I will say, I hate the tipping system in the US. I think that all employees should earn a minimum wage that meets the standard for living and tips should be on top of that. Additionally, tips should be 100% optional and based on service, not as a social requirement.

That being said. Until things change, the system is what it is. If you go out to eat and the food server brings you your prepared food in a reasonable amount of time without spitting in it or throwing it at you, a tip is as much a part of the dining experience as eating the food.

My general rule for tipping on good service is to look at the final bill including tax and give $1 for every $5 that I spend.

So... here is my question. You go to a chain steak restaurant with 8 people and order a bunch of stuff that adds up to $200 (inc tax). So figure $40 tip (based on my system). This actually seems pretty fair for the food plus the service in this case. Now imagine if you went to a fancy restaurant and spent $600 (inc tax) for 8 people. $120 would be a tip @ 20%. So... is it fair that the cost for the server is 3x more because the food itself was more expensive? My feeling is, no, it is not fair. This is where the system is broken. Given social etiquette, I would still pay the expected amount... but I have a gripe with it.

Beach Bum wrote:

Yeah I feel like if you can afford to go out to eat you aren't broke enough to not leave a tip. Also 140 bucks is fucking insane. I could make 140 bucks last nearly two months for groceries, even with a couple kids I can't imagine that not covering two or three weeks worth minimum as long as you shopped smart and weren't stupidly obese and eating all the time.

Your diet sounds like it would guarantee scurvy.

Beach Bum wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote: Beach Bum wrote: GPFontaine wrote: Beach Bum wrote: Yeah I feel like if you can afford to go out to eat you aren't broke enough to not leave a tip. Also 140 bucks is fucking insane. I could make 140 bucks last nearly two months for groceries, even with a couple kids I can't imagine that not covering two or three weeks worth minimum as long as you shopped smart and weren't stupidly obese and eating all the time. Your diet sounds like it would guarantee scurvy. No I just use coupons and wait for good sales. Don't have to spend very much to get a decent amount of food if you actually pay attention to prices and don't buy stupid shit like candy and other junk food. I think what he means is that a shopping strategy like that doesn't lend much to fresh fruit. It goes on sale often enough, just have to watch all the store ads in my area. Get grapes for around a dollar-dollar and a half a pound all the time and during the summer strawberries are cheap as hell around here. Everything else like peaches, pears, and pineapple I like I just buy canned because it stays longer. Plus pineapple is a pain to cut up and then there is just way too much for one person to eat. The only other thing I like, bananas, never go on sale because Illinois sucks so I just have to suck it up and pay full price for them if I want them.

Ok, I'm still not a believer. So, if you are up for it, I'd like you to prove how one can eat a healthy balanced diet for $140 over two months.

60 days, at least 3 meals a day, no less than 1500 calories per day, and a proper plate distribution. Do your best to select 30 percent grains, 30 percent vegetables, 20 percent fruits and 20 percent protein and somewhere in there a small portion of dairy. Those percentages are made up by the "MyPlate" initiative that the government is now using to replace the Food Pyramid.

For what its worth, currently I spend about $40-$60/week for just myself and bring my own food to work and eat at home 6 days per week. I would say I eat fairly healthy, a little low on fruits. So $320 - $480 over 8 weeks.

Cactus wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote: Employees who make most of their wages from tips (which really applies only to servers) can be paid a minimum wage of $2.13 an hour, as long as the tips that employee earns brings them up to at least the minimum hourly wage. If they don't make enough to get them to minimum, the employer has to pay the difference. What's the point of that? Why doesn't the bill cover the cost of all the labour involved?

In an ideal world, as a service provider, the waiter would be paid based on how well they performed their job.

In a fucked up distortion of the system, we now always feel bad for them and pay them the same no matter the service level.

Syd Lexia wrote:

There was a point, probably like 7 years ago now, where we stopped inviting my brother and his girlfriend out to dinner with us, because my brother would constantly short on the tip and we'd have to make up the difference so that the whole table didn't look like fucking dicks.

Please ask Jeebus to come here and explain.