Yes, but one way is on the company first and one isn't. Would prices go up if these places were paying living wages? Most likely. Many businesses would be insolvent because their business model was simply never designed to pay a living wage to employees. Others could remain solvent, but probably not if they continue to take so much off the top at higher positions.

And that's exactly it: the market never self-corrects if we throw arbitrary money in excess of listed prices to solve was is ultimately an issue of business solvency and ethics. There is no economic theory that would support such an idea in any industry, but here we are.

The sheer number of businesses out of the space might even drive down rents. That's the kind of thing I mean by "other actions". But things cannot continue as they are.

None of this is even to mention the sheer number of people in the service industry who are also on government assistance programs. They have to be -- none of the blame is on them. But my tax dollars go to that, plus I am expected to pay extra to subsidize their wages with tips. I effectively subsidize them twice while someone reaps the rewards on their yacht. All I'm saying is the yacht people should be taking the risks first. That's part of being a business owner.

The difference is that on slow nights, staff get paid less, which is fucked up.

The business needs to wear the cost, because they reap the rewards, which is the narrative capitalism supposedly is about.

Tipping sucks, I'm glad we don't have it in Australia.

What advantage does this hold versus the company paying a living wage in the first place?

I agree wholeheartedly! Let's make tipping mandatory. In fact, let's add it on to the price of your bill automatically. Better still, let's just add it onto the menu price. Oh hey, we've come full circle.

What difference is there to you, then, between "employer pays a reasonable living wage to their employees but raises the prices of the food a bit to accommodate" and "employer pays poverty wages, forcing the customers to pay their employees for them and forcing tax payers to pay up when people earning poverty wages inevitably rely on government programs to simply survive?" If tipping is mandatory, the only people that benefit is the employer since they can simply double dip - spend less money on payroll AND force the customer to make up for your lack of willingness to pay competitive wages. Yes, under current law, employers are supposed to make the difference if tips can't cover at least minimum wage, but that's not enforced nearly as much as it should be, which puts the onus on the workers being exploited in the first place, and even then minimum wage in this country is embarrassingly unfit for supporting anybody.

The more important question to ask is "why am I expected to pay an employee when the money I already give to a business should cover wages in the first place?"

I'm a tipped employee for my day job. I make a decent base pay, but the tips make up for that in spades during busy seasons. I've bought my current car with tip money. Despite this, I fully support getting rid of tips if it meant my livelihood wouldn't be a gamble depending on factors outside my control, and especially if it meant fewer people had to rely on government assistance and could better provide a livelihood for themselves.

Fucking retarded

Or....and hear me out.....RESTAURANTS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO PAY THEIR STAFF LESS THAN $3/HR!

A business is free to offer mandatory tipping and they do have to make up the difference if its not the minimum wage. The minimum wage could be higher of course.