Think [the box] ing discussion

Tipping (as in leaving money for services beyond the advertised value) seems to be a very cultural phenomenon. What are your thoughts on tipping?

Some countries seem to intentionally lower staff wages, relying on tips to increase the wages. In these cases there is a social expectation to tip.

Some countries seem to present the true value on bills and adverts and tipping is perhaps more "optional" than in the first case?

In all cases there appears to be an etiquette about tipping.

Which would you prefer and which do you think results in the best outcome for customer, staff and employer?

Low wages, socially expected tipping?
Good wages, socially optional tipping?
Something else?

I prefer knowing the value that a service/product has and then deciding if i wish it. ie A meal and some wine is advertised at £12 then that is what i know i can pay and feel that a fair transaction has taken place if i feel it is worth £12. However, i wont know the wages being paid to the staff. I would rather know the staff were being paid a good wage. impo they should be, and that cost simply be put into one overall charge for the meal.

I wonder why it is that i (we?) think more about the wages that a waiter/waitress may be getting or not getting, than any other employee serving us in another industry..?

I wonder why that in the food and beverage industry, more than any other, tipping has become almost the norm, or in many cases the expected norm? Should it be? What makes it so different from receiving great service at any shop or transaction?

I rarely tip (then i rarely dine out and where i live there is no expectation to tip). I would do so if i knew the staff could only survive on tips however. I would not return to said establishment however, because i think that someone should be paid what they are worth by their employer. I also would probably tip if i found someone to be genuinely likeable and helpful (only happened a couple of times)

The thing i seem to find that many people do tip, even in optional situations. In this case the staff get a fair wage and tips. Customers are so happy they left an optional tip and employer is happy that staff and customer are happy.

I wonder if in "forced" tipping situations staff get a bad wage and the tipping is chance. Customer annoyed that they are "forced" to leave a tip and may leave a "poor" one. Staff annoyed at poor wage and poor tip. Customer wont go back, employer unhappy at lose of custom and at staffs unhappiness.. vicious circle..?

I once was so thankful and amazed at the efforts someone went to at an electrical appliance store that i tried to tip him £5. It was unusual for me to do so and for him also.. he refused the tip and i think i embarrassed him, which was the last thing i wanted to do!

Anyhoo, what are yer thoughts or experiences?

What brought this to mind was the news yesterday of:

"A Superior Court judge on Thursday ordered Starbucks to pay its California baristas more than $100 million in back tips that the coffee chain paid to shift supervisors.

Saying baristas were entitled to $86 million in back tips plus interest, San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett also issued an injunction preventing Starbucks’ shift supervisors from sharing in future tips.

Cowett said the practice was a violation of a state law prohibiting managers and supervisors from sharing in employee tips.

Starbucks Corp. spokeswoman Valerie O’Neil said the company planned an immediate appeal, calling the ruling “fundamentally unfair and beyond all common sense and reason.”"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23736754/

Well, I'm Australian, and I'm very against the North American system. I've worked in cafes during and after uni, where my wages started off at over $15 an hour. Every birthday it would go up, and when I moved from preparing food to dealing with customers, for example, it would go up more. This is what you would call "a living wage". People can save money to buy a house or go on holiday on these kinds of wages.

The fast food chains lobbied the previous conservative government to introduce minimum wages, which they did for young teenagers (up to the age of 18, when you're entitled to "adult" wages), with the argument being that this would create more jobs for young people. What it really meant was that they could get rid of all their adult staff, people with family to care for, bills to pay, and exploit teenagers instead for the same amount of work. (How they got rid of the older staff is really quite simple: they cut back their hours more and more and made their lives miserable, forcing them to quit.)

The most common argument against paying waiters etc. a living wage is that it would force prices up. Utter bollocks. The prices for restaurant etc. food in Australia are the same, if not less, than in Canada (I can't speak for the US), and I personally think the quality is better. There're fewer chains and more individual, quality restaurants. The independent cafe scene is huge. Starbucks is struggling.

I'm very passionate about this issue. Now that I live in Canada, we always tip well because we know the people serving us or delivering our food aren't being paid a real wage. When you leave it up to the customers like that, is it any wonder that a huge chunk of society is living below the poverty line? Toronto is an expensive city to live in - I don't know how these people manage. Only those who work in top-end restaurants earn a lot. The argument that being paid in tips forces employees to up their game is bullshit too. If you work in a Tim Hortons, or a McDonalds, or a Denny's, no one's going to tip you.

When Starbucks says that is pays more for workers' health insurance than it does for their coffee beans, you know for sure they're exploiting the crap out of those growers, because their staff don't get paid shit. I boycott Starbucks. Their coffee is terrible anyway.

There is a Starbucks in Lygon Street. It is hard for anyone not from here to understand this blasphemy. Lygon Street is Melbourne's heart of the Italian community. You can buy real coffee in any one of more than 50 cafes. Starbucks is always empty. I walk past it every day and smile.

I don't even remember a Starbucks in Lygon St., but I remember one in the city and the only people I ever saw coming out were bogans. Hardly the clientele they were going for ;)

Tim said: Tipping (as in leaving money for services beyond the advertised value) seems to be a very cultural phenomenon. What are your thoughts on tipping?

My father once saw a sign in a dinner that read:

“No Tipping Please! We pay our help.”

I dislike the entire concept of tipping ... it feels too much like a bribe for decent service. That said, I know a fair number of folks in the service industry and I am aware that they heavily rely on tips because their wages are so low ... IIRC the revenue service actually assumes a certain level of tips for computing taxes due, so stiffing somebody a tip in the US can really hurt. Because of this, I always try to leave a very generous tip when such is expected ... even though I do so grudgingly.

There is considerable research showing that work bonuses (very similar to tips) are not really a performance motivator when they are generally expected (just like tips); however, the LACK of an expected bonus is a significant de-motivator ... and I think on some level most people feel this is true of tipping as well. So ... please be sure to {tip, bribe, ‘motivate’} your {waiter, mobster, employee} to ensure that they will continue to provide you with good {service, ‘protection’, productivity} in the future.

Which would you prefer and which do you think results in the best outcome for customer, staff and employer?

I would prefer eliminating tipping completely (or at least make it truly optional and reasonably nominal). Every customer is entitled to the best service an organization can provide ... ultimately if the service is not up to par, the customer will do more then simply stiff the staff; they will typically not come back. Continued patronage is much better then a single tip IMHO.

The argument that eliminating tips for higher wages will simply lead to higher prices all around is compete BS when you take into account the fact that tipping is expected (and sometimes enforced) in these situations anyway, so the ultimate cost to the consumer is the same.

There is considerable research showing that work bonuses (very similar to tips) are not really a performance motivator when they are generally expected (just like tips); however, the LACK of an expected bonus is a significant de-motivator ... and I think on some level most people feel this is true of tipping as well. So ... please be sure to {tip, bribe, ‘motivate’} your {waiter, mobster, employee} to ensure that they will continue to provide you with good {service, ‘protection’, productivity} in the future.

Kristjan, I wish someone would tell that to the people I work for. Wait, I wish they would take some kind of managerial course and wake up to the fact that their methods are so out-of-date as to be practically illegal. I naively believed them when told, upon joining the company, that my salery could go up after the first three months. I quickly realised that they will never ever be happy no matter what I do, because they don't want to give me a raise. Yep, lots of incentive there.

You remember that scene in Snowcrash (I even have the page number: 286-7), where the Fed boss Marietta gives them 15:62 minutes to read a memo and she reviews how much time they spent reading it - 14-15.61 minutes and it says "Employee is an efficient worker, may sometimes miss important details" while 15.62 minutes exactly is "Smartass. Not to be trusted" and so on. When I read that I laughed but at the same time I thought My God, that's exactly what I go through in my stupid reviews. They are so picky, deliberately so, because they think this is good management technique. Makes me see red.

Tips and bonuses are a nightmare, any organisation that relies on them are managed by fools. They deserve the demotivated staff they create.

In a big Government organisation over here they decided that they had lots of employees who had worked with them for more than 20 years. These people were at the top of their salary bands and had very little hope of moving into another band to get a salary increase. The organisation wanted to reward these people for their length of service and the knowledge they brought to the organisation – but there is always a limit to the size of the bucket of money available, so they decided that each department could reward one such staff member. Ignoring the fact that in some departments there might only be one such staff member with this length of service and in others there might be ten. And the effect of this policy? Well, in some departments an arbitrary choice had to be made on who would get to bonus – other staff became so upset that their efforts had not be recognised (for some reason they took this personally) that some went off work on stress leave. Now, that might be an over-reaction – but I ask you, was that really the result the organisation was after? They introduced a reward system that effectively kicked many of their longest serving (and one might guess most loyal) staff in the teeth.

But bonuses are my favourite. The criteria are never specific enough, so if you are in a big organisation it comes down to what your manager is like – some apply the criteria with vigour and others just give the bonus to everyone. So, if you are in the department that doesn’t give the bonus easily you get annoyed. The bonus is generally only a couple of percent of salary – so not really enough money to motivate you to work harder, even if someone had bothered to set something that looked like a realistic and consistent target for you to work to. But because the amount of money is so little, not only does it not motivate you to work hard – If they don’t pay you the bonus the level of insult is inversely proportional to the smallness of the money on offer.

“You’re telling me you don’t think I’m worth a couple of hundred dollars a year? Stuff you!”

I’ve been told that if you don’t tip the bartender in the US he just won’t serve you. I’m not totally sure how that serves the interests of either the customer or the owner.

Not only is the customer not always right – and the customer should never get the right to set someone’s wages on a whim – but I don’t even like having to be a ‘customer’. Surely we can do without having ‘customers’ in at least 90% of the cases when this label is stuck on our heads. I mean, places like Starbucks (which in Lygon Street is ironically placed near Universita and Lygon Food Store, Shannon, which should be enough to make you smile) don’t really have customers – a real customer is someone who can expect to receive differential service on the basis of how much they are prepared to pay. I don’t want differential service when I buy a coffee – I want a coffee. I rarely even want to be a ‘customer’ when I buy a meal, I want to be the purchaser of a meal. I don’t want to be tempted to punish the least powerful person in the restaurant when the restaurant stuffs up my meal by exercising my very limited power of not leaving a tip – I can punish the restaurant much more effectively, as someone has already said, by not eating there again.

Tips and bonuses are meant to motivate people – but generally they create a situation where your staff are competing against each other. Now, I know competition is the holy of holies in our society, but wouldn’t you think people would prefer their staff to work as a team? And if you want team work from your staff how does setting up a system that gives incentive to competition between your staff help build team work?

Good wages, socially optional tipping is what makes the most sense. I tip for reasonably good service..more for better.

Tim, I assume you meant that IN some countries, THE EMPLOYER intentionally pays lower wages, THUS REQUIRING EMPLOYEES TO RELY ON TIPS, Countries do not make the choice since they rarely set the wages. In the US,governmental efforts are aimed at
providing some basic protections and at least minimum standards. Then those have to enforced. Employers rarely pay higher wages than they have to for entry level or "low skill workers" ..busboys, wait-persons and the like.

Having enforced wage and hour laws and actually sponsored and spearheaded legislation to repeal my state's "Tip Credit Law" which allowed employers to count estimated tips toward their mandate to pay at least the minimum wage to every employee, I feel strongly that its the lack of a realistic minimum wage is what creates the social pressure to tip certain kinds of workers. One finds oneself in a moral bind. If you DO NOT tip, you are not considerate of the plight of those who serve you and whose livelihood depends on your approval and largesse..yet you care not! Yet if you tip, you may think, you are supporting a system where the employer can avoid paying a living wage to his help. Before you congratulate yourself on your stand for the latter choice of nobly not paying more, consider your self-interest that just may have figured in your choice!
The chances of your not leaving a buck or three impacting the employer's stinginess is likely nil.
If you feel strongly, why not instead ask the owner or manager what the help are paid and register your lack of approval there in some way? Or participate in some organized attempt to raise the wages of tipped employees generally? If you do not do either, then go ahead and tip those who are struggling the best they can to do a good job for a lousy wage.
I am speaking primarily of "sit down meal service" , of having luggage carried from a car to one's hotel room, or the like ....
In my travels, I have often encountered the helpful notation on menus and the like that tips are automatically added to one's bill or are included in the prices. This at least removes all doubt. It can be annoying but then, one can assume that it is an alternative to increased prices with no guarantee that the poor wretch gets any percentage of your payment...IF of course, that notation is to be believed!
The power advantage of an employer over an employee is huge, normally: wages, working conditions and number of hours allowed to be worked, and deductions/fees extracted...as well as sometimes other services..and of course the potential firing at will. This is reality.

Sorry Wendy, I need to be sure I've got this right. Are you saying that in living memory in the USA employers could estimate how much their employees were likely to make in tips and to subtract this amount from the amount they should be paid in their actual pay?

So if the minimum wage is $10 an hour and the employer decides you should make $4 per hour in tips they only have to pay you $6 an hour?

Surely not - surely I've misunderstood. Surely no society would allow this. As sickening as the whole tip culture is - this would be some sort of Kafkaesque nightmare.

The Federal minimum wage and the various state minimum wage laws established the minimum hourly wage that an employee can be paid. At various times, the laws have allowed offsets in certain circumstances..such as where certain kinds of employees were given other kinds of compensation...In our state, there was a Tip-credit on the basis of which an employer could satisfy the STATE minimum wage (higher right now than the Federal minimum wage by the way) by offsetting part of their obligation by estimated tips of each employee down to but not less than the Federal minimum wage. So, if the state minimum was $7.50/hr and the waitress, say,got $2.00 per hour in tips, the employer could pay $5.50 in wages and not have violated the state minimum wage law. Of course, the employer would have to have records to justify this estimate . Very awful for all. My first session at the legislature,this was repealed. I wrote the bill, led the charge and got it thru. The resturant and beverage industry fought to get it back on the books thereafter every legislative session and failed. Of course, tips are taxable income for the tipped. Another nightmare.

This fills me with despair. You know, there was a time when the rest of the world looked to the US as a source of hope and inspiration. The sign on your front door read, send us your poor and huddled masses. If I lived in the US I would have sought to protect this image of my country with jealously. There was even a time when your country was seen as the land of opportunity.

Having this law repealed is something you should be rightly proud of. How could anyone ever think up such a law? But I should know better, one should never underestimate how insatiable greed is.

I'm sorry - this all might sound like mock outrage, but I really am gobsmacked.

actually-i did almost 20 years as an off and on waitress (it was my back up profession)
worked for tips doing wilderness canoe trips (as guide's assistant)
and worked on commission in a sales job for several years
and worked for base salary and set bonuses
and worked for base salary and negotiated bonuses
i like the control of my income i felt i had in those situations
as far as waitressing is concerned a minimum wage would never compare with a low wage and tips
so enforcing a minimum wage would lower the income of those workers
likewise the guide's assistant position, base of 75 a day for a very strenuous, often 15-16 hour day was offset by very generous tips
commissions and negotiated bonuses were similar, i was in control in that the harder i worked and/or the better i was at my job the better the compensation
it was sort of an adrenaline rush that working for a secure wage could never provide
and more "real" to me
i don't know if this is making any sense
finally, to the side issue, i was subject to that particular practice and it was objectionable after years of keeping all my tips but tips were good enough and the minimum low so it didn't take that big a chunk
it was standard to under estimate your tips by a significant amount

Thanks for that Wendy, i did mean a little of both - that in some countries it is expected but i also did wonder if the the US laws had an influence which they seem to as ye pointed out. Much respect for yer efforts at improving this.

It is very despairing as Trevor says. He brings up another good point about the image of the US. I think most people around the world do have this image, or i should say used to have this image, of the US being the "land of hopes and dreams" and giving a fair chance for all.. One would expect a bunch of people founding a nation with the escape from tyranny foremost in their minds, as wanting to secure the best possible future for all. Is this just some propaganda history lesson? I know that even with the constitution being created which had many liberty ensuring aspects and rightly was something that the US people could be proud of at the time.. even then slavery for example still was condoned. The terrible ravage, murder and pillage of the native Indians of course took place.
That being said, there was something or seemed to be this sense of something, that the US was a beacon, that many other countries looked towards or sought to emulate.

Today that has turned full circle for any discerning observer. However, i wonder how much of this image that others saw was correct or did we all have some odd rose coloured glasses on?

re the tipping dilemma - that is outrageous that estimated tips can be counted towards a minimum wage. That being said, i do think that minimum wage, as others have mentioned, sadly tends to lead towards certain stratas of society being pushed out of the market.There are plenty of people in jobs on minimum wage who do not deserve either the job nor the money. I wonder if it also lends a justification to how certain employers and employees work.

The biggest argument against a minimum wage, at least im my naive ideal moments ;) is that it is once again just another way the government seeks to meddle in our lives..
If there was no minimum wage, employees would have a "bargaining" chip of sorts. impo empoyers have every right to offer whatever wage they want.. its their business.. and the potential employee has every right to refuse it..

Should every person not have the right or chance to decide what they are worth themselves?

A Sixteen Hour Day????

I've no idea what a base of 75 means, but the word 'often' in front of a sixteen hour day is very disturbing.

And all this depending on how generous your customers feel.

I assume you are in favour of motherhood, Maureen - as I'm starting to wonder if there is anything we can agree on.

Even Jesus said: "for the laborer is worthy of his wages."

Tim,

What you say might make sense if there was a balance of negotiating power between the worker and the employer – but this is rarely the case – and never the case for the bottom end of the market. In good economic times there may be enough jobs for a worker to say to their boss, “See ya, I’m off down the road”, but our society can’t always guarantee good economic times. Even in the best of times we have long periods of stagnant wages. I believe the minimum wage in the US hasn’t increased for decades – neither in good times or bad. In Australia we have had an economic boom for a decade – unprecedented growth, but wages growth has barely kept pace with inflation. Our society never sees it as time to increase wages, unless you are CEO, of course.

Wages do not cause unemployment – in fact the opposite argument could easily be put, that paying a living wage would create a market (as people would have money which they would be able to spend in the economy) and this would actually increase employment.

Our last government experimented with your idea of letting individuals determine their own worth – through individual employment contracts – the result was the wholesale slashing of pay and conditions of people already at the bottom of the market. This was the clear and unambiguous outcome of implementing this policy. But you go further in your argument and decide that these people probably don’t deserve a job in the first place… My whole moral fibre rebels against such a suggestion.

Why is it so easy to find ways to punish the poor while the rich take an ever increasing slice of the pie?

Your argument seems to be that providing a minimum wage – a wage that provides even for the least skilled in our society to have enough money for their labour that they can feed their family, provide shelter and clothes - might demotivate the ‘lower orders’. That has not been the Australian experience, and we had a living wage from 1901 until the Howard Government sought to abolish it three years ago.

I’m sorry, Tim, but I’m going for the jugular now. Thought I’d better warn you. During the potato famine, when the population of Ireland dropped from something like 8 million people to 2 million people and people were dying with grass in their mouths – you know, “my people, humble people who expect nothing” – the Liberals in England spoke against sending charity to Ireland as it would create what we would today call welfare dependants. The ideas you are espousing create poverty, perpetuate poverty and then blame the victim for the poverty the live under. And what is worse, there is no level of degradation, no pit of degradation at which the rich will say to the poor – ‘okay, that’s enough now’.

Society, through a properly elected government, needs to curb the excesses of the market, because if it doesn’t we prove time and again there are no limits to those excesses.

edit: ah ye just posted while i was writing this, reading now. /edit

I assume she means 75 US bucks, which fer 16 hours is feck all.. as ye say.. nightmare. Yet Maureen says she felt more in control. heh, interesting. The thing is.. i would never think of tipping a guide. Not because im tight, i just wouldnt have thought about it. I tend to assume that people are being paid what they think they can get... why else work in that job otherwise...?

Yes i know i open myself to huge criticism now but honestly, who is forcing anyone to take any particular job? I believe every person has the right and responsibility to look after themselves (if they are adult/physically/mentally able). As long as some people are prepared to work for shit, some (most) employers will pay and treat people like shit. shit plus shit = more shit. Then again where does my "idealism" get me in today's world.. ? heh, well, it all depends... Ok ill stop now, im just blethering. Tired. Very tired.

*wobbling from the weight of Trevor clinging to his jugular, Tim manages a quick wee grin before he topples over and pipes up a few more words*

When i said they probably didn't deserve the jobs i was referring to kids.. kids taking the jobs because the adults are pushed out by empoloyers because only the kids will be prepared to take such shit. Simplifying it i know, but i think there is evidence to show that minimum wage can hurt skilled workers more than unskilled workers. That's what i was speaking about in terms of deserving based on skill merits.

See, i try to look at the problem, and you mention it in the first sentence of yer last post.. the imbalance of power between worker and employer.. so i say, well lets change that! Calling in the government..rather than trying to address it directly, in my personal and admittedly ignorant and privileged position of not having been on the poverty line, is not the best option, especially for me, who demands the least involvement of government in our lives.

Ye make good points about Oz.

I certainly do not advocate punishing the poor. The whole concept of capitalism is my bane and it twists me up utterly..
Imbalance is vital for capitalism to work. Argh, ok i wont rant about it in this thread heh.

Im an odd fish in that i do not want government charity. I do not want nor believe we have some "right" to have a fair life. Life is life.
Welfare etc impo only perpetuates the system that its coming from.. capitalism.

Ye say my ideas create and perpetuate poverty.. I say that peoples choices, made and not made, create and perpetuate poverty. People.. we are all people. Every one of us is a human being. Simply. Of equal worth or not worth. BUT, not in a capitalist society.

I feel like
im writing like Maureen
now.

:P sorry, i really shouldnt get into protracted and complex discussions which clearly require much more careful wording and consideration than i am doing right now. Tired. Sorry :)

Bottom line is.. my views are radical. I know that what i say is utterly irrelevant for the majority, thus quite useless. I just want to try to give some perspective.
I would be content if i had the chance and "right" to live out my own life without interference from the government, being able to survive. Primitive.. yes.
If i struggled and starved for example, i would NOT expect nor want that government to help me out. I would rather die.
Taking part, in any way, in a system one finds less than ideal, impo, only serves to give some credence to that system.

*Tim shuts up and goes to stand in the silly radicals corner which "ironically" is rather comfortable and showing signs of capitalistic trappings. He spots a very soft comfy chair and flops into it, letting his silly rant slip away as he sighs and slips instead into a wonderful lie*

Maureen suggested that enforcing minimum wages would lower wages so obviously she has in mind a government MAXIMUM wage not MINIMUM wage. That would be the opposite of minimum wage. We may have to go back to agreed upon basic definitions to have a meaningful discussion.

It may be that Minimum wage means something different to some of you. MINIMUM wage means that employers must pay AT LEAST that wage. Why should that LOWER someone's wages is beyond me.

I suppose one could argue that if one could pay pennies a day for some employees( ie with no minimum wage requirement) that the employer could pay someone he REALLY REALLY wanted, someone with superskills, MORE. Slavery could really enable an employer to pay highly skilled employees more.I do not see the big gain in that. Those who fought the government insisting that people should get at least a basic minimum amount for an hour of regular employment argued that such laws discouraged them from explanding their businesses and hiring more people (at low wages). Maybe. Also meant lower profits for the employer. Meanwhile, lower paid folk depend more on public supported food assistance, welfare, emergency medical care etc etc.


Employers usually pay more because they have to in order to get better, more reliable, more skilled workers but generally are quite willing to pay low wages without any prodding from anyone..if they can get the labor force they need. A minimum wage is commonly exceeded when there is a labor shortage or competition for better workers.

If employers can "get by" with slovenly,unskilled and inexperienced folk..or those who may have limited utility (such as those who cant speak English, for example) for some jobs and it does not hurt their bottom-line profits and there are those folks will take jobs others will not (low pay,rotten working conditions,low status etc), they will pay these workers only what they have to (the minimum wage if there is one, maybe less if there is not) . If jobs are scarce, they can upgrade their hiring and still keep wages low.

Tim, you asked who Who asked who is forcing anyone to take any particular job? Well, some people take what they can get and the alternative is not a better-paid job.

Well, some people can of course choose to "go on the dole" if they can qualify . Some people can desert their dependent families who parasitically want to eat and have a place to live. Some can starve to death. Some can turn to crime. Yes, they have choices but a legal paid job is actually reasonable for them if they can avoid these others ...and then find a way to improve their future through hardwork (maybe a side job or selfemployment), education/training etc . A minimum wage is meant to put a limit to how low a compensation they must settle for in a job.It promised governmental enforcement to insure that the employer does not pay them LESS. Unfortunately, some people still cant find employment for periods of time.

"Feeling in control"can be an illusion fed on adrenyline. I am reminded of the gerbil running inside the spinning wheel..and getting nowhere but how exhilerating it must be! Those outside the cage and not spinning the wheel ,have a better chance to see the bigger picture, think about it and make longrange rational decisions that offer, I suggest, a better chance to affect one's future.
Working for wages is less freeing than other financial strategies but is the one that most people in our society turn to first.

................................................
I find nothing radical in saying that considering options, one would rather go eat worms.

As for to avoid giving credence to a system by not taking part in any way....it would as I previously said not change the system. The system, assumes that some people will not participate and are at best irrelevant. At best, one then has no effect whatsoever on the system. At worst, one's lack of participation is part of the inertia that keeps things the way they are and enables the active to determine what the system is and who benefits. So by nonparticipation, you only support the system not change it.

It is like the non-voter whose nonparticipation, whose leaving decisions to others is already factored in by those who place things on ballots or work for candidates. They are essentially allowing others to vote for them by proxy.

By the way, interference by government may in fact be benign or it may be the opposite.

If "thinking outside the box" is to be more than a cliche, it requires us to examine assumptions and generalizations in light of real life experience and challenge conventional pretense and delusion about control. It means taking responsibility for one's unexamined beliefs and turning over the rocks on which one "takes a stand" to see if there is anything under them.

Trevor

Bonuses and tips are of course, quite different and wheras bonuses tend to be competitive within a workplace ...either between individuals or teams...
tips are not.

Also, the US federal minimum wage has been increased from time to time. More states have minimum wages so the state minimum wage is often of more relevance.
Also, coverage has changed. Fewer jobs were covered by minimum wage because they were considered management or supervisory or some such. Exemptions have been tightened to avoid calling a
"manager" of a corner 7-11 convenience store , a sole employee there, exempt due to his "management status".
As you may know, the VALUE of the dollar has also changed..so there is always a great uproar over what it all means in relation to the holy grail of "a living wage" etc..

Hi Wendy,

You are right, tips and bonuses are different, and possibly even opposite - I should have been more clear.

It is lovely to read a reasoned response that comes not just from the head, but heart, gut and spleen as well. Lovely.

Like you, I worry that everyone seems to automatically assume the government is evil. Where do these governments come from? Who imposes them on us? I think we need to hunt down the evil voters out there and stop them doing this to us. Don't we pay taxes? Surely something can be done!

edit: ooh 2 posts in the time i posted.. reading now /edit.

Wendy, respect. Well said :)

Ye are so right about our illusion of wanting to "feel in control". I guess i should say that at this point in my life i am having to reassess meaning of and for everything and anything. The thing is that i am striving for meaning when in fact there may well be none whatsoever. That leaves me in an odd and not overly comfortable place. Ill probably have to choose a meaning even knowing that it is meaningless. *wry chuckle* So some if not all of my ideas and words are coming from that unsettled place..basically i dont have many or any rocks to stand on, just uneven land i dont have a map for. I do know there is a semblance of rock under there somewhere, one cant deny the reality of ones past.

I appreciate ye saying ye dont find it radical, i think that ye are exceptional. :) I was also in someway trying to show that i am well aware of the "silliness" of what i am thinking and indeed i wouldnt try to enforce them upon anyone.
As someone said, capitalism will only end through revolution or death. I dont think there will ever be a popular revolution. I know i am likely to die. That being said i can still dream, even knowing that dreaming is meaningless.

The "best" option would be for me to accept the way things are and do my best to simply be, simply live, find satisfaction in something, anything and try and put to death in me the desire for "meaning".
That being said i have on some days strong urges to try and "makes things better". Other days i am aware this is pointless or stupid. I am not most people and most people are not me. I am nothing. Nothing is everything. Yet..i am here none the less as is everything and everyone. The answer? What is the question? There is. Or maybe, is not. See - meaningless. To or for me. That matters not to anything outside of me. Who am i to think i am something when im not.

I know im rambling now and way off topic, however it may give some sort of context to where im approaching topics from. Maybe not. heh :s

Well said about "thinking outside the box".

re my comment about giving a system credence, i meant that taking part would give it credence... I know that not taking part does not mean the opposite, in terms of the system, only to me personally. Clearly it will roll on.

If we are talking about democracy.. i fear that i dont believe that voting once every 4 years or so is in any way a meaningful or relevant way to ensure a say in how life is arranged around ye.

In terms of voting in the US or UK for elections.. again i dont like the system. It could "work" if a minimum number of valid votes was required for someone to count as being elected and if the (essentially) two party system was removed.
Additionally i have no faith that elections are not or can not be rigged. Or indeed that it matters much who is elected in most cases.

Honestly though i think everything is just too big to be viable. Scrap big government, have councils so that power is relevant to the local population.
Again, isnt going to happen, but it is what i would rather.

I agree that non participation wont change it. I see no reason to believe that participation will change it enough either however.

I will tell you what has been proven to change it.. terrorism or armed struggle. Thus i live in a country that now has as its Deputy First Minister a likely murderer or at least accessory to murder and proud former commander in the Irish Republican Army.
(im not passing judgement here btw, merely pointing out a fact)

City councils, village councils, etc are not significantly different, just easier for people to watch close up in action. Apathy and inattention grants them privacy and power to make decisions as bad or as narrowly beneficial as any other governmental body.
Who is government? Aliens from another planet? Imposed by an occupying power?
Not likely (though you might disagree in Northern Ireland?).
We create and recreate our governments and staff them by election and delegation of authority.
Voting is the least effort required to make government responsive and responsible. Its like "minimum wage..Its MINIMUM civic action " Yet many do not do that. They gripe and excuse themselves from that minimal duty and blame others whom they neither watch nor advise in the pursuit of their jobs as "servants to the public".
If they suspect merely voting once in a while is less impactful than some other action, they leave those actions to others. They do not bother to learn how government works nor take any actions to affect its course. These are the self-defeated who have already counted themselves out and do not notice or credit those who actually enter the fray to achieve positive change. It is easier to not do anything and say nothing can be done than see others disprove that.

Although I took courses in comparative governments, I certainly can't dredge up specifics sufficient to comment on Ireland or the UK with confidence as opposed to bluff so I will not.

My experience has been that, as Margaret Mead said

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

That applies to every arena..including politics.

well...i have to finish reading and i'm sorry i went to bed before i could clarify
but i want to say...
i was talking only about the waitressing scenario in regards to an established minimum wage
if a minimum is established and tipping eliminated
the wait person would only ever make the minimum
thus reducing their income because most wait people make more than the current u.s. minimum wage


in my experience the u.s. standard minimum was briefly enough to live on in the early to mid 70's but never has been since
i am in agreement on having a minimum wage that is consistent with cost of living
however, for want of a better term, cowboy jobs, are fun and i've always enjoyed them
the guide's assistant was as tim said at $75 u.s. a day 10 years ago and the 16 hour day, was start fire, prepare breakfast, wash up, break camp, paddle a gorgeous wilderness river singing you are my sunshine, hello dolly, row row row your boat, amazing grace and any other silly song, while eagles soar and bullfrogs leap, for 8 hours a day, then make camp, build fire, cook dinner, wash up, go to bed on a needle strewn forest floor with a ceiling of a zillion stars overhead, and get up at the crack of dawn and do it all over again, with a phenomenal group of river rats and racontuers
then pocket the $200-400 tip at the end of the 6 days, say good-bye, unload gear, clean it up and stow it for the next trip
it hardly seemed like work and i may have done it for nothing
i've also raked blueberries, for less than $100 a day, made christmas wreathes for $5 a wreath (i was very bad at this)and been a substitute teacher for $60 a day

the economic system is not "fair" and probably never will be
are we ready to provide, food, clothing, shelter, health care, education to all?
what do we require in return?

i do agree that there should be a living minimum wage
but business seems able to circumvent all efforts to increase workers pay
we now outsource for cheap labor

however, there are businesses that do provide adequate and even generous compensation to their employees
i was a manager in a company that gave everyone a bonus that was percentage based on seniority
as well as performance bonuses
additionally, we paid well above the standard hourly rate for the area and a wage that was in keeping or above the cost of living and automatic medical benefits and accrued vacation benefits
some employees appreciated it
others took advantage

i also think education and health care should be provided for all
i'm almost of the opinion that the shared resources should be shared regardless of effort expended
but that's because i am for motherhood
actually i'm for my mother but am a little tired of being one myself

it's a nightmare
it's slave labor at it's most extreme
i'm going into my third decade here, when will these people stop needing me!

ahh angst
capitalism does indeed suck
predicated on competition and greed
making everyone bow and scrape
tussel and fight for their piece of the ever shrinking pie
while successive generations have their mega rich
who seem to obscenely propogate only more obscene rich
not enough outrage i tell ya
not enough leveling of the playing field
not enough equity, nobility, fairness, justice
it is probably the greatest injustice in our world
some drink the cream
while others die for lack of a drop
and taking part in the system as tim mentions just perpetuates it
my only suggestion
grieve, cry, beat your breast, flail about, seek, question as you are doing, and when you are spent, get up and do it again
argue, think, formulate, give in to despair
then get up and do it again
love, laugh, dance
and if you care so bloody much
pick one thing and pour your life into helping just one group of people, just one issue
and if it truely is all futile as i expect
perhaps amongst the bitter tears there will be one pure crystaline drop of your heart left on the world that gives your heart or someone else's heart a moments ease

(tragic beauty and beautiful tragedy. Thank you for your wisdom Maureen)

Wendy, thanks for starting that new topic, ill not go further into what i meant about local councils etc in this thread, saving it for your one which is better. Briefly, i didnt mean that local council had less impact on us, just that there would be likely more sense of ownership and interested responsibility and accountability.