agamemnonymous

Just in case

You're a customer, you don't have a "job". You have a bill for goods and services. You choose which goods and services you purchase. The bill presented to you at an American restaurant is calculated based on sub-minimum wages due to the tipping convention. There are some restaurants which calculate their bill with a living wage, and do not solicit tips, and this is reflected in higher prices.

By patronizing a restaurant that pays based on tipped wages, and not paying a tip, you are saving money by exploiting the system at the literal expense of the employee. Choose not to purchase from companies that secure low prices by exploitation, or write your representative to end the tipped wage laws that perpetuate that exploitation.

Just remember that the only one who suffers when you didn't tip a tipped-wage worker, is the worker.

Weak, sure. It's also a public argument made by an official Libertarian Party politician. Most of the stronger ones come from more anonymous libertarians. If that's what they're saying in public, etc. etc.

I wouldn't support at a place like that at all.

That's perfectly fine. If you don't approve, don't give the business your money. If you do, you're complicit.

This is the norm in America. I would assume this is common knowledge, but even still my comments are directed towards those that admit they know the staff relies on tips, but don't tip anyway because it's "not their job".

Again, if you go to these businesses knowing the majority of the waitstaff's compensation is in the form of tips, and you patronize the business without tipping anyway, you are on the side of the employer. The employer sees zero loss in revenue from your lack of tip. You have formed an alliance with the business owner to exploit the worker.

If you would like to not screw the employee while also not tipping, the answer is simple: do not patronize that business. Contact the owner and let them know you don't plan to return until they pay their staff a living wage. Otherwise, you're just selfishly joining in the exploitation, full stop.

Based on the group name, it might be a satirical take on the engagement bait trend? It wouldn't be the first time I've seen this kind of lampooning of vapid social media fads.

Personally, I've always subconsciously associated the last name in a list of names as the one who does the real work. Like if Lewis was so great, why did he need to bring Clark on board? Again, subconsciously, I associate the first name with vanity, the face of the group taking credit for a joint effort. I know that it's usually just a case of what has a better rhythm, but I feel the way I feel.

This doesn't extend to longer lists, anyone in the middle feels like a handout, "Oh yeah, they were also involved I guess". Again, totally based on feels, and I'm probably weird for this.

I always heard it as "Not my monkeys, not my circus"

Or do you honestly believe he did everything he could?

In general? Definitely not. In this specific case? Yeah, probably. It's not normal for appointees to be sycophant drones, and in terms of concentration of power it's not even desirable. Concentrating total power in the President is not a good idea, and advocating it by blaming the President for things that fall outside the scope of their power only empowers the people who want a dictator.

He made his appointments to the Board. The decisions those Board members make are on them, if you have a problem with their decisions, criticize them directly and direct your correspondence to them. Concentrating every complaint on the President promotes an inaccurate, and therefore ineffective, conception of scope of responsibility.

That would be a valid point in cases where the employee isn't being paid below minimum wage. In restaurants in America, it literally, legally, does subsidize their pay.

Should.

If you go to a business (e.g. a restaurant) that is known for offering low prices by paying sub-minimum wage subsidized by tips, and you happily pay the lower price without tipping, you are not helping. The business owner has no incentive to change their compensation, you're just screwing over a working class person.

If you take offense to this practice, don't go to businesses that use it. Better yet, write your representatives to draft legislation to end tipped wages. Otherwise, you're just treating yourself to a little discount at the expense of the worker, no different from their employer.

We can't rule out two-eyed giants obviously