> its entirely possible and common to make a living wage in the tip system.
It's also entirely possible and common to make a living wage without tips. Most people do.
> the tip system provides opportunity. it is a way for someone with no skills, education, prospects, or CV to start making steady money.
So does every other entry-level or unskilled job. There is nothing magical about tips.
> eliminating it increases the risk for hirer as they their hiring cost changes astronomically from ~3$/hr to 10-20$/hr.
This is not a risk that should be eliminated. It's your job as a business owner to pay your employees. It's not your customer's problem. Every other business that is not a restaurant seems to be able to manage this, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to as well.
> performance incentives are good by definition. you want all systems to have incentives aligned with the desired outcome. i dont see how removing the incentive structure improves the outcome for anyone except bad servers.
Performance incentives should be provided by the employer. If I go to a restaurant, I'm not interested in taking on an unpaid job as a restaurant manager. I just want to eat a meal, not conduct employee performance reviews.
> restaurants dont get a cut of tips. it is a direct transaction between customer and server (less taxes, obviously). this is the peak of efficiency. by forcing restaurants into being a middleman, you are creating a rent-seeker and lowering real economic output.
The restaurant is already a major component of the transaction. The transaction would not even exist if not for the restaurant, why shouldn't they be a part of it? I didn't personally hire some guy off the street to fetch food for me. They're the restaurant's employee.
> 2 and 4 make it more dangerous to open a new restaurant. raising the bar for entry into any business scenario is generally undesirable and produces less competition and creativity. less success and more expensive failure.
It's no more of a bar to entry than any other business that doesn't depend on tips.
It's also entirely possible and common to make a living wage without tips. Most people do.
> the tip system provides opportunity. it is a way for someone with no skills, education, prospects, or CV to start making steady money.
So does every other entry-level or unskilled job. There is nothing magical about tips.
> eliminating it increases the risk for hirer as they their hiring cost changes astronomically from ~3$/hr to 10-20$/hr.
This is not a risk that should be eliminated. It's your job as a business owner to pay your employees. It's not your customer's problem. Every other business that is not a restaurant seems to be able to manage this, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to as well.
> performance incentives are good by definition. you want all systems to have incentives aligned with the desired outcome. i dont see how removing the incentive structure improves the outcome for anyone except bad servers.
Performance incentives should be provided by the employer. If I go to a restaurant, I'm not interested in taking on an unpaid job as a restaurant manager. I just want to eat a meal, not conduct employee performance reviews.
> restaurants dont get a cut of tips. it is a direct transaction between customer and server (less taxes, obviously). this is the peak of efficiency. by forcing restaurants into being a middleman, you are creating a rent-seeker and lowering real economic output.
The restaurant is already a major component of the transaction. The transaction would not even exist if not for the restaurant, why shouldn't they be a part of it? I didn't personally hire some guy off the street to fetch food for me. They're the restaurant's employee.
> 2 and 4 make it more dangerous to open a new restaurant. raising the bar for entry into any business scenario is generally undesirable and produces less competition and creativity. less success and more expensive failure.
It's no more of a bar to entry than any other business that doesn't depend on tips.