There's a pizza chain that does this for online orders, and it drives me crazy. I don't tip until after service is rendered, because tipping ahead of time insures nothing. There's no place to put a custom note on the order either, so I have to order by phone. It's good for them that they have great pizza, because I'm sure this turns off a lot of potential customers, but not me.
I was told by an eat24 delivery guy once that he didn't get the tips from his restaurant when they were included in electronic payment. he could have been fucking with me though.
I suspect that when I tip online for pizza it automatically gets bumped to the lowest priority of all of the driver's deliveries. He already has my money, and prioritizing all of the cash-tip orders over mine gives more potential for earning tips.
Of course, my sample size is too small to say anything conclusive. After it felt like I was noticing a pattern a couple of times I just switched back to tipping cash.
When I've tipped online for pizza, and tip pretty well, I tend to get my pizza very quickly with a driver wanting to please me (like one time an order was messed up slightly and he immediately drove back and brought a new one without me even asking).
My vague guess is that if you leave an above-average tip on an online order, the order gets immediately grabbed my a delivery person since they know they'll get at least that much of a tip.
Yeah. This is anecdotal, obviously, but I always tip online and tip pretty well. My pizzas always seem to get here as quickly as when I tipped in person, and the drivers have thanked me specifically for it a few times.
Be an interesting thing to really do some research on, though.
I will say I tend to agree that I'd rather see employees be paid a higher rate by the company itself and then have their performance monitored and be rewarded or punished accordingly. I've worked in a few places that paid hourly folks $14+ an hour, in parts of the country where that was pretty decent money for a job you get get off the street, and they managed to keep really efficient employees who did their jobs well.
Why does every job have to pay a "living wage"? Almost all the pizza delivery folks I knew were doing it part-time for extra cash. Pizza delivery is not a long term career. This notion that every job is a career job is just silly and is detrimental to our youth trying to pick up extra cash and some experience.
Because it's so, so easy to get trapped in a cycle of endless below-livable jobs just to support yourself.
My personal belief, and I'm more than willing to pay more for goods and services to support it, and I live in a country where we have a liveable minimal wage, is that every job if worked 40 hours should be enough for a very modest, but not totally hopeless life. You also then have time off to use to improve yourself via school or some other way.
If you're working back-to-back jobs 80 hours a week that pay nothing you have zero time for yourself, zero time for good planning and zero time to attend any kind of classes.
Being poor and desperate impairs your ability to think, plan and change yourself{1}.
Edit: the thread is too long for me to reply to the responses below. What an unfortunate design HN, as the "right of reply" has effectively been stripped from me.
> Because it's so, so easy to get trapped in a cycle of endless below-livable jobs just to support yourself.
That's an appeal to emotions and has nothing to do with the argument.
> My personal belief, and I'm more than willing to pay more for goods and services to support it, and I live in a country where we have a liveable minimal wage, is that every job if worked 40 hours should be enough for a very modest, but not totally hopeless life. You also then have time off to use to improve yourself via school or some other way.
You are more than willing to pay more, but the very people you talk about who need cheap goods and services to stretch a budget don't have that extra money. The forcing of every job to be "living wages" removes a part of the labor force that is willing and able (due to parents or other income) to provide services for less money. Removing part-time, dependent labor from the the market increases the costs of goods and services for everyone and screws poor people. You might feel better, but it has a detrimental effect.
> If you're working back-to-back jobs 80 hours a week that pay nothing you have zero time for yourself, zero time for good planning and zero time to attend any kind of classes.
This is a different issue. This is the disappearance of full-time, low skill jobs. There are many factors including changing laws that have impacted this area. Our current bad economy and companies preparing for changes in health care laws are two. Worsening the situation by raising the minimum wage is only going to get more people fired / hours reduced or speed automation (McDonald's self ordering machines).
Doing something to help people get an education or training is one thing, eliminating a whole class of workers that make goods and services cheaper is a problem.
I remember the paper, and remember a negative reaction, but do not have time to read and find my sources on it again.
How is your fist point an appeal to emotions there's nothing evocative at all. If you have multiple below living wage jobs you've still a fixed amount of time in the day you can work just now you're being paid less for when you do work AND have higher transportation costs by definition. Maybe job security is an advantage as you won't get fired from everything all at once.
You keep repeating how the suggestions will make things more expensive for poor people. We're suggesting to pay poor people to not be poor.
Your suggestions mean that people will have more money but less purchasing power. They will still be poor, and a part of the workforce that has existed from the beginning will be gone. That part of the workforce has an effect on keeping goods and services at a lower price. Raising the cost of labor and getting rid of those "I just need some spending money jobs" results in companies looking to replace the higher cost workers or raise prices. Neither of these things benefit poor people.
"We're suggesting to pay poor people to not be poor."
I'm suggesting that the best bet for poor people is to provide a path to training that allows them to have jobs that are higher value to employers. Making low value jobs cost more doesn't help. It hurts as these people don't have high value skills and you are removing spending money from others that could be in the workforce.
> The forcing of every job to be "living wages" removes a part of the labor force that is willing and able (due to parents or other income) to provide services for less money.
This, and I think every one of your points, can be sufficiently addressed with one word: Australia.
My 19 year old unskilled housemate gets paid minimum wage $21.08 per hour as a casual.[1] She works 4 days a week and supports herself just fine. They say the cost of living is high in Australia, and it is -everything is expensive here- but we have options: we live in a share house and pay $100 a week per room (four of us) including electricity and Internet. She doesn't own a car, and doesn't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol. Financially she isn't struggling at all.
The minimum wage for full time employment is $16.87 per hour, which includes 10 day a year sick leave and 20 days a hear paid leave.[1]
Also, because everyone here is paid a 'living wage' we're able to afford to pay social welfare. 'Newstart Allowance' is paid to unemployed job-seekers at $515.60 per fortnight.[2] It isn't a lot, below the poverty line apparently, but it is enough to rent a room buy food.
This, and I think every one of your points, can
be sufficiently addressed with one word:
Australia.
Youth unemployment (both 15-19 and 15-24) is trending higher[0][1] but
the government doesn't seem to think that's a crisis[2] and it has
gotten worse since that statement[0][1].
My 19 year old unskilled housemate gets paid
minimum wage $21.08 per hour as a casual.[1] She
works 4 days a week and supports herself just
fine. They say the cost of living is high in
Australia, and it is -everything is expensive
here- but we have options: we live in a share
house and pay $100 a week per room (four of us)
including electricity and Internet. She doesn't
own a car, and doesn't smoke cigarettes or drink
alcohol. Financially she isn't struggling at all.
The minimum wage for full time employment is
$16.87 per hour, which includes 10 day a year
sick leave and 20 days a hear paid leave.[1]
Point 1, I said it increases the cost of living which you confirm.
I'm not sure a frugal person with 3 roommates making 25% above the minimum is a good example.
Also, because everyone here is paid a 'living
wage' we're able to afford to pay social welfare.
Since it looks like Australia is running a A$48.5 billion budget deficit[3],
it looks like you really cannot afford it. In fact, the range of changes look
like you are going to reduce social welfare to cover the budget. For students,
it seems the cost of university education (the main path in turning an unskilled
person to a skilled person) is going to have a jump[4]. This is looking
much worse for youth since the need to become skilled labor is going to hit a
bit of a wall if the university education costs jump per one of the governments
proposals.
'Newstart Allowance' is paid to unemployed
job-seekers at $515.60 per fortnight.[2] It isn't
a lot, below the poverty line apparently, but it
is enough to rent a room buy food.
I do not think any of your arguments hold water.
We have unemployeement payments in the US, so I'm not seeing its
relation to minimum wage. I am don't believe Australia proves
high minimum wage is a good thing.
The argument is high minimum wage cuts youth and unskilled employment and removes a class of worker from the workforce. Looking at [0][1], I think the trends show just that.
> the thread is too long for me to reply to the responses below. What an unfortunate design HN, as the "right of reply" has effectively been stripped from me.
You can probably reply now. IIRC, there is a delay in the reply link being available for long threads, as a very blunt measure to reduce fast/long back and forth arguments.
I don't know where you live but most of the food delivery people in my major US city are at least over 30, many even in their 50s. Lots of immigrants too.
That would work if workers and employers were equals.
They don't. That's why you need strong unions: they tip the scales to a more equal balance of powers.
Prompt service ensures a good tip. The driver will get paid either way, and he'll get tipped either way. However, since the tip reflects the quality of the service, the amount cannot be determined ahead of time. I'd never stiff the driver though, regardless of how bad the service is.
I don’t think your assumption holds for repeat interactions. Drivers want to get consistently tipped, so they do have an incentive for treating people who already tipped them well, namely insuring that those people will remain customers.
> I don’t think your assumption holds for repeat interactions.
I would agree with that. However, I don't order enough pizza to be a "known" customer. If I had a rapport with a particular service vendor, I wouldn't mind tipping up front, provided that they have demonstrated a consistently high level of service prior.
