Do They Teach Anything In Institutes of Higher Learning?

[esmith]

It would be illegal in most places for an employer to make a waitress's pay dependent on whether she flirted woth customers or wore tight clothing. Given that, do you think that most restaurant owners would want to take on the responsibility for making sure that total compensation - including tips - isn't based on any illegal criteria?

I was just indicating that the government considers "tips" as income. However in large establishments some pay their "backroom" employees more than the waitress's to compensate for not receiving "tips". In small establishments it's usually every person for themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was just indicating that the government considers "tips" as income.

Yes, they are income to the waitress: it really is money and the waitress really does receive it.

But are they income that should be used as an excuse for the employer not to pay minimum wage?

I think that if the employer wants to claim that tips are part of their wages to the employee, then they shouldn't do it by half measures:

- if the waitress receiving the tip was wages from the employer to the employee, then when the customer paid it, it was income to the business. It should be treated (and taxed) as such when the business pays its taxes.

- if the tip is wages from the employer to the employee, then the employer has an obligation to ensure that it wasn't based on anything illegal. For instance, it's generally illegal for an employer to offer a bonus to an employee if she flirts with the customers; if one employee is getting higher tips because she flirts and another isn't because she doesn't, if those tips are wages, then this becomes the employer's problem to fix.

- if the business goes bankrupt or suddenly folds, unpaid tips should be considered unpaid wages when determining what the business owes to who.

 

[esmith]

Yes, they are income to the waitress: it really is money and the waitress really does receive it.

But are they income that should be used as an excuse for the employer not to pay minimum wage?

I think that if the employer wants to claim that tips are part of their wages to the employee, then they shouldn't do it by half measures:

- if the waitress receiving the tip was wages from the employer to the employee, then when the customer paid it, it was income to the business. It should be treated (and taxed) as such when the business pays its taxes.

- if the tip is wages from the employer to the employee, then the employer has an obligation to ensure that it wasn't based on anything illegal. For instance, it's generally illegal for an employer to offer a bonus to an employee if she flirts with the customers; if one employee is getting higher tips because she flirts and another isn't because she doesn't, if those tips are wages, then this becomes the employer's problem to fix.

- if the business goes bankrupt or suddenly folds, unpaid tips should be considered unpaid wages when determining what the business owes to who.

Whatever floats your boat.
Sorry I brought it up.

 

[sayak83]

So, as usual people come up with ideas but have no idea how to implement it.
As in the above.
How would you determine the regions?
How would you divide the regions?
How would you determine the cost of living?
How would you "enforce" your minimum wage on a "private" company?

On other points.
Do you think that say a student that say works at a fast food restaurant should make minimum wage? If so why do you think so.
Do you think that say a waitress wage should include "tip" money?
Why do you want the government to dictate to a private company the wages they pay. Do you not think that it would be wiser to allow the wages to seek a value based on supply and demand.

None of this is very complicated. Accounting for local cost of living is routinely done by both public and private companies to determine wages, scholarships etc. As for your other question, see how UK does it.
National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage rates

You simply need a law to enforce anyone or any company who is hiring complies to the minimum wage standards.

Minimum wage is a social principle such anyone who has a job can support himself or herself with that job. Market systems are there only to maximize profits, it's the government's job to ensure that the market also take human needs into account.

 

[sayak83]

Horrible idea as the job's wage is not always the cause of the problem.

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[ecco]

RE: Ayn Rand

Aye, but while she has some appealing thoughts,
she's a much demonized devil in the left's eyes.
The cause of all of what's wrong with Americastan,
you know....that horrid individualism & independence.
It causes airplane crashes, pollution, global warming,
poor people, & puppy deaths.

Ayn Rand was never signifigant enough to be responsible for any of that.

 

[Revoltingest]

RE: Ayn Rand


Ayn Rand was never signifigant enough to be responsible for any of that.

You & I know that.
But those who rage against her give her more credit.

 

[columbus]

What Trump did will probably push our economy (has pushed our economy) into less predictable cycles of erratic growth and decline. Slow and steady is the best in the long run. That was apparently how it was managed until the current administration came along.

Some of us oldsters remember the last time the Republicans went on a spree of tax cuts and deregulation.
And the huge boom/bust cycle that followed.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Some of us oldsters remember the last time the Republicans went on a spree of tax cuts and deregulation.
And the huge boom/bust cycle that followed.
Tom

We've always had such cycles.
With Reagan's changes, we exited Carter's "malaise".
But I do see economic instabilities continuing.
Trump (as did Obama & others) still presides over government
incentivized risky lending, eg, tax deductions for expenses,
subsidized lending.

Btw, the latest tax reform does staiblize things slightly.

 

[metis]

Some of us oldsters remember the last time the Republicans went on a spree of tax cuts and deregulation.
And the huge boom/bust cycle that followed.
Tom

It's not "oldsters"-- it's "maturesters" dah!

 

[tytlyf]

Conservatives are trained by RW entertainers to hate education and view it as elitist (liberal indoctrination camps)

The propaganda is used to keep conservatives (republican base) in line and voting republican. Studies show the more educated a person is, the more likely they'll vote democratic.

It's a slick move that conservatives don't pick up on. It's all science.

 

[leibowde84]

We can't win.
She's your poster child.
Trump is the Republican poster child.
And we libertarians have Ayn Rand....we're opposed to all regulation & even government itself.

She is not the Democrat's poster child. That is absurd. Most Democrats don't even like her. She's on the fringe.

 

[esmith]

She is not the Democrat's poster child. That is absurd. Most Democrats don't even like her. She's on the fringe.

Seems that the media is fawning all over her like she is the new progressive savior.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Question: Is real economics even taught?
Maybe I'm wrong but it would seem to me if one wants a degree in economics they should also have a real understanding of history. Probably wrong again.

If you have to ask this question then you yourself have never attended college

 

[Revoltingest]

She is not the Democrat's poster child. That is absurd. Most Democrats don't even like her. She's on the fringe.

Fringe of belief though she be, we see gleeful support for her from
some mainstream lefties here on RF. And she certainly is a media
darling for one so new to federal politics.
Besides, you over-reacted to a post obviously dedicated to mirth.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe the Soviets considered themselves "socialist" did not USSR= Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (Soyuz Sovetskoy Sotsialisticheskoy Respubliki)
which was ruled by the CPSU Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Kommunisticheskaya partiya Sovetskogo Soyuza)

A name doesn't mean anything. That is like saying the Nazis were socialist simply because they identified as such. Both the USSR and the National Socialists were extremely dishonest, and their names were an example of that. Communism means that the WORKING CLASS (not the state) owns everything and everyone is working towards the same communal goals. This cannot be said of the USSR or the Nazis.

Long story short, names don't mean a thing. The mere fact that a group identifies as socialist or communist in no way means that they actually are. You have to look at whether the government itself aligned with the definition of the term itself. The USSR and the Third Reich certainly did not.

 

[leibowde84]

Seems that the media is fawning all over her like she is the new progressive savior.

I watch most media outlets on a daily basis (have to for work), and I have seen CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. all being critical of her. What news outlets do you watch on a daily basis? Which ones are you referring to?

 

[leibowde84]

Fringe of belief though she be, we see gleeful support for her from
some mainstream lefties here on RF. And she certainly is a media
darling for one so new to federal politics.
Besides, you over-reacted to a post obviously dedicated to mirth.

OK. But, I just don't see what everyone is talking about. I watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox News every day and I haven't seen anyone fawning over her. Every outlet seems to be critical of her at least to some extent. And, we all know, the fringe are the loudest voices on RF.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK. But, I just don't see what everyone is talking about. I watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox News every day and I haven't seen anyone fawning over her. Every outlet seems to be critical of her at least to some extent. And, we all know, the fringe are the loudest voices on RF.

I'm seeing her prominence in electronic-print media...& here on RF from non-fringe types.
You just spend too much time in the real world. If you wasted more here, you'd agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe the Soviets considered themselves "socialist" did not USSR= Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (Soyuz Sovetskoy Sotsialisticheskoy Respubliki)
which was ruled by the CPSU Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Kommunisticheskaya partiya Sovetskogo Soyuza)

And therefore that one example defines the entire range of what "socialist" means?

What do you infer about republican democracy from the name "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?"