wsj.com
www.wsj.com

Summary

Tipping in U.S. restaurants has dropped to 19.3%, the lowest in six years, driven by frustration over rising menu prices and increased prompts for tips in non-traditional settings.

Only 38% of consumers tipped 20% or more in 2024, down from 56% in 2021, reflecting tighter budgets.

Diners are cutting back on outings, spending less, and tipping less. Some restaurants are adding service fees, further reducing tips.

Worker advocacy groups are pushing to eliminate the tipped-wage system, while the restaurant industry warns these shifts hurt business and employees.

Key cities like D.C. and Chicago are phasing in higher minimum wages for tipped workers.

Non-paywall link

  • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
    2·
    6 hours ago

    I need you to understand you are also grandstanding a moral position and that there’s nothing inherently wrong with either of us doing that. Strawmanning another’s argument to try to give your position a weight it does not possess, however…

    Think of it like this: Consumers are boycotting. You would doubtless agree that a consumer has the right to boycott, regardless of the negative effects it may have on the business or employees?

    • Glytch@lemmy.world
      12·
      6 hours ago

      Boycotting would be not eating at restaurants that don’t pay a living wage. Not tipping is just punishing someone for providing you a service because you think it will somehow influence their employer.

      • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
        2·
        6 hours ago

        So, to be clear, are you arguing against “punishing workers for things that arent their fault” or “refusing to tip will not have the intended effect”

        • Glytch@lemmy.world
          21·
          6 hours ago

          Why are those mutually exclusive? You shouldn’t punish people for things that aren’t their fault and refusing to tip will not have the intended effect.

          Also I’m not saying you don’t have the right to not tip. I’m saying that people who don’t tip are wrong not to

          • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
            2·
            6 hours ago

            They’re not mutually exclusive, I didn’t mean to suggest they were. I mean, which is more important to your position, which should I focus my attention on? Which of the two stated ideas tends to convince you more?

            Also, on the subject of boycott, I don’t think I quite gave the idea a fair shake. Let me try again, since this is pretty important to my position:

            In the 1800s early 1900s women refused the social convention of wearing corsets. In the 50s the civil rights movement boycotted the social convention of “blacks in the back” if you will. Some today refuse to stand for the national anthem. Boycotts do not have to just be blanket refusals to eat at an establishment. They challenge conventions to seek social reform. For my part my “boycotting” tipping mostly involves refusing to tip anything that isn’t service related, and stopping going out to restaurants almost entirely.

            • Glytch@lemmy.world
              21·
              5 hours ago

              For my part my “boycotting” tipping mostly involves refusing to tip anything that isn’t service related, and stopping going out to restaurants almost entirely.

              See, that actually does sound like the right way to do it, because you aren’t refusing to pay for a service being provided to you. Instead you’re refusing to use the service altogether, which more directly affects the business owner rather than worker. It still impacts the worker (due to lower overall business) but in a much less damaging way than simply not tipping.

              • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
                4·
                3 hours ago

                if you don’t tip, their employer has to by law. If not that’s wage theft and it is not the concern of the clients to enforce your rights for you.

                • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
                  1·
                  3 hours ago

                  I actually don’t think this is a good argument, and I responded to something comparable to this line of reasoning elsewhere in the thread:

                  Sure, legally the standard minimum wage applies. The notoriously insufficient even at the time of adoption $7.25/hr minimum wage. If you can get the notoriously understaffed DOL to take a serious look at your case. If you can produce enough evidence. If, per federal minimum wage law, the entire week’s pay- not per day, not per hour, per week- was less than that minimum wage per hour. If, if, if, then yes, the employer is technically required to compensate for the lost wages up to but not more than the $7.25/hr federal minimum wage.

                  In practice, wage theft is the largest and fastest-growing category of theft in the US.

                  I’m gonna go ahead and vote you up anyway because I think you’re contributing to the conversation.

                  • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
                    2·
                    2 hours ago

                    then the fight should be to fix that. “Wages getting stolen” and “the minimum wage is too low” are two separate issues.

                • Glytch@lemmy.world
                  22·
                  3 hours ago

                  Blame the exploited for their exploitation and don’t acknowledge your part in it. You are a good American.

                  • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
                    2·
                    3 hours ago

                    I think this is about the right take. I wish you might not berate us Americans for our culturally indoctrinated ignorance. Some of us actually do try.

                  • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
                    1·
                    2 hours ago

                    I am not american, I live in one of those countries where shit that can’t possibly ever work, according to americans, regularly does.

                    No, the client has no part in the exploitation.

              • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
                3·
                4 hours ago

                Let me take a different tack and remind myself of our points of agreement:

                I think that we both agree that the worker is valuable, and that their work is valuable. You have indicated as much.

                I think we can both agree that the worker is not being paid fairly for their work in the current system. I don’t think you would entertain the discussion otherwise.

                I think we can both agree that the current system of tipping is inherently problematic- you pointed out that “people have a right not to tip, but are wrong for doing so” or something to that effect.

                I’m willing to bet, with a lesser but still decisive confidence than those other three propositions:

                You probably think the employer is (in principle) chiefly responsible for fair compensation of their employees, or you at least recognize this is the case in any non-tipped position. (ie that tipped compensation is an exception to the norm)

                I’m putting myself out on a limb to infer:

                We probably also agree that if congress instituted a fair living minimum wage pegged to inflation across the board for all, or at least abolished the sub-minimum wage tipped compensation limit, we wouldn’t need to be having this discussion.

                Please correct me if I have put any words in your mouth.

                • Glytch@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  2 hours ago

                  Any words you may have put in my mouth ( I don’t think you did but I’m on a 12 hour shift while we’re having this discussion so I don’t have the energy to check what I’ve already said) are ones I agree with. I do think we agree on the most important parts of what we’ve talked about (as you’ve laid out here).