Senate UN Special Rapporteur's report on poverty in the USA

was it you or someone else (sorry, I was unfaithful) who told me I was being silly tipping 20%?

 

As someone who has been pure working class his entire life, I can assure you a lot of those "bootstraps" braggarts edit their story and either leave out where they got help from the government, where they got lucky, where they toadied up to their superiors, where they screwed over co-workers or clients or a combination of all of that. Most people who make it on their own in an honorable manner never even talk about it.

So yeah, just remember all that "bootstraps" crap is oftentimes a work.

 

Generally 15-20% is the standard for restaurant service.

 

I'm getting confused here because I'm old and ****, but I had a massive British moment where I ordered ribs and they had cooked a rib eye and every fibre of my being was screaming to just take the steak and not Cause A Fuss. However I was 3-4 pints deep at this point and emboldened by PG being there so I apologised, a few times, and asked actually if I could have the ribs. And then was tipping at 20%.

But we also ate with other friends who live in NY and the guidance is like 16% or so for tipping. I don't know. It was over 12 months ago and I'm old and a parent and making excuses.

It's famine or feast.

US - Won't let you take a bite without asking if it's to your satisfaction.
UK, Commonwealth - nowhere to be ****ing seen for half the meal when you want to order more drinks.
FRA, ITA - Serve yourself, pig.

 

I know a few people that think TIPS is an acronym for To Insure Proper Service. Meaning, there are a lot of people that expect to be waited on they're royalty. And if they're not treated like royalty, no tip shall be provided.

Like, anakinfansince1983, I generally tip at 20% and go down to 15% because I worked in food services when I was younger. It's a tough job.

And like I mentioned before, San Francisco Bay Area is a microcosm of many the problems around the U.S., and one of them being small businesses and independent restaurants can't afford to pay more than the minimum wage or provide healthcare for their employees. Thus, if you dine in a San Francisco restaurant, you'll most likely find a surcharge added to your bill to help pay for the staff's health insurance.

And it's not a simple solution of just raising the minimum wage, as San Francisco at currently $14/hour is one of the highest in the US and will go up to $15/hour in July, because that rate is just unaffordable for many small businesses, and it would either cause those small businesses to close or increase their food prices. Keep in mind, the cost of rental space in the area is insane, something around $30K/month for prime locations and a little less in other locations.


There are some cities that have tried to tax corporations to help with the homeless/poverty situation, like Seattle with Amazon, but such taxes and efforts have been repealed as noted in this article from "Fortune":

Amazon Just Killed a Tax That Helps Homeless People

 

What's Bezos expected to do? Drone-deliver bootstraps?

 

Bezos is a modern robber baron. $500 a head is such a ****ing pittance. The city council are cowards for caving so easily.

 

Mustn't cause a scene. Unbecoming.

 

You invoked natural rights before, @J-Rod:

 

In France, it's more "remember that we only tolerate you here" ^^

Then again, the waiter here is protected by minimum wages above the universal one (specifically, €9.88/hour), conventions establish that at least 4 hours on a full-time job are paid as overtime hours (waiters are expected, by convention, to have a 39 hour-week instead of the 35-hour legal one), service is included straight-up in the price for the meal, and tipping is the lowest of any developed country in the world, at a measly 5% of the bill on average, with every third client systematically never leaving a single extra cent behind. The incitation for the waiter to provide highly attentive service just... isn't there.

 

Plus, strikes.

 

The problem with this meme is simple: You forgot the word "illegal" in front of immigrants. Legal and illegal immigration are two different things.

 

I guess he forgot that it was God that determined they were illegal and not the US government...

 

I thought that was regular work

 

No. It was US law that deemed them in the country illegally.

 

Something, something Native Americans had their land stolen, something something.

 

‘Humanity does not come with citizenship … Humanity does not require a green card.’ — Rep. Joe Kennedy III gave this stirring speech at the site where immigrant children are being detained.

 

Congratulations on missing the point.
I guess they should've gotten a hard working rich guy to pay off the government to let them in on a 'genius' exemption.
No one was expecting you to give a damn about the poor from other countries, considering (as you've amply shown in this thread) you don't give a damn about the poor in this country.

 

So the government decides who gets what rights based on some sort of legal framework? It doesn't have anything to do with "God" and "natural rights" and "rights from God"?

Feels like the US could therefore grant the economic rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with little to no issue then.

Oh J-Rod, to be so undone by an argument of your own making.

 

I think the legal framework is only to ensure that the government doesn't interfere with the rights that God gives???...maybe??? So the legal framework is not about enforcing rights it's about not getting in the way of God enforcing the rights. When you think about it, we don't need a legal framework for that as I don't think there has been one reported case of government inference in the course of any God related enforcement action to protect a right. This is really very complicated. I might need to go to a bible school.

 

Would that there weren't a public ready and willing to accept it...