That's not what out of context means. Yes, you quoted what I wrote correctly. But you left out a huge chunk of my post, and the comment you made regarding what I wrote had very little to do with the actual meaning of what I wrote. Ergo, you took it out of context.
I feel really bad for your friends then. They must work at really crappy restaurants where the patrons don't tip. My percentage came directly from my son who waited tables at a mid range steakhouse. His hourly wage was $2-something and he averaged around $20 something an hour in tips. So yeah, 80-90% tips.
Well, not tipping was the entire point of my post. The part that you did not quote in your reply. Maybe you didn't even read that part? I was replying to other persons here who proposed going out and not tipping as a way to "stick it to the man." So my post proposed a possible solution that I had been kicking around where I opened a restaurant that would pay the wait staff a percentage of the tabs they served in lieu of expecting the customers to tip. And that for this idea to work while also competing against other restaurants that continue to only pay their wait staff the legal minimum, then "obviously the restaurant would have to raise menu prices."
So in your scenario, the entire wage of the wait staff is paid solely from the revenues generated by the menu items, and I assume you still want your employees to earn as much as they earned before primarily from tips, and you don't want to raise menu prices, right? Then where does this money to pay these wages come from? I guess out the generous pockets of the business owner? Because he doesn't have any of his own personal capital wrapped up in his business, so he doesn't deserve any of the profits. Yes, I said his business. Sorry, but your math doesn't work. And very few people invest in businesses with little to no prospect of profits.
The comment I wrote had everything to do with the point I was trying to make. I'm not fully for or against your statements, so why do I need to make a comment based on something you meant but didn't say? I quoted your post, then I responded to part of it. I didn't respond to all of it because it wasn't relevant to the new information I was sharing. Not sure why it's so important that my words reflect what your original point was, when your original point was well articulated on its own.???,
My friends live and work in California. The restaurants are not crappy by any stretch. The patrons do tip. Their base pay is much MUCH higher than $2 an hour, so that would explain why their total pay isn't 80-90% tips.
The money to pay the wages for employees who serve customers should 100% be built into the prices of the food that is served. The idea that prices
must be raised in order to cover the pay of the staff is a generalization that doesn't match the reality of many situations. I say this with confidence because in addition to running my own business for 15 years I spent the 13 years previous to that as general manager or assistant general manager of many retail establishments. I have unique insight, and in some cases had oversight into how the revenue for a location was spent (payroll vs utilities, vs marketing vs etc etc). If restaurants wanted to go 100% pay and no tips they
could do so without raising their food prices if they really wanted to. Maybe this statement isn't 100% true, but it is not 0% true as I believe you are claiming.
Once again, maybe there are different aspects to this such as demographics, location (California vs Texas, etc), and there are definitely different economics at play with chain vs. mom-and-pop locations, but if we need to actually break out math then give me a few hours to break it down. Until then, saying my math doesn't work is once again a generalization that might only include your perspective and not a larger (or different) part of the landscape.
EXTRA: Your comment about competition is interesting. I frequent two different establishments... one with a $68 ribeye steak and another with a $26 ribeye steak. Both taste delicious. Both have a nice enough waitstaff. Both places seem to be doing well in terms of revenue. The first place will cost $200+ for 2-4 people to eat while the second place comes in around $80-$120 for 2-4 people.
The tip for the first place is consequently around $30-$40 while the tip for the first place is $15-$20.
If the 1st location decided to do away with tips they wouldn't need to raise their prices to stay competitive, as they are already in the higher price range of cost and profits.
If the 2nd location decided to do away with tips and raise their prices to adequately pay 100% wages to the waitstaff, their ribeye steak would increase in price by say $20 to $46. In this scenario they are still more affordable than the 1st location, and actually a bargain for me compared to spending $68 + tips at the first location. My point is, being competitive is not just about price, but perceived value + convenience + price.
EXTRA #2: Since we're talking mostly hypothetical scenarios, I'll weigh in on the idea of everyone not tipping to try to force restaurants to pay their people.... I don't think that will work unless there was some high-level-unified-nationwide-strike that got popular on social media and news sites. If people stopped tipping at a particular Red Lobster, those workers would quit because the tips aren't good... and sadly new workers would fill those positions because they need work. The pressure wouldn't be so much on ownership as it would be on the waiters.
Fixing the problem has to start with the mindset of ownership to treat their workers with dignity and pay them a fair (or better than fair) wage and figure out a business model that can sustain that stance while building profits. I tried to do that with my little company. I believe it's totally possible for all the service industry... but what's their motivation when it's been working and beneficial to their bottom line thus far?