill. Now, I’ll agree that some people don’t tip well, but others tip more than the standard 15%. I’ll also agree that some nights are better than others. That said, servers have the potential to make a so called living wage, and then some. 

The author’s premise that the restaurant owners are somehow guilting the consumer into subsidizing the waitstaff’s wages is also rediculous. The consumer is going to pay their wages regardless, either by tipping their server or paying higher prices for food. There was a movement a couple years ago to have servers paid a much higher hourly wage, and not have consumers tip. The end result is that the prices on the menu went up significantly. In fact, it’s the restaurant owners that stand to gain by ending tipping as the main source of income for wait staff.

Clearly I have a different opinion, but I’ll take it even further. I believe being a server might be the closest one can get to a true meritocracy. Do a good job, and be directly rewarded for it. Do a poor job, maybe not so much.

 

I don't disagree when it comes to bar staff or wait staff. Good and great ones can make some seriously good money. 

It is the people flipping fry, cleaning, washing up dishes, taking out trash that concerns me far more. Out of sight out of mind. 

[Onelove]

1 hour ago, Projectal said:

 

The author’s premise that the restaurant owners are somehow guilting the consumer into subsidizing the waitstaff’s wages is also rediculous. The consumer is going to pay their wages regardless, either by tipping their server or paying higher prices for food. There was a movement a couple years ago to have servers paid a much higher hourly wage, and not have consumers tip. The end result is that the prices on the menu went up significantly. In fact, it’s the restaurant owners that stand to gain by ending tipping as the main source of income for wait staff.

 

Not sure about guilting them into it but it seems odd to me that my tip can be used to make up the difference between the federal and state minimum wage.

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/minimum-wage-tip-map-waiters-waitresses-servers/

 

Was recently in the states for a month and was wondering where my tips were really going.

[gweilgi]

17 hours ago, Projectal said:

Wow, the tipping thing was tough to read. Was that a propaganda piece for ROC? I couldn’t even get to the end. I guess my only response is to challenge you to find a server that would choose an hourly wage over tips, considering the standard tip in America to a server is 15% of the bill. Now, I’ll agree that some people don’t tip well, but others tip more than the standard 15%. I’ll also agree that some nights are better than others. That said, servers have the potential to make a so called living wage, and then some. 

That may be about to change:

"The U.S. Department of Labor on Monday proposed eliminating an Obama administration rule that allowed restaurant employees to keep their tips instead of being forced to share them with non-tipped workers, saying the rule had contributed to pay disparities between servers and other staff like cooks and dishwashers.

Employers who pay the tipped minimum wage, which is lower than the standard minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, cannot pool tips and share them with non-tipped workers under federal wage law. The Obama administration rule, which was adopted in 2011, also banned the practice for businesses that pay the higher minimum wage."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-labor-tipping/trump-administration-proposes-rollback-of-tip-pooling-rule-idUSKBN1DY2JH

The problem with eliminating this rule is that if employers now decide to pay their staff the minimum wage, tips become the property of employers and leaves them free to do with this money as they please.  They may divvy the pot between all staff, split it among the service-facing staff, use it to refurbish their place or even pocket it for themselves.  

 

17 hours ago, Projectal said:

The author’s premise that the restaurant owners are somehow guilting the consumer into subsidizing the waitstaff’s wages is also rediculous. The consumer is going to pay their wages regardless, either by tipping their server or paying higher prices for food. There was a movement a couple years ago to have servers paid a much higher hourly wage, and not have consumers tip. The end result is that the prices on the menu went up significantly. In fact, it’s the restaurant owners that stand to gain by ending tipping as the main source of income for wait staff.

I couldn't say whether restaurant owners somehow guilt customers into tipping, but there is widespread awareness that waitstaff are exempt from the minimum wage and I imagine that this would have significant impact on tipping behaviour.  Knowing that "Hi, my name is Joe and I will be your waiter today.  How may I serve you?" may only be paid a couple of bucks an hour for what is a seriously hard job will surely affect how generous I am at the end of the meal.  

As to restaurant prices going up, that is undoubtedly true.  As you said, the customer pays the wages -- one way or another.  This is also one reason why so many Americans have this impression that eating out in Europe or Australia is so much more expensive than in the US: first they look at the menu and go "holy toledo, they charge HOW MUCH for a steak here in London/Paris/Sydney?" without bearing in mind that taxes are already included in that price, and then, after their meal,  they look at the bill and automatically factor in a 15-20% tip which is normal in the US but not done anywhere else.  

 

17 hours ago, Projectal said:

Clearly I have a different opinion, but I’ll take it even further. I believe being a server might be the closest one can get to a true meritocracy. Do a good job, and be directly rewarded for it. Do a poor job, maybe not so much.

The question is: who pays that reward?  I do eat out a lot (too much, says he looking at his waistline), and IME an eatery can get away with mediocre food and deliver a memorable and pleasant experience if the staff are first-rate -- but in reverse, all the Michelin stars in the world cannot give me a great dinner if the staff are mediocre.  To me, this would indicate that the restaurant owner has just as much interest in rewarding merit as does the guy at table 18.  

[Projectal]

18 hours ago, El Presidente said:

I don't disagree when it comes to bar staff or wait staff. Good and great ones can make some seriously good money. 

It is the people flipping fry, cleaning, washing up dishes, taking out trash that concerns me far more. Out of sight out of mind. 

My experience with server’s wages goes back many years to when my kids were small and my then wife worked as a server to at night to supplement our household income. Back then, and I was under the impression now, until @gweilgi mentioned otherwise below, she would share her tips with the people working the back of house. I agree that the busboys and dishwashers don’t get paid very well and that goes back to the original point of this topic. Tipping culture and the income of waitstaff in general is a different topic entirely.

 

16 hours ago, Onelove said:

Was recently in the states for a month and was wondering where my tips were really going.

Your tips went home with your server. The owner does not keep any money given as tips. At least they didn’t when my ex-wife worked in restaurants.

1 hour ago, gweilgi said:

The problem with eliminating this rule is that if employers now decide to pay their staff the minimum wage, tips become the property of employers and leaves them free to do with this money as they please.  They may divvy the pot between all staff, split it among the service-facing staff, use it to refurbish their place or even pocket it for themselves.  

 

 

1 hour ago, gweilgi said:

The question is: who pays that reward?  I do eat out a lot (too much, says he looking at his waistline), and IME an eatery can get away with mediocre food and deliver a memorable and pleasant experience if the staff are first-rate -- but in reverse, all the Michelin stars in the world cannot give me a great dinner if the staff are mediocre.  To me, this would indicate that the restaurant owner has just as much interest in rewarding merit as does the guy at table 18.  

These two comments work a bit against each other. I understand that the owner will be able to keep the tips and do as he pleases with them, but why would he? I can’t imagine a restaurant would have too many people lining up to be a server if all they got paid was minimum wage. Let’s face it, working in a restaurant, in general, is an extremely difficult job. They work **itty hours under some poor conditions, and have to deal with a public that often has rediculous expectations, and when they aren’t met, get blamed for a substandard experience.

As a consumer, I want the best experience possible when I choose to eat out. That means I want great food, great service, and a realistic price to value for the whole experience. It seems, at least in America, that is accomplished by continuing the current system as is, as this movement seems to fizzle out wherever it is tried.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/15/478096516/why-restaurants-are-ditching-the-switch-to-no-tipping

[Fuzz]

I guess this is why I sometimes find it annoying to go shopping and eating in the States. I'm forever having to calculate what I'm eventually going to be paying for something. At home and in most countries I go to, the sticker or menu price is what it is. There is no need to add tax and an obligatory tip. If I feel like tipping, that's my prerogative. It shouldn't be something that is expected.

3 hours ago, gweilgi said:

As to restaurant prices going up, that is undoubtedly true.  As you said, the customer pays the wages -- one way or another.  This is also one reason why so many Americans have this impression that eating out in Europe or Australia is so much more expensive than in the US: first they look at the menu and go "holy toledo, they charge HOW MUCH for a steak here in London/Paris/Sydney?" without bearing in mind that taxes are already included in that price, and then, after their meal,  they look at the bill and automatically factor in a 15-20% tip which is normal in the US but not done anywhere else. 

To be honest, I found it more expensive to eat in the States than back home in Australia. Probably because I know where to go for good, affordable meals back home. But still, on average, food in the USA was more expensive.