Thoughts on Tipping?

[warriorchick]

There are two different arguments, a moral argument and an economic argument. I believe it would be good for the economy. Many others believe so as well. Some people of good faith may disagree with this, and that's fine, economics is a social science, and different conclusions can be arrived at in social sciences.

However, I see no legitimate moral argument for a company paying its full-time workers less than needed for basic food and shelter, which are human rights and the minimum requirements for ensuring basic human dignity. This moral argument is also enshrined in Catholic social teaching (Rerum Novarum).

"Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice."

Does a 16-year-old who just wants to make some spending money need to earn a living wage?  Or a spouse who is a secondary wage earner?

[Coleman]

Does a 16-year-old who just wants to make some spending money need to earn a living wage?  Or a spouse who is a secondary wage earner?

If they are both in a situation where they have to be working full-time, then probably.

The law must ensure justice. That is the principle aim of law.

If there are full-time workers who are not being paid a living wage, there is injustice in society. This must be given first consideration above all else. Preferential treatment for the poor is a moral imperative.  If, as a side-effect, a kid working 15 hours a week is paid slightly more than he needs, there is still no injustice being done.  Regardless, this could be easily remedied by having a carve-out for people under 18.

[Pakuni]

Does a 16-year-old who just wants to make some spending money need to earn a living wage?  Or a spouse who is a secondary wage earner?

Only about 28 percent of minimum wage earners are teens, a bunch of which I imagine are trying to do more than make some spending money. More than half are older than 25.
If you have a way to legally create a separate minimum wage exclusively for spouses who are secondary age earners, I'd love to hear more about that.
But only about 20 percent of minimum wage earners are married  (much less married secondary earners), I'm not sure it matters much.
Suffice to say, the people you speak of are the minority of minimum wage earners.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

[Coleman]

Only about 28 percent of minimum wage earners are teens, a bunch of which I imagine are trying to do more than make some spending money.

This is a very salient point.

My great grandfather died when my grandfather was 14 years old. He dropped out of high school and immediately began working to support his family.

Is his situation undeserving of a living wage?

[warriorchick]

This is a very salient point.

My great grandfather died when my grandfather was 14 years old. He dropped out of high school and immediately began working to support his family.

Exactly how many 14-year-olds in 2015 are working full-time to support their families?

[Coleman]

Exactly how many 14-year-olds in 2015 are working full-time to support their families?

The point is, how do you know each of their situations?

And anyway, we are quibbling over a minority of minimum wage workers, as Pakuni has already stated.

[Pakuni]

It would probably depend on whether the restaurant owner made the decision or the government made the decision for them.

Under what authority would the government ban tips?

[warriorchick]

Under what authority would the government ban tips?

I meant about having tipped employees making minimum wage.

If a restaurant makes a decision to increase its wages and eliminate tipping, and people did it anyway, it would create a huge headache for the owners.  First of all, all the tax recordkeeping for tips is a major pain in the a$$, which you are more likely to tolerate if the tradeoff is lower wages. Secondly, all the full-wage employees who were used to getting tipped out are going to hate the fact that they aren't getting tips anymore, but the servers are.  The owner would have already had to increase the wages to make up for the mandatory tip-outs, and now they are going to demand even more.

[StillAWarrior]

If they are both in a situation where they have to be working full-time, then probably.

I don't see that term in the Catholic social teaching you quoted.  I see nothing in the text you quote stating that the employer must pay enough to "to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner" in exchange for 40 hours of work.

Any time we're talking about a living wage, it seems that it is often premised upon the assumption that one person should be able to support a family while working 40 hours in a week.  The forty hour workweek is man-made concept -- and is of relatively recent origin.  But it is assumed by living wage advocates as if it is a God-given right.  I know very few households that are supported by one 40-hour earner.  Most families that I know have one who works significantly more, or two that are working 40 hours (or more).  I have a hard time understanding why the vast majority of living wage advocates ignore this.  Two people working 40 hours per week (or one person working two "full time" jobs) will earn more than $30,000 per year - even at minimum wage.  Does it suck?  Sure.  Just like it sucks that I worked about 80 hours a week in October.  Working sucks sometimes.  Especially if you have no marketable skills.  But in my opinion, any discussion of a "living wage" needs to start by abandoning the notion that someone who has very few skills should expect to be supported on day one of employment in exchange for working far fewer hours than virtually everyone I know.

I'll leave my thoughts on the "frugal and well-behaved" concept for another day.

[StillAWarrior]

Why would a restaurant say no to allowing tips if they went minimum wage?

I recognize that.  My post was really a response to those  (like the guy in the video in the first post) who say that we should abolish tipping altogether and/or shift this cost from the customer to the employer.

I also happen to think -- like mu03eng -- that if the wage rate was increased for servers, many people would significantly reduce what they tip or eliminate it altogether.  What has developed from our tipping system is a class of pretty decent paying jobs that don't require a lot of skill.

[MU82]

All you folks with your moral imperatives and common decency ... please!

If we increase wages for these people, how the heck will CEOs get by on $6.4 million per year instead of $16.4 million?

Think of those severely put-upon, middle-aged, white, 0.1-percenters for a change, won't ya?

[warriorchick]

All you folks with your moral imperatives and common decency ... please!

If we increase wages for these people, how the heck will CEOs get by on $6.4 million per year instead of $16.4 million?

Think of those severely put-upon, middle-aged, white, 0.1-percenters for a change, won't ya?

What about the guy who has two minimum-wage employees and clears $50 grand a year on his business?  I promise you there are way more of those types of folks that $16 million/year CEOS.

[Pakuni]

I meant about having tipped employees making minimum wage.

If a restaurant makes a decision to increase its wages and eliminate tipping, and people did it anyway, it would create a huge headache for the owners.  First of all, all the tax recordkeeping for tips is a major pain in the a$$, which you are more likely to tolerate if the tradeoff is lower wages. Secondly, all the full-wage employees who were used to getting tipped out are going to hate the fact that they aren't getting tips anymore, but the servers are.  The owner would have already had to increase the wages to make up for the mandatory tip-outs, and now they are going to demand even more.

1. And yet it's restaurant owners who are doing this. It appears at least some of them don't expect (or aren't facing) the hassle you're predicting.
2. Doormen, hotel maids, hair stylists, etc., all earn at least minimum wage AND get tips, and somehow it hasn't led to calamity.
3. I doubt many restaurant owners are going to panic over the wage demands of their bus staff which, let's be honest, is almost certainly made up of non-citizens who aren't in position to make such demands.

[Benny B]

One of the greatest things about America is that if you - as a citizen - want a $15/hr minimum wage, you can move freely to any one of those locales you wish.  No work permits, no temporary visas, no border crossings, no showing your papers, etc.  If you're eligible for employment in Milwaukee, you're eligible for employment in Seattle... whether intended or not, a federation of states was one of the greatest moves our founding fathers made.

[warriorchick]

3. I doubt many restaurant owners are going to panic over the wage demands of their bus staff which, let's be honest, is almost certainly made up of non-citizens who aren't in position to make such demands.

Just imagine how much wages would increase if they actually enforced immigration laws.  Millions of jobs would suddenly become available, and business owners would have to compete with each other for workers.

[MU82]

What about the guy who has two minimum-wage employees and clears $50 grand a year on his business?  I promise you there are way more of those types of folks that $16 million/year CEOS.

Oh, I know chickadee. I can't resist getting in a dig or two at the bigwigs who run the big chains, but your point is well taken.

[MU82]

Just imagine how much wages would increase if they actually enforced immigration laws.  Millions of jobs would suddenly become available, and business owners would have to compete with each other for workers.

Methinks that many of the small-business owners you talked about just a few posts up -- the guy who has two minimum-wage employees and clears $50 grand a year on his business -- would go belly-up if this happens.

And all of a sudden, we don't care too much about that guy because we need to get rid of all them rapin' Mexicans.

[Pakuni]

Just imagine how much wages would increase if they actually enforced immigration laws.  Millions of jobs would suddenly become available high-paying, and business owners would have to compete with each other for lay off workers to afford it or go out of business.

FTFY.

Seriously, if your argument is that business can't afford a higher minimum wage, how do think they'll afford the increased pay that will come about once they lose the wage depression provided by immigrant labor?
I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

[jesmu84]

I meant about having tipped employees making minimum wage.

If a restaurant makes a decision to increase its wages and eliminate tipping, and people did it anyway, it would create a huge headache for the owners.  First of all, all the tax recordkeeping for tips is a major pain in the a$$, which you are more likely to tolerate if the tradeoff is lower wages. Secondly, all the full-wage employees who were used to getting tipped out are going to hate the fact that they aren't getting tips anymore, but the servers are.  The owner would have already had to increase the wages to make up for the mandatory tip-outs, and now they are going to demand even more.

So? Those employees upset with their income situation can change jobs. Either become servers or do something else. Free market

[mu03eng]

I don't see that term in the Catholic social teaching you quoted.  I see nothing in the text you quote stating that the employer must pay enough to "to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner" in exchange for 40 hours of work.

Any time we're talking about a living wage, it seems that it is often premised upon the assumption that one person should be able to support a family while working 40 hours in a week.  The forty hour workweek is man-made concept -- and is of relatively recent origin.  But it is assumed by living wage advocates as if it is a God-given right.  I know very few households that are supported by one 40-hour earner.  Most families that I know have one who works significantly more, or two that are working 40 hours (or more).  I have a hard time understanding why the vast majority of living wage advocates ignore this.  Two people working 40 hours per week (or one person working two "full time" jobs) will earn more than $30,000 per year - even at minimum wage.  Does it suck?  Sure.  Just like it sucks that I worked about 80 hours a week in October.  Working sucks sometimes.  Especially if you have no marketable skills.  But in my opinion, any discussion of a "living wage" needs to start by abandoning the notion that someone who has very few skills should expect to be supported on day one of employment in exchange for working far fewer hours than virtually everyone I know.

I'll leave my thoughts on the "frugal and well-behaved" concept for another day.

This is a brilliant counter point to the living wage argument, thank you.

[warriorchick]

FTFY.

Seriously, if your argument is that business can't afford a higher minimum wage, how do think they'll afford the increased pay that will come about once they lose the wage depression provided by immigrant labor?
I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

Market forces. Prices go up when unemployment is low. I lived in Boston during the Dukakis "Massachusetts Miracle " Federal minimum wage was $3.35 an hour, but true minimum wage in the Boston area was closer to  $7.00 an hour because that is what people had to pay in order to entice people to work for them. They had to charge more,  but people paid it because everyone who wanted a job had one, and had money to spend. If you arbitrarily force someone to pay higher wages just because., that doesn't happen. And some business owners went out of business because they couldn't compete in that market.  Happens every day, and that's the way it is supposed to work.

[Coleman]

Any time we're talking about a living wage, it seems that it is often premised upon the assumption that one person should be able to support a family while working 40 hours in a week.  The forty hour workweek is man-made concept -- and is of relatively recent origin.  But it is assumed by living wage advocates as if it is a God-given right.  I know very few households that are supported by one 40-hour earner.  Most families that I know have one who works significantly more, or two that are working 40 hours (or more).  I have a hard time understanding why the vast majority of living wage advocates ignore this.  Two people working 40 hours per week (or one person working two "full time" jobs) will earn more than $30,000 per year - even at minimum wage.  Does it suck?  Sure.  Just like it sucks that I worked about 80 hours a week in October.  Working sucks sometimes.  Especially if you have no marketable skills.  But in my opinion, any discussion of a "living wage" needs to start by abandoning the notion that someone who has very few skills should expect to be supported on day one of employment in exchange for working far fewer hours than virtually everyone I know.

It is not just that having two-full time workers "sucks."

Not all children have married parents. Or even two parents. Should they be deprived of food and shelter because your requirement of a living wage is that there be two earners?

In your other alternative, one person works two-full time jobs. Is this a pro-family position?

[Coleman]

What about the guy who has two minimum-wage employees and clears $50 grand a year on his business?  I promise you there are way more of those types of folks that $16 million/year CEOS.

Then he will either A) absorb the increase by raising prices or cutting costs ... B) He won't be able to and will close.

That's how our capitalist system works. There is no free market. There hasn't been in over 100 years, when companies used child slave labor and sweatshops. We have all kinds of regulations and rules to protect employees and consumers. Surely you aren't suggesting we go back to the old days?

The employer will adapt and survive, or he won't.  That's American capitalism.

[Coleman]

This is a brilliant counter point to the living wage argument, thank you.

Not really. But ok.

[brandx]

nm