Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Bella]

This article seems to indicate that Joe's Crab Shack raised the server's wages and lowered prices while eliminating tipping.   http://www.businessi...tipping-2015-11

 

That is exactly what it says. that doesn't seem to be a viable business model.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Bella

[Fjd]

 

This article seems to indicate that Joe's Crab Shack raised the server's wages and lowered prices while eliminating tipping.   http://www.businessi...tipping-2015-11

 

That is exactly what it says. that doesn't seem to be a viable business model.

 

 

 

  

In addition to being such a "cultural" change, I'm curious in how certain dynamics may change.  For example, it will be interesting if there will be less focus by servers on turning the table for the next customer (since over a work day tips would tend to reward volume of customers served).  From an anecdotal standpoint, when I'm working with our Europeans that come to the U.S. for development assignments one of the recurring comments on restaurants tend to be on how much more relaxed dining is in Europe compared to the focus here on moving customers in and out quickly with one of the key differences being the European restaurants referenced have no expected tipping, although I do not have any data on the compensation between kitchen worker and server.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Fjd

[Paducah Home Theater]

I'm telling you guys, all you need to do is learn JavaScript. 6 months worth of hardcore javascript learnin and you can write your ticket anywhere.

Next best thing is database administration.

I know of multiple open positions that would be the equivalent of earning well into the 6 digit range on the west coast.

Nobody wants to do it. Everybody just wants their $15 an hour.

Do you know how much it costs to live on the West Coast? There is a reason most of the Bay Area municipalities have passed their own minimum wage laws years ago.

 

Yes, and that's exactly why I worded my comment that way.  If you've been reading this thread I have referred to the high cost of that very thing several times.  You can live in a rural area and make half as much and come out ahead.  Nobody wants to hear that though, they just want to see those digits.  The jobs I mentioned initially are $55-$65,000 a year jobs.  One in particular pays exactly $65,000 and it's in rural Ballard County, Kentucky.  That's like literally the equivalent of $140,000 or so in San Francisco, which is what people lust over.

Edited November 11, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Paducah Home Theater]

Just like Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you".

That's not accurate. There is no period after the word " you ".

Oh jeez, now we've got the grammar police picking apart stuff. That's why the ending quotation came before my period. It's at the end of my sentence and deserves a period. I know how to write, but thanks for the tip.

Edited November 11, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Paducah Home Theater]

Bottom line:  If you think a person serving you is underpaid, you can tip them.  Be generous!  You don't need to wait for Congress.  Just go ahead and start tipping generously today.  Nobody is stopping you.  Tip your yard-man more.  Tip the garbage collector.  Tip the newspaper carrier.  It's all in your hands.

 

 

 

I've been reading articles recently that some restaurants where servers have been traditionally tipped, are moving to a no tipping policy.  While some claim it is a move to make serving staff compensation more stable, others have indicated it is an attempt to redress the imbalance in compensation between servers and cooks.

 

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-move-to-ban-tipping-1447206602

 

 

This article seems to indicate that Joe's Crab Shack raised the server's wages and lowered prices while eliminating tipping.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/joes-crab-shack-drop-tipping-2015-11

Nobody believes me on this, and waitresses get super offended by the idea, but I've worked in restaurants, and there is a HUGE imbalance. In real nice and expensive restaurants the waitresses share a little but there's still a huge imbalance. Waitresses typically do not share their tips much at all in cheaper places. I first noticed this working at Shoney's as a bus boy, for a 6 hour shift I'd make $32. There were two Korean waitresses who rarely did anything except talk to each other behind the counter and they made about $120 for the same time.

But you know what? Everybody's worried about that waitress. Nobody's worried about the bus boy / dishwasher. Or the cook. Or the one man night security and cleanup crew which I also did. As far as that goes, even the manager, who was making less. Everybody sheds a tear for the poor waitress though.

The imbalance is ridiculous if you consider a hibachi restaurant. It seems that the chefs split the tips with the waitresses. Think about that. You've got a skilled guy slicing and dicing non-stop, entertaining the crowd, cleaning the grill, double-checking orders, putting all the materials together on the cart, etc. He has to split tips 50/50 with the waitress who brings out the drinks. This drives me crazy yet I bet most people think it's fair, or possibly even unfair to the waitress.

Edited November 11, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Fjd]

 

 

Just like Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you".

That's not accurate. There is no period after the word " you ".

 

Oh jeez, now we've got the grammar police picking apart stuff. That's why the ending quotation came before my period. It's at the end of my sentence and deserves a period. I know how to write, but thanks for the tip.

 

 

 

In the spirit of Paul Harvey (may that venerable radioman of seven decades RIP), I believe that the "rest of the story" is;

 

"....., and you can help them any time you want."

[Jim Naseum]

Just like Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you".

That's not accurate. There is no period after the word " you ".

Oh jeez, now we've got the grammar police picking apart stuff. That's why the ending quotation came before my period. It's at the end of my sentence and deserves a period. I know how to write, but thanks for the tip.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with grammar, it had to do with the logic of the discourse. When you use half a sentence in place of an entire sentence you distort the meaning of that whom you quote.

Let me demonstrate this for you. Suppose a statesman said: "War is never good, unless you find yourself oppressed by tyrants." And you quote it like this: "War is never good." Surely, you can see the kind of error this is?

One of the most common errors in all discourse is quoting out of context and incomplete quotes.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[CECAA850]

But you know what? Everybody's worried about that waitress. Nobody's worried about the bus boy / dishwasher. Or the cook. Or the one man night security and cleanup crew which I also did. As far as that goes, even the manager, who was making less. Everybody sheds a tear for the poor waitress though.The imbalance is ridiculous if you consider a hibachi restaurant. It seems that the chefs split the tips with the waitresses. Think about that. You've got a skilled guy slicing and dicing non-stop, entertaining the crowd, cleaning the grill, double-checking orders, putting all the materials together on the cart, etc. He has to split tips 50/50 with the waitress who brings out the drinks. This drives me crazy yet I bet most people think it's fair, or possibly even unfair to the waitress.

 

But you argue that it's OK for a CEO to make disproportionately more than his workers?  Aren't these two things the same or am I misinterpreting what you've posted here and previously?

[Jim Naseum]

This article seems to indicate that Joe's Crab Shack raised the server's wages and lowered prices while eliminating tipping. http://www.businessi...tipping-2015-11

That is exactly what it says. that doesn't seem to be a viable business model.

In addition to being such a "cultural" change, I'm curious in how certain dynamics may change. For example, it will be interesting if there will be less focus by servers on turning the table for the next customer (since over a work day tips would tend to reward volume of customers served). From an anecdotal standpoint, when I'm working with our Europeans that come to the U.S. for development assignments one of the recurring comments on restaurants tend to be on how much more relaxed dining is in Europe compared to the focus here on moving customers in and out quickly with one of the key differences being the European restaurants referenced have no tipping.

In an interview on CNBC the other day a restaurant owner (Danny Meyer) of several high end restaurants said he is eliminating tipping, and raising menu prices by 19%, and raising the wages of all, including the kitchen workers, who normally get no share of tips.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Fjd]

 

 

 

This article seems to indicate that Joe's Crab Shack raised the server's wages and lowered prices while eliminating tipping. http://www.businessi...tipping-2015-11

That is exactly what it says. that doesn't seem to be a viable business model.

In addition to being such a "cultural" change, I'm curious in how certain dynamics may change. For example, it will be interesting if there will be less focus by servers on turning the table for the next customer (since over a work day tips would tend to reward volume of customers served). From an anecdotal standpoint, when I'm working with our Europeans that come to the U.S. for development assignments one of the recurring comments on restaurants tend to be on how much more relaxed dining is in Europe compared to the focus here on moving customers in and out quickly with one of the key differences being the European restaurants referenced have no tipping.

In an interview on CNBC the other day a restaurant owner (Danny Meyer) of several high end restaurants said he is eliminating tipping, and raising menu prices by 19%, and raising the wages of all, including the kitchen workers, who normally get no share of tips.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

It is interesting since typically a customer does not tend to choose a high end restaurant based on "lowest price" this could turn out to be a very good business decision on his part.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

This article seems to indicate that Joe's Crab Shack raised the server's wages and lowered prices while eliminating tipping. http://www.businessi...tipping-2015-11

That is exactly what it says. that doesn't seem to be a viable business model.

In addition to being such a "cultural" change, I'm curious in how certain dynamics may change. For example, it will be interesting if there will be less focus by servers on turning the table for the next customer (since over a work day tips would tend to reward volume of customers served). From an anecdotal standpoint, when I'm working with our Europeans that come to the U.S. for development assignments one of the recurring comments on restaurants tend to be on how much more relaxed dining is in Europe compared to the focus here on moving customers in and out quickly with one of the key differences being the European restaurants referenced have no tipping.

In an interview on CNBC the other day a restaurant owner (Danny Meyer) of several high end restaurants said he is eliminating tipping, and raising menu prices by 19%, and raising the wages of all, including the kitchen workers, who normally get no share of tips.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

IMO, this should be the standard for the reasons stated above by experienced restaurant staff.

[Paducah Home Theater]

But you argue that it's OK for a CEO to make disproportionately more than his workers?  Aren't these two things the same or am I misinterpreting what you've posted here and previously?

CEO pay only serves to bring the CEO down in the name of fairness without doing any real good otherwise. We've already crunched the math, even with various examples we never got above $50 a year even when using numbers that would boost this amount the most, then rounding up. Plus, well, his job is simply demonstrably worth more. A normal worker simply cannot do his job.

A waitress vs. cook though, you've got two people going to the same place at the same time serving the same people. One person asks you want you want and brings out drinks. They make 4 times as much as the guy making sure your expensive steak comes out right and that you don't get food poisoning. If the server didn't make it to work, the cook could actually do their job. Makes zero sense.

Edited November 11, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Bella]

 

 

 

 

This article seems to indicate that Joe's Crab Shack raised the server's wages and lowered prices while eliminating tipping. http://www.businessi...tipping-2015-11

That is exactly what it says. that doesn't seem to be a viable business model.

In addition to being such a "cultural" change, I'm curious in how certain dynamics may change. For example, it will be interesting if there will be less focus by servers on turning the table for the next customer (since over a work day tips would tend to reward volume of customers served). From an anecdotal standpoint, when I'm working with our Europeans that come to the U.S. for development assignments one of the recurring comments on restaurants tend to be on how much more relaxed dining is in Europe compared to the focus here on moving customers in and out quickly with one of the key differences being the European restaurants referenced have no tipping.

In an interview on CNBC the other day a restaurant owner (Danny Meyer) of several high end restaurants said he is eliminating tipping, and raising menu prices by 19%, and raising the wages of all, including the kitchen workers, who normally get no share of tips.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

IMO, this should be the standard for the reasons stated above by experienced restaurant staff.

 

 

What is not clear is if he raised wages at the same rate he raised prices. I would be interested in more details.

[Jim Naseum]

CEOs and Ballplayers

There have been CEOs who made $100M and drive the company into the ground. There have been ballplayers paid $5M and had an ERA of 5.00 with a record of 4-12. Does anyone still believe that their pay is related to performance? It isn't. They are paid AHEAD of their performance. Pay is what these people can negotiate.

CEOs and ballplayers negotiate a piece of pie from the future success. Sometimes it pays off for employers and sometimes it doesn't. Contrast that to golf, where you actually have to win to collect the price money!

Negotiating power, not rules, not morality, not fairness, is the essential difference between CEOs and dishwashers. You got the power or you don't.

The very best way for the low wages workers to improve their lot quickly is to form up into a gigantic single negotiating group. A union. It's the only way they can gain negotiating leverage. Of course, as everyone knows, the other side has used every tool and resource possible to block that move.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

CEOs and ballplayers negotiate a piece of pie from the future success. Sometimes it pays off for employers and sometimes it doesn't. Contrast that to golf, where you actually have to win to collect the price money!

Negotiating power, not rules, not morality, not fairness, is the essential difference between CEOs and dishwashers. You got the power or you don't.

Yes but the only reason they have negotiating power is from past performance that they can offer as proof. You can't just be a good negotiator and land one of these jobs.

[Bella]

They are paid AHEAD of their performance.

 

An assumption. The business model that has been in place for many years would argue against it.

[CECAA850]

They are paid AHEAD of their performance.

 

Or paid based on past performance ala Andre Johnson.  How did the Colts make out on that one?

[Paducah Home Theater]

Realistically speaking, EVERYONE negotiates pay based on promised future performance.

The difference is that CEO's and ballplayers have contracts for set amount of time. With CEO's in particular, the entire job is about vision, not immediate tasks. Sometimes it takes a long time to turn a ship around. Companies can't reinvent or reorganize itself instantly. The payoff is not something that you can measure in a matter of days or even many weeks. And, it's not even something that's guaranteed to have a big payoff, but based on past performance, they were chosen based on an educated guess.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

But you argue that it's OK for a CEO to make disproportionately more than his workers?  Aren't these two things the same or am I misinterpreting what you've posted here and previously?

CEO pay only serves to bring the CEO down in the name of fairness without doing any real good otherwise. We've already crunched the math, even with various examples we never got above $50 a year even when using numbers that would boost this amount the most, then rounding up. Plus, well, his job is simply demonstrably worth more. A normal worker simply cannot do his job.

A waitress vs. cook though, you've got two people going to the same place at the same time serving the same people. One person asks you want you want and brings out drinks. They make 4 times as much as the guy making sure your expensive steak comes out right and that you don't get food poisoning. If the server didn't make it to work, the cook could actually do their job. Makes zero sense.

 

 

This is the perfect example which brings the whole thing back down to earth.  This is life!  It ain't fair.  Ain't no politician gonna come to your rescue.  Forget it.  Either accept low pay, or play by the rules and find the ways which increase your pay.  It's really that simple.  The most difficult part of the whole mandate is human inertia.  People simply resist change.  They just want more for what they do.  Listen to the markets.  Either embrace change, or accept the present.  But don't make it a political issue which can't be cured.  No matter what you do in politics, the people will form these little cliques with the power strings.  It happens all the way down to restaurants and being a volunteer board member in your neighborhood homeowners' association.  That's just the way it is, and when it comes to money, that's the way it always will be.

[Fjd]

 

 

 

 

Fifty years ago the "wealth pie" was $21 and split in a manner of CEO $20 and median workers $1. Today the $301 of the "wealth pie" is now split CEO $300 and median workers still $1.

 

And this is immoral and nothing but greed run amuck.

I don't care who you is you ain't worth $100 million a year, sorry your job is not 2 thousand times harder than mine.

Just my $.02

 

 

 

 

Just a very simplistic example if you take the "wage/salary/benefits" as a "pool of funds" in a corporate budget to be divided and distributed amongst everyone in the corporation. 

 

It makes sense why the NFL players association will bargain for wages to be a percentage of the gross revenues.  We also know that it is very lucrative to be an NFL owner even with roughly 2/3 of the total NFL revenues going to the players and having a wage structure with a minimum salary for the players that increases each year.

 

I find it interesting that in the 1970's Peter F. Drucker (during this time, a well-respected American management guru) had endorsed the 20 to 1 ratio for CEO to median worker in sustaining robust growth.  Up until this time the U.S. was very prosperous with this 20 to 1 ratio, yet, look where we are today.  A survey of the S&P 500 index companies, during 2012 the compensation received by the CEO was 354 times that of the median of the rank-and-file worker and look at the general downward trends in prosperity.

 

 

 

I agree with your point, but it's not actually "CEOs" which are the trouble. It's the billionaires who often are just speculators, hedge fund runners, and raiders, where most of the wealth is going. Not to minimize the CEO pay, but making $50M a year isn't the troouble spot. It's he guy making $2B a year through other means, which is the problem.

 

 

 

 

I do realize that the CEO pay isn't the trouble spot and have some familiarity with the speculators, hedge funds and the leveraged-buyout business and I agree with your other posts on the bigger picture. 

 

I suspect that a good portion is the result of manipulation of the system by the conflict of interest that arises in a 'self-dealing' situation where the CEO is in a position to greatly take advantage of the position in transactions and acting in his or her self-interest rather than in the best interests of the shareholders.

 

For example, it seems plausible that CEOs get these enormous pay packages in part because they are often the persons that hire the compensation consultant, appoint the compensation committees on the boards that decide executive pay.  I suppose that in other instances to “appear competitive” the boards may not want to be seen by investors as not having hired a “top-tier” CEO and may not want to be seen as paying less than the CEOs of their major competitors.  

 

 

 

 

 

CEOs and ballplayers negotiate a piece of pie from the future success. Sometimes it pays off for employers and sometimes it doesn't. Contrast that to golf, where you actually have to win to collect the price money!

Negotiating power, not rules, not morality, not fairness, is the essential difference between CEOs and dishwashers. You got the power or you don't.

Yes but the only reason they have negotiating power is from past performance that they can offer as proof. You can't just be a good negotiator and land one of these jobs.

 

 

 

 

They are paid AHEAD of their performance.

 

An assumption. The business model that has been in place for many years would argue against it.

 

 

 

 

The CEO compensation information is available in the Schedule 14A proxy statements regarding the benchmarking, among other aspects in setting that compensation that goes on, in addition to various other “high level” and "legal-type" Compensation Discussion & Analysis that provides insights into how the CEO compensation is set (along with similar compensation information of other highly compensated executives of the corporation).  I linked the McDonald’s proxy a few pages back; however, I’ve read more of these disclosures than I care to think about and none show a clear link to historical performance and compensation.  If it was that simple in paying for historical performance, I’m curious as to why the "historical performance for compensation" link isn’t clear in the proxy statements as it could easily help our discussions here?

 

In the first quote above, I fully realize that CEO pay isn’t the significant issue.  To expand on that, in a Wall Street Journal column from May 2015 that Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (one of the richest men in the world), provided these two sets of data in that column that I found interesting:

 

1. “In 1982, the first year the Forbes 400 was compiled, those listed had a combined net worth of $93 billion.  Today, the 400 possess $2.3 trillion, up 2400% in slightly more than 3 decades, a period in which the median household income rose only about 180%.”

 

2. “Meanwhile, a huge number of their fellow citizens have been living the American Nightmare – behaving well and working hard but barely getting by.  In 1982, 15% of Americans were living below the poverty level; in 2013 the proportion was nearly the same, a dismaying 14.5%.  In recent decades, our country’s rising tide has not lifted the boats of the poor.”

 

Mr. Buffett goes on to acknowledge that the innovations from the Sam Walton and the Steve Jobs of the world have changed how we live, and does not believe that they are not undeserving of their wealth.  However, he tends to believe that these innovations are significant contributors to the widening gap as a consequence of the U.S. shift from an agrarian-based economy to a technology-based one.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/better-than-raising-the-minimum-wage-1432249927

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2015 by Fjd