And if you're in an at-will employment state, they can fire you for that. Then poison you to all the other places in town where you might get a restaurant job.

I don't think you understand how difficult it is to do any sort of labor action in the U.S. It's frankly amazing that any of the Starbucks franchises have been able to unionize.

I would love everyone to be in a union, but it's too easy to stop employers from quashing that idea. They can and will continue to get away with paying waiters less than they should and there are enough people desperate for work to take them up on that offer.

So I will continue to tip. It is not the fault of someone who just needs a job that they aren't being paid what they deserve. The least I can do is give them a hand.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Seems to me like this is happening in all 50 something states though, not just the ones with special laws, we sure that's the problem?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Of course it is. Why would you expect different states to have different tipping policies? How would people remember what or whether to tip in each state?

Believe it or not, non-union restaurant businesses, being the vast majority in the U.S., have a lot more clout than unions.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How would people remember what or whether to tip in each state?

The tip "laws" are indeed different per state... and the onus is put on the business owner as it should be.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped

The people you're interacting with on this forum are more than likely from more populous states definitionally. If you look up those states, they likely make way more than the 2.13$ that you fear they do.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't remember fearing they make $2.13 an hour.

I fear they don't make what minimum wage should be at the very least- $15 an hour.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This country is wide and disparate. 15$ in NYC is not equivalent to 15$ in the middle of nowhere Utah.

This is why states can choose to make minimum wage whatever they want. Simply blanket stating that 15$/hr for everyone is silly. But lets realize that many states DO require around 15$/hr (or close enough where a 1 dollar tip per table would net them 15 really easily)... and those states actually hold a significant portion of the population of the USA... meaning that most of the people you're talking to here on Lemmy are LIKELY from those states. Does someone who lives in a house in the middle of nowhere Utah have the same requirements for income? You can look on zillow right now... There's houses that appear fully functional for sale at $30,000 (357 results for less than 50k). Does that person need 15$/hr? Just because you're used to prices where you live, and demand those wages at your location, doesn't mean that those numbers make sense at other place in the USA.

So the real question... Where you live... on the table... are they already close to 15$, or close enough that a 5-10% tip which is what used to be customary would still get them over your magical 15$/hr number?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We have a federal minimum wage. Are you really not aware of that?

And no, it is nowhere near $15 in Indiana.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We have a federal minimum wage. Are you really not aware of that?

Yes, which is completely superseded by the states minimum wage. Which is what I said in my post if you bothered to read. What about my post makes it seem like I don't know that a federal minimum wage exists?

And no, it is nowhere near $15 in Indiana.

So looking at Zillow, there's 358 houses in Indiana that are less than 50k to purchase (over 1000, at less than 100k)... Why do you need 15$/hr? What makes 15/hr "livable" when a house that typically takes up 30-50% of a persons monthly expense cost only 50k?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, which is completely superseded by the states minimum wage.

Are you under the impression that state minimum wage can be lower than the federal minimum wage?

So looking at Zillow, there’s 358 houses in Indiana that are less than 50k to purchase (over 1000, at less than 100k)… Why do you need 15$/hr? What makes 15/hr “livable” when a house that typically takes up 30-50% of a persons monthly expense cost only 50k?

Got it, you're one of those people who think the poor don't deserve anything but the bare minimum society can possibly offer.

And, of course, those 358 houses are evenly distributed across Indiana so that the only 358 people in Indiana being paid minimum wage can afford them. That's exactly how things work.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

With minimum wage in Indiana being $7.25,

https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordability/

You can afford a house up to $67,530.

Keep in mind that this is availability RIGHT NOW. Meaning that the market has availability on TOP of what's already occupied... and doesn't include rentals. The market is NOT saturated.

those 358 houses are evenly distributed across Indiana

Looks pretty centered around population centers to me.

who think the poor don’t deserve anything

Right... which is why I'm advocating here that they should be able to buy a house? That's the bare minimum to you? Jesus dude... you're really off the mark here.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

All 358 of them?

Because only 358 people in Indiana are paid minimum wage?

Also, I have no idea how you calculated those numbers, but there is not a chance in hell that someone who makes less than $16,000 a year can afford a house. They can barely afford food. And who would give them a mortgage?

$16,000 a year is below the poverty line.

And yes, getting everyone into a home should be the bare minimum. Sadly, many people aren't in them, including many people who work for minimum wage. Because, believe it or not, very few people will rent to you if you make that little.

I love how you say "I think the poor deserve things because I want 358 of them to own a house" and not "I want them all to be paid better."

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And yes, getting everyone into a home should be the bare minimum.

Getting into a home (eg having a house to live in) != OWNING a home. Owning the home/asset is not the bare minimum in this country.

Because only 358 people in Indiana are paid minimum wage?

Didn't say that. Actually quite literally already stated that this is surplus on top of whatever solutions people have already in place. Eg... people making minimum wage right now live somewhere already do they not? This is surplus on the market right now already. If you're going to continue to ignore half of the message and continue to argue in bad faith just let me know so I can block you sooner rather than later.

but there is not a chance in hell that someone who makes less than $16,000 a year can afford a house.

Uh... so you think the mortgage calculator is incorrect? My current mortgage is at 259,000, and I pay ~1300. a 50k house at double the apr will be something like $300. Where you'd make $1232.50 a month... so less than 25% of your income. This is 100% possible.

$16,000 a year is below the poverty line.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1c92a9207f3ed5915ca020d58fe77696/detailed-guidelines-2023.pdf

No. For an individual that threshold is 14,891. 7.25$/hr, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is 15,080. I put the numbers into the calculator. You can too. Minimum wage keeps you just above poverty if you're on your own.

You claimed that 15$/hr is required for your area. I'm showing you that that is bullshit as you can have well more than "minimum" with minimum wage income.

The funny part is that this already ignores that at minimum wage you can claim benefits as well that would help (SNAP for example) since you wouldn't be grossing 130% of the poverty level.

I love how you say “I think the poor deserve things because I want 358 of them to own a house” and not “I want them all to be paid better.”

I grew up in poverty... Demanding increased minimum wages has never worked to resolve poverty (and quite contrarily has typically made it worse in the community I grew up in, and continues to NOT help in that community to this day [I visit every once in a while... the place is a mess] even though the state has raised minimum wages MANY times and probably about 100-200% of what it was when I was growing up). So why would I make that demand? Why would I demand something that has historically NOT helped? The surplus in the housing market shows that those working minimum wage CAN survive more comfortably than I did as we never even owned a home back then.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You claimed that 15$/hr is required

No, I said $15/hour should be the federal minimum wage.

Demanding increased minimum wages has never worked to resolve poverty

False:

Researchers determine that regardless of the scenarios, a federal minimum wage increase would reduce poverty among all race and ethnic groups. Considering this wage increase would likely impact 56 million workers, it has the potential to bring great financial relief to families who need it most.

https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/2022/08/exploring-the-effects-of-a-15-an-hour-federal-minimum-wage-on-poverty-earnings-and-net-family-resources.html

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the $15 federal minimum wage would have boosted the earnings of low-wage workers and decreased poverty. In its absence, a national policy agenda focused on raising wages is still urgently needed.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/higher-regional-minimum-wages-can-lift-half-of-struggling-households-into-economic-self-sufficiency/

A new Center for American Progress analysis shows that setting one fair minimum wage for all workers across the nation, specifically tipped but also for disabled and temporary teenage workers, will help alleviate poverty, sustainably grow the economy, and advance gender, racial, disability, and economic justice.

Eight states have already eliminated the tipped minimum wage entirely.2 This analysis finds that in those states, workers and businesses in tipped industries have done as well as or better than their counterparts in other states over the years since abolishing the subminimum wage. Meanwhile, 16 states use the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13 per hour. Another 26 states and the District of Columbia have a tipped minimum wage higher than $2.13 but still below the prevailing regular minimum wage.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/ending-tipped-minimum-wage-will-reduce-poverty-inequality/

Believe it or not, just declaring things doesn't make them true.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, I said $15/hour should be the federal minimum wage.

And in your area, it would not make sense to do so. As evidenced.

https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/2022/08/exploring-the-effects-of-a-15-an-hour-federal-minimum-wage-on-poverty-earnings-and-net-family-resources.html

Critics of a higher minimum wage argue that raising it would end up taking jobs away from the very workers it is meant to help because employers could not afford the higher labor costs. [...] Assuming no job loss would occur as a result of raising the minimum wage, nearly one-third of U.S. workers would be affected by an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15.

So this page/"study" specifically has to control out the actual argument against for their data to work. and even have to acknowledge later that if there actually is job loss...

Even assuming some job loss, 6.9 million people would be lifted out of poverty,

Their "helped" number goes down. I give you an example from the community I grew up in that it doesn't work...

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/higher-regional-minimum-wages-can-lift-half-of-struggling-households-into-economic-self-sufficiency/

But for the tens of millions of Americans struggling to afford the costs of living in their local communities, it’s arguably the metric that matters most.

And part of that metric is... wait for it... Housing affordability! Which I've already acknowledged is location dependent. Which is the whole reason why I looked at the market overall in your state. This issue is worse in some places for sure. But not in any you've brought up or have come up in conversation thus far. This article doesn't even cite the study it's based off of.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/ending-tipped-minimum-wage-will-reduce-poverty-inequality/
Eight states have already eliminated the tipped minimum wage entirely.2 This analysis finds that in those states, workers and businesses in tipped industries have done as well as or better than their counterparts in other states over the years since abolishing the subminimum wage.

I wonder how many people who still tip know that in these states. If my wait-staff is making 15$ an hour... I'm not tipping them, and I'm willing to bet a lot of people wouldn't either. However... if these states typically have people tipping till that are under the false belief that their wait-staff are making 2.13 an hour... then making 15 and tips on top... That wait staff can easily be pulling in 25-30 an hour. That could be a good reason why they do "better" than other state counterparts. But notice the phrasing here... "as well or better" meaning that some of the data shows that after the wage increase... THEY'RE STILL NOT BETTER OFF in some of the locations. Isn't that interesting?

But right! I understand that my community that I grew up in and my personal experience is anecdotal... But when it's completely counter to the claim that "it is universally good!" then you have to wonder.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

As evidenced.

Your evidence had something to do with housing affordability, not quality of life. You clearly do not give a shit about their quality of life.

Also, I love how every study I provided is wrong and you, without a single bit of evidence, are right.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

NONE of them were a study. Every one of them are articles that simply speculate... or use sources that AREN'T a study... Eg. the americanprogress one only cites US census information. Everything is "author's calculations" and the Author isn't a statistician.) A study is never actually sourced or presented.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Any time you want to provide evidence for your claim, go ahead.

And one of them literally talked about a CBO study.

Here is that study.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage.pdf

The number of people in poverty would be reduced by 0.9 million.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Any time you want to provide evidence for your claim, go ahead.

Your "evidence" is more than sufficient.

Effects on the Distribution of Family Income
The net effect of the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 on income would vary considerably among families. In 2025, 0.9 million fewer people would have income below the federal poverty thresholds, CBO estimates. Families’ real income would change in three main ways.
-For families with workers earning wages at or near the federal minimum, real income would increase. That effect would be concentrated in the lowest quintile, or fifth, of the distribution of family income.
-For families that lost employment because of the increase in the minimum wage, real income would fall. That effect would also be concentrated in the lowest quintile of the income distribution, but it would be smaller than the increase in real income just described
-For families that experienced a decline in business income or saw no change in their labor income but faced higher prices for goods and services, real income would fall. That effect would be concentrated in the highest quintile of the income distribution.

So over 0.9 million people would come out of poverty... But the what sounds like a nebulous "lesser" amount would go into worse poverty especially if you take the last item into account which they don't in the second point. Since they don't define how many... we're stuck at a gamble here. That's not an answer. You're basically asking to sacrifice a half million (or maybe even more! since they don't care to define it) to save .9 million.

Then they go on to say...

Effects on Prices
In CBO’s assessment, the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 would change the relative prices of goods and services. The largest price increases, relative to the average increase, would be for goods or services whose production required a larger-than-average share of low-wage work, such as food prepared in restaurants. For goods and services that used less low-wage labor in their supply chains, prices would rise less.

So prices for EVERYONE will go up for everything. Acknowledged. Which actually means people who are close... will suffer as well.

Effects on Interest Rates
In CBO’s assessment, the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 would cause interest rates to be slightly higher than they would have been otherwise over the 2021–2031 period

Net negative for everyone here as well... Especially those already in debt.

Yeah... reading through this briefly... it's validating everything I had already thought... You might "save" some people.... but at the cost of so much more. It's also proving the point that you can't be trust with what you say... you're effectively saying "if it saves one person" without realizing the cost of doing so to society overall, including those you purport to "save".

But at the very end...

Taken together, those differences led to differences in the reports’ projected effects on employment and family income. In the 2019 report, CBO estimated that employment would fall by 1.3 million workers in 2025; in this report, the estimated reduction is 1.4 million workers. The most important analytical change that led to that difference was CBO’s use of the mean rather than the median in determining its central estimates.

So save .9 million... but lose 1.4 million workers? This math doesn't add up. I'll have to read more into this report to get a better understanding of what they mean.

Also

The estimated number of people whose annual income would rise above the federal poverty thresholds in 2025 is smaller in the current report (0.9 million) than it was in the 2019 report (1.3 million). That difference stems from the changes in CBO’s baseline projections, from the changes in the policies’ timelines, and from the use of mean outcomes rather than outcomes generated by the median values of key inputs.

So the number is naturally going down over time on it's own?... So basically do nothing has dropped the number .4 million over 2 years... Nearly 50% of the number that you believe can be "saved" by raising minimum wage. That sounds like statisticians nightmare where the whole report gets thrown out because it's statistically irrelevant.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Shit just read some more... All of page 8 is a problem.

In 2025, when the minimum wage reached $15 per hour, employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers (or 0.9 percent), according to CBO’s average estimate. In 2021, most workers who would not have a job because of the higher minimum wage would still be looking for work and hence be categorized as unemployed; by 2025, however, half of the 1.4 million people who would be jobless because of the bill would have dropped out of the labor force, CBO estimates. Young, less educated people would account for a disproportionate share of those reductions in employment.

If you think this is a positive answer to anything... I can't help you. We already have problems with this in some sectors (IT specifically as that's what I have the most experience with). It's hard to get into positions as they all want stupid high qualifications. Now that's going to get worse? Sign me up as hard against this legislation outright. You've actually convinced me to be against this more than I already was.

Edit: Also another case... people who are borderline and get benefits would likely lose their benefits... So their overall income may not increase much at all... you paper brings that up.. which I usually forget about.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com -1 points 9 months ago

Do you want to elaborate why you're downvoting me for reading the report given to me? Did I get something wrong? Care to actually contribute than just drive by downvoting?

@Labrad0r@lemmy.world @daltotron@lemmy.world

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How would people remember what or whether to tip in each state?

Maybe not in each state but maybe in the one they reside, where it's most likely they'll go out eating? I'm not familiar with at will employment in the us but you seem to imply it's inly in some states. What about the others.

And in the end, doesnt really matter how difficult it is for service workers to fight for those rights, no one else is going to do it for them which was my original point. What i do know is that the US has a history of people standing up and fighting for rights, it being difficult hasnt stopped others before.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

People travel.

Is it really fair for the servers to be paid different amounts based on whether the person in the restaurant is from the area and therefore knows whether or not to tip? Isn't that worse for them than it is now?

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is it fair for the servers not to be paid by their employers?

I'm at a loss mate. I'm having these conversations here on lemmy about us-unique problems that have pretty straightforward solutions (and note that I am not saying easy, but pretty obvious how there is one way to fix them, and pretty much one way only). All I hear back is weird stuff, of course it's not fair to be paid different by locals than non locals but how did we even get down this rabbit hole? Everyone here seems to agree that tipping is stupid, that servers should unionise or at least ask for better treatment. Wtf, did Rosa Parker spend time arguing about how black people in some state had it worse than other states?

The same seems to happen when discussing about gun control. Not easy, what worked in other countries like Australia wouldn't work here. But we need guns to defend ourselves from gun nuts. What about trans women that need to defend themselves (a real convo I had with someone, probably still in my comments history).

You know what? In other countries waiters are paid minimum wages, we barely suffer from tips issues, have universal healthcare, guns are pretty hard to obtain, mass shooting are a once in a century issue, our kids don't do drills at school or have to go through metal detectors, white collar jobs have paid sick leave on top of 20-35 holidays days a year and if you need to fight nazis you can hit them with a reo bar. I'm not bragging, it's sad to see how bad the US has it and even when discussing with people that agree in general with you (you seem to be in favour of unions etc) there's always an obstacle or something that "non Americans don't understand", as i said in other comments you can wait for politicians or your employer to give you more rights or money but that rarely (never?) works.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, of course it's not fair. That's exactly why I tip. Because it's not fair for them and they need help.

I can't change that for them. They probably can't even change it.

That's just not how America works unfortunately. America is totally beholden to corporate interests.

Also, saying "they do it in other countries" as if that means it's possible in the U.S. when other countries have totally different laws is silly. Australia was able to get rid of guns because they don't have guns enshrined in their founding document.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wrong Australia was able to get rid of guns because everyone was shocked about what happened with a mass shooting, had the right to bear firearms been enshrined in the constitution there would have been a discussion about making a change to it, hasn't the American constitution ever been amended? Any more reasons why changes can't happen there? You guys fucking overcame slavery and black people managed to get equal rights (I am sure a few naysayers in the sixties were sceptical about that). Give yourselves more credit

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes. The American Constitution has been Amended. It takes a 2/3 majority of congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Which is why amendments are almost never passed.

Again, you really don't understand how laws work here.

The 27th Amendment, the most recent one to be passed, was about congressional salaries. It had been proposed in 1791. It passed in 1992.

And you think we could realistically get guns out of the U.S. Constitution?

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You are right, maybe it's impossible to solve any problems, we should stop bothering. If only someone had told Rosa back then she probably wouldn't have wasted her time for nothing :)

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

When did I say it was impossible? It's happened 27 times. I said it's not something realistic, at least not at the moment.

Also, what does Rosa Parks have to do with amending the constitution? She wasn't in the U.S. government and there were no constitutional amendments based on her heroism. If you're going to reference U.S. history, it's best not to do it wrongly.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Mentioned her before in this thread,before we went down another rabbit hole of impossible / not realistic to change tour constitution. Wasn't my intention to discuss constitution amendments, we ended up there after I pointed out that discussions about tipping (and universal healthcare, gun control etc etc) always end up in someone bringing up some reasons why bUT that workeD everywhere eLSe oN thE PlaNet but It Can't worK Here becAuse blah blah.

I mentioned her not in relation to constitution amendments nor gun control (nor tipping, which ia where we started) just because she didn't make up excuses about, too hard, unrealistic all the other blah blah I keep hearing here about all the issues the US have

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you didn't want to discuss constitutional amendments, you shouldn't have brought up something that would require such a herculean effort to make happen that it is not realistic for the foreseeable future and likely wouldn't even get ratified for decades even if somehow you could get that many Republicans and Democrats on board as your example.

Even Bernie Sanders is against a gun ban. He wants more gun control, but he's not interested in banning guns. Sorry.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Don't be sorry, its all good I'll go to sleep knowing that it's pretty unlikely I'll get shot when out shopping, and if it happens my hospital fees are free. And while away from work, my employer keeps paying my wages because I'm on sick leave, which doesn't impact my holidays balance because PTO and sick leave are separate.

Unfortunately what worked everywhere else in the Western world for a vast amount of issues clearly can't work in the US because reasons. OK.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sorry... did you think I was defending America? Because I think it's pretty clear I wasn't.

Most of the rest of the Western world is not an oligarchy designed to maximize profits for a tiny handful of people. That is the "because reasons." This is like asking why North Koreans haven't risen up and deposed the Kim family yet. The real world doesn't work that way.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I know you weren't, which is even more frustraring because we want the same things and the only reason I'm engaging :)

Most of the rest of the western countries absolutely are oligarchies designed to maximise profits for a handful of people, some more than others, sometimes a good government happens for a cycle or two and then bad ones for a while. Doesn't mean people can't demand change and sometimes, not always, obtain it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Many of us have been demanding change for a very long time now. I certainly have. But the people in charge don't want change. I still march for change, but I can't make it happen.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So perhaps consider changing your approach to something that actually might accomplish something? Instead of just asking nicely over and over without results?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Such as?

And why do you think marching in protest is asking nicely?

I marched in the largest anti-war protest in America's history. How many protests have you marched in?