Lots of interesting news today

RatLabGuy said:
I feel like we really need a pic of Grandma
Click to expand...

39 times ..... that does not sound very careless ....... seems extremely focused and intentional to me!
 
benXJ said:
Why would taxes go up with a population decrease?

Less people means less schools, less fire and police, less roads
Click to expand...

Less People IN existing Schools, More empty Buildings requiring More Fire Fighters, Police numbers might decrease, The only way you get to close a road is if no one is using it....

Yeah, all those things could eventually be reduced, but not quickly..
 
benXJ said:
Why would taxes go up with a population decrease?

Less people means less schools, less fire and police, less roads
Click to expand...
Why would government size or cost decrease significantly with a population decrease? I mean it should, but it won't. And some things just cost the same regardless of population. So you end up with a similar cost load, but less people to cover it.
 
orange150 said:
www.grubstreet.com

Everything You Need to Know About Tipping Right Now

15 to 20 percent doesn’t cut it anymore.
www.grubstreet.com www.grubstreet.com
Click to expand...
I made it through to the part where it said you have to tip for bad service. Then I just said 'Nope' and closed it.

You can't blame inflation for higher tip percentage expectations. Your food went up in cost right? So, the amount of the tip increased without changing the percentage.
 
Southern_Transplant said:
I made it through to the part where it said you have to tip for bad service. Then I just said 'Nope' and closed it.

You can't blame inflation for higher tip percentage expectations. Your food went up in cost right? So, the amount of the tip increased without changing the percentage.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly, though I often do tip in spite of poor service, just at a corresponding percent.
 
jeepinmatt said:
My thoughts exactly, though I often do tip in spite of poor service, just at a corresponding percent.
Click to expand...
Yes, at places where the tip IS their wage, you have to account for the work they actually did.

But the other thing that's getting me is places like Subway or Starbucks that are already paying a full wage and they want 10-25% of ticket sales ON TOP of that wage. Around here, I'm starting to see $10-12/hr to start as a fast food employee. So, if they are now getting tips, that puts them up at $15-16/hr. I know Cape Fear Valley Hospital pays $16/hr for an LPN. That education takes 2.5 years to obtain and the work isn't easy. We are creating a false economy if we put these two professions on wage parity.
 
Southern_Transplant said:
I made it through to the part where it said you have to tip for bad service. Then I just said 'Nope' and closed it.

You can't blame inflation for higher tip percentage expectations. Your food went up in cost right? So, the amount of the tip increased without changing the percentage.
Click to expand...
I *think* the argument os that the food cost of what they charge has not gone up as much as inflationary costs of living, so you are compensating the difference.
While thats a logical rgument, I say it is a horseshit philosophy and basically begging that we go back to a price-negotiation based purchase economy and will only result in everybody being pissed off and uncomfrtable all the time.

Fuck that. Just raise the price of everything to cover your costs and tell me what the price is and I will pay or not pay.

I always want to say," Here's a tip - tell your management to fix their prices and I will may more up front and you'll get your part." But then I am the asshole because there's no way for me to tell that to the guy that actually has any power.
 
RatLabGuy said:
I *think* the argument os that the food cost of what they charge has not gone up as much as inflationary costs of living, so you are compensating the difference.
Click to expand...
I agree, the argument is 100% horseshit. The meal prices HAVE increased at the rate of inflation. Otherwise the company would not make a profit. So, the percentage should still be on par to inflation. This is yet another tax on people who suck at math.
 
Southern_Transplant said:
I agree, the argument is 100% horseshit. The meal prices HAVE increased at the rate of inflation. Otherwise the company would not make a profit. So, the percentage should still be on par to inflation. This is yet another tax on people who suck at math.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it depends on the location, service, industry, etc.
My impression is that most places with tipping schemes have risen to account for the rising cost of supplies (e.g. their food components), but not wage inflation, which as been even higher. Around here min wage is now 13.25/hr and realistically 14-15 is the norm. Otherwise you'd be looking at 20%+ higher menu costs compared to 2020.
 
RatLabGuy said:
I'm sure it depends on the location, service, industry, etc.
My impression is that most places with tipping schemes have risen to account for the rising cost of supplies (e.g. their food components), but not wage inflation, which as been even higher. Around here min wage is now 13.25/hr and realistically 14-15 is the norm. Otherwise you'd be looking at 20%+ higher menu costs compared to 2020.
Click to expand...
Everywhere I have eaten lately is up atleast 50%. Which if tipping the same across the board, the waitress gets a 50% raise for the same job. 10$ meal got a 2$ tip, now it’s 15$ and yields 3$
 
RatLabGuy said:
I'm sure it depends on the location, service, industry, etc.
My impression is that most places with tipping schemes have risen to account for the rising cost of supplies (e.g. their food components), but not wage inflation, which as been even higher. Around here min wage is now 13.25/hr and realistically 14-15 is the norm. Otherwise you'd be looking at 20%+ higher menu costs compared to 2020.
Click to expand...
This is not an argument for increasing the tip percentage. This is an argument AGAINST raising the minimum wage. I absolutely agree. If you monkey with the minimum wage, you just compress every career path and labor wage up the chain.

It even happens within a business. For example, a grocery store has to pay stock people as much as the cashiers. They still need to have the stock people. So, they can either make cashiers stock shelves or reduce the number of cashiers and make the customer wait longer to checkout. Or.... How's that self checkout thing working for everyone?
 
Southern_Transplant said:
This is not an argument for increasing the tip percentage. This is an argument AGAINST raising the minimum wage. I absolutely agree. If you monkey with the minimum wage, you just compress every career path and labor wage up the chain.
Click to expand...
100% agree.
Again, if nothing else, just raise the cost of your food or whatever you sell so that it is enough to cover all of your costs instead of trying to hide behind some social norm that pressures other people to pick up the cost at some arbitrary rate.
soooo...
Southern_Transplant said:
It even happens within a business. For example, a grocery store has to pay stock people as much as the cashiers. They still need to have the stock people. So, they can either make cashiers stock shelves or reduce the number of cashiers and make the customer wait longer to checkout. Or.... How's that self checkout thing working for everyone?
Click to expand...
you should raise everyone's pay rate IF you want to maintain teh same level of service, AND also raise the cost of the goods solds at the grocery to match.

Which in turn of course just adds to the inflationary costs for everybody buying groceries, who now need a higher wage....

I'm personally not against a *regionally* set minimum wage, as it does prevent people being badly taken advantage of. And its reasonable for that minimum to change based on inflation so it stays on the edge of "normal". The problem comes in when the rate that it is adjusted by exceeds actual current inflationary rates and it just ceates a bad-juj-feedback loop for everybody.
 
RatLabGuy said:
I'm personally not against a *regionally* set minimum wage, as it does prevent people being badly taken advantage of. And its reasonable for that minimum to change based on inflation so it stays on the edge of "normal". The problem comes in when the rate that it is adjusted by exceeds actual current inflationary rates and it just ceates a bad-juj-feedback loop for everybody.
Click to expand...
Since the government has already injected itself into the labor wage decision process, they could implement this very easily. We have a federal minimum wage rate and we just use the COLA adjustment rates that they use for federal employees for regions to create a regional minimum wage.
 
Southern_Transplant said:
Since the government has already injected itself into the labor wage decision process, they could implement this very easily. We have a federal minimum wage rate and we just use the COLA adjustment rates that they use for federal employees for regions to create a regional minimum wage.
Click to expand...
This has been proposed in Congress several times...
 
RatLabGuy said:
....... IF you want to maintain teh same level of service ......
Click to expand...
That's a huge if.
Which around here is not being met.
The one good thing is a couple restaurants have adjusted hours of operation because they refuse to allow inferior service.
Most restaurants these days tipping feels more like a charitable donation.
 
jeepinmatt said:
Why would government size or cost decrease significantly with a population decrease? I mean it should, but it won't. And some things just cost the same regardless of population. So you end up with a similar cost load, but less people to cover it.
Click to expand...

Tax rates and percentages weren't dictated by God, they aren't the 11th commandment.

They don't just happen.

If you want, you can track the origin of each and every tax.

Or we could just sit back and take it and do nothing. As we have been.
 
benXJ said:
Tax rates and percentages weren't dictated by God, they aren't the 11th commandment.

They don't just happen.

If you want, you can track the origin of each and every tax.

Or we could just sit back and take it and do nothing. As we have been.
Click to expand...
And yet, that's a totally different discussion. The unanswered question "Why would government size or cost decrease significantly with a population decrease?" sets aside metrics of rates and percentages which have nothing to do with the existential cost of government, and focuses on the actual problem of rampant government size and rampant government spending. Maybe I haven't spelled it out clearly enough. If the cost of running the government is $200 million dollars ( :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: ), and there are 200 million taxpayers, everyone pays a dollar. Now if the population decreases by 100 million, the goverment will shrink some, but not as much, so lets say the cost goes down 25% to $150 million, but now there are only 100 million taxpayers, which means everyone now has to pay $1.50 instead of $1.00.
 
jeepinmatt said:
And yet, that's a totally different discussion. The unanswered question "Why would government size or cost decrease significantly with a population decrease?" sets aside metrics of rates and percentages which have nothing to do with the existential cost of government, and focuses on the actual problem of rampant government size and rampant government spending. Maybe I haven't spelled it out clearly enough. If the cost of running the government is $200 million dollars ( :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: ), and there are 200 million taxpayers, everyone pays a dollar. Now if the population decreases by 100 million, the goverment will shrink some, but not as much, so lets say the cost goes down 25% to $150 million, but now there are only 100 million taxpayers, which means everyone now has to pay $1.50 instead of $1.00.
Click to expand...

I think it’s more of a question when the working population shrinks what’s going to happen to taxes. Programs to care for the elderly will still be in place and require funding. The military budget will still be in place and require funding. And those are by far the two biggest spenders in the federal budget.
 
jeepinmatt said:
And yet, that's a totally different discussion. The unanswered question "Why would government size or cost decrease significantly with a population decrease?" sets aside metrics of rates and percentages which have nothing to do with the existential cost of government, and focuses on the actual problem of rampant government size and rampant government spending. Maybe I haven't spelled it out clearly enough. If the cost of running the government is $200 million dollars ( :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: ), and there are 200 million taxpayers, everyone pays a dollar. Now if the population decreases by 100 million, the goverment will shrink some, but not as much, so lets say the cost goes down 25% to $150 million, but now there are only 100 million taxpayers, which means everyone now has to pay $1.50 instead of $1.00.
Click to expand...
Eggs Zachary.
On the local level, you have all the infrastructure that was set up for the current population that still costs the same to maintain - schools still require repair, roads don't just go away, you police force may be able to shrink slightly but not by much, your city/county management staff is the same size, etc. Plus these things are often paid for initially with bonds (loans) that you're on the hook to keep paying for regardless of the local population size. So the cost per person goes up at the number of people goes down.
Then... nationally...
Futbalfantic said:
I think it’s more of a question when the working population shrinks what’s going to happen to taxes. Programs to care for the elderly will still be in place and require funding. The military budget will still be in place and require funding. And those are by far the two biggest spenders in the federal budget.
Click to expand...
you have all of this on the national level. Most of teh cost of our military isn't the currenpeople in uniform and their toys. its the decades of R&D & purchases etc that leads up to it. All that doesn't magically decrease in size proportionally.
Social Security isn't a personal investment, its a real-time insurance scheme. As the relative % of the population drawing SS increaes that means a few # of people to spread the cost around, either accelerating the rate it goes broke or requiring an increase in funding per payee.
 
Back
Top