Stop the tipping guilt trip placed on the public, raise your prices 20%, and pay your employees a livable wage. The public will still show up to eat in your restaurant.
They are still worried about the long term health of the business because of enternal cost increases (food, supplies, etc.), and are honestly thinking of just shutting down their restaurant and retiring rather than raising prices. They honestly think that if they raise their prices to get the same profit (NOT increase, just to keep it the same!) they have been getting, no one will come anymore because the cost is too much.
They by comparision to a lot of other business are lucky! They don't have to worry about rent at all, and they only have themselves to pay. Both also have other external sources of income (their spouses works), and have absolutely zero debt.
I can't imagine how it is for business that have rent (and possibly rent backpay) and employees they need to pay. I went to Northern VA (Reston) before and after COVID....so see almost all of the local restaurants and a great local grocery store wiped out because the property management were so unforgiving for rent.
I assume "closing down the restaurant and retiring" means they will sell the restaurant (or at least the property), but I am not sure to be honest?
If they want to retire anyways, then good for them. But a lot of businesses have had to raise prices this year, including grocers, which are arguably restaurants only competition. I think folks would understand.
There was a local beer taproom/bottle shop that I frequented a lot for years. Even as craft beer became more prominent and there were more local options, I liked it enough to keep going, but fundamentally there came a point where they raised their prices enough that I started going elsewhere, and once I broke that habit there was never a big reason to go back unless I was meeting someone else there once in a while.
In this case, "enough" was in the 20% range, but given what's happened to food prices lately I don't think 5-10% is a realistic number for a restaraunt either.
Agreed in general terms, but who is going to buy a business that cant even cover its costs? It sounds like this business has a negative expected value without raising prices.
Even in the best of times restaurants are the hardest business to run successfully. These are not the best of times, and (as always) it isn't clear what the future will hold.
Actually, to spend $50K on a fryer system is pretty hard:
https://www.webstaurantstore.com/63853/deep-fryer-with-oil-f...
Fried food's on the menu, boys! Quadruple bypass, here I come.
You might look at this and say charging $4 for X item is already at the edge of reasonable, but when your neighboring restaurants are already at $6 to $8 there is little reason to offer screaming deals. Its just a sign that its time to reprice to $7 to $8 for your own offerings, providing more profit to interest the dual owners moving forward. Reducing hours would also be a good idea for a owner operated business like this!
In addition, type of food matters a lot. A place that sells 'cheap slop on a plate' has lot less price flexibility than a boutique that sells fancy sushi.
I could get a "burek" (pastry with cheese) for 2eur, it's cheap, it fills you up, and you continue with your day.
Or I could order a pizza delivery... pizza used to be in the 6-8eur range if you lived near the restaurant, so for 12, 13 eur I could get two pizzas delivered to my home.
Then "the plague" came, the local pizzeria was closed, delivery was taken over by "app companies" (wolt here), they charge percentages of the food price + delivery cost, so the price of the pizza has gone up to 9-10eur (to cover the wolt fee), and with the delivery fee, we're talking 20-22eur for two pizzas. After the reopenings, the prices in the restaurant are the same as on wolt + with drinks, we're talking close to 30eur for two pizzas and drink.
If bureks cost 2.5eur or even 3eur (50% higher), they're still "cheap", and people will buy them. With pizza going from 12, 14eur to 20-25eur, I can make a huge amount of very good food at home, and saving 15eur to eat healthier makes it worth it.
TLDR: at some price point (that I currently feel we're at now, with some foods atleast here), it isn't worth it anymore to eat out. Everybody might rise their prices, but less people will eat outside, lowering the overall profits of everyone.
Sounds good.
That may be true, but you mentioned they're in the midwest. So am I. I'm in the heavy hitter, Chicago, but I'm from Smalltown, Midwest. I can say that NOTHING is free. Everything is a trade off. All those years of low taxes? Yeah, no one has any money in the midwest. Raising prices may well run people off. They already got the reduced-risk benefit of the midwest for decades, ability to own the building, lower taxes. Having a poorer local clientele was the price for those securities. That was part of the trade off.
You aren't just flat out "getting a better deal" as they probably felt, doing business in the midwest vs coasts. It is absolutely not outright just a "better place to do business". Other than perhaps our environmental stability (the greenhouse effect matters less, no fires, abundant fresh water, no fault lines outside of the St. Louis locale, etc.), those things are starting to matter in a big way, but are of limited benefit to a restaurant.
They already took the benefits from this area. All comes out in the end, but generally the midwest grants you more stability/security, while you end up poorer at retirement than someone that earned more dollars on the coasts. Same end result for them, just like the rest of us.
Not in Minnesota, obviously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax#/media/File:T...
$9 or $9.50 for a beer is the most you can charge in some places. You'll suddenly put people off if the beer is $10.
What you can do is charge $9 for a 14 oz beer (previously 16 oz), which is roughly like charging $10.28. Can only do that trick once, though. Or you can increase the size to 24 oz and charge $14.
It has happened to my own fees, and I still should raise them (so I totally understand the fear behind it).
Plus, the United States has significant inflation now, which you aren't used to, but in other countries it's TOTALLY NORMAL to raise prices every year.
This is why hard-enforced industry standards are a good. The situation you describe only exists when the price increase happens for 1 single restaurant and the others stay the same.
However many exist in the region, as long as there's no mandatory system, they're just gonna wait it out, see who gives up first, people stop going there and go other places instead, thus increasing traffic and income without having to raise prices.
This race to the bottom will be won by those who are already the richest and can weather the financial storm the best.
It's a system by which those at the top of the rungs actively prevent anyone from passing them through hard work.
It’s just that people are realizing that there are easier minimum wage jobs than working in a kitchen
If this industry literally cannot afford to pay people a living wage, if no one wants to work for them and they can't remain profitable by making working conditions better, then they just shouldn't even exist.
In a pandemic with vast spending deficits, the government is giving out mortgage holidays, 95% mortgage scheme, stamp duty holiday etc.
If your average American working a full-time job can't afford to eat out at high enough prices to keep restaurants afloat while paying decent wages, that sounds like a systemic problem—and we already know that one of those exists here.
This isn't really true. Restaurants exist to fill a bunch of different needs; experience, novelty, convenience etc. And expense isn't a particularly good predictor of quality.
I do agree that once you can cook well you're much less likely to be happy at an overpriced generic version of something... which is right where fast casual and big chain casual is aimed. But sometimes you go for the company and not the food, etc.
This cuts both ways, some types of pain are easier to take on at home. During service, time and focus are at a premium - which is way almost every place cuts corners on e.g., risotto.
Once you can cook well you learn that cheap is typically bad food. Expensive food can be good or bad, the good is worth it for those other reasons you state.
Not really. I had a great tacos the other day from a food truck, and great Ethiopian dinner on the weekend. Both cheap and not something I could reproduce easily or at all.
On the other hand, what you say usually applies to the ragu at a fast-casual.
So it depends.
Yet sometimes I crave a fried chicken sandwich and to hell if we're going to spend the time doing that ourselves. Life's too short and that's way too much work.
A couple of decent summaries:
* https://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/why-home-cooked-food-never-...
* https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1f1vr6/e...
People always need to eat.
It’s not fiscally viable closed system. Restaurants operate on tiny margins and come and go as frequently as software startups.
We keep trying to hitch biological necessity to ridiculous memes of social capital accumulation, inventing more abstract and Byzantine math as if literal reality will implode if the rich can’t earn a profit.
Like healthcare, the routine is eating is obviously necessary. Is the industrialization?
If you are a KFC/Burger King/McDonalds franchisee then it seems to work but I have lost count the number of establishments that open/closes in that one spot of our local mall.
Pub/Indian/Pizza/Chinese/Fish & Chips/ - they come and go.
McD is more strategic: They want a good business plan, location, etc. and are very picky at the cost of some false negatives.
Wrong.
"From the beginning, the minimum wage was meant to be a living wage—meaning families could live off of the pay comfortably, rather than struggling paycheck-to-paycheck" https://www.lendio.com/blog/minimum-wage-livable/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-t...
And who worked the day shift?
There are a lot of people who like having a job, but don't really need the money. Those that need the money move up to management if they can.
These people exist, I do not believe that any of them work at fast food restaurants. That’s an incredible amount of stress to put yourself through to “get out of the house” and meet new people.
> Those that need the money move up to management if they can.
I think you’re overestimating the size of management by quite a bit.
Most people decide fast food management isn't for them, and move elsewhere. The ones who remain dropped out and need the free training.
> Most people decide fast food management isn't for them, and move elsewhere.
Perhaps it was too stressful? Just a thought.
Management is more stressful. That is a different from the line worker who has been working the same position for the last 5 years, with no interest in advancing. I saw several people refuse advancements because they didn't want the stress: they knew how to do their job and it wasn't stressful at all anymore. (they learned to shut off the customer who yells at them while the cook is behind on orders - this coping is an important skill)
Then your experience is atypical.
> Management is more stressful.
But you said it wasn't stressful. Which is it?
> they learned to shut off the customer who yells at them while the cook is behind on orders - this coping is an important skill
Uhhh, this is not a good thing. You're describing someone shutting down in the face of excessive stress.
I'd also point out that claiming that it's "not stressful" and being shouted at by customers are mutually exclusive. Being shouted at is a stressful experience, definitionally.
Deskilling, derisking, outsourcing. Companies used to run their own email, which required a competent mailadmin, nowadays you outsource it to Google or Microsoft.
Most companies didn't hire a competent mail admin, their IT guy would run Exchange on the company fileserver as a part of his other duties.
Most of the large companies that used to hire a competent mail admin to run their mail servers still run their own mail servers.
That's an odd way of looking at it. Surely what happened first isn't that the expectations of fast food jobs changed out of the blue. Could it instead be that other jobs which adults worked to support their families went away?
2) Have you actually looked back and compared that salary to the cost of living back then? I think you might be surprised how many people could, and were, supporting a family on a job that “anyone with a pulse” could do.
Any sane economist that has to solve for the constraint "everyone has to provide for themselves" aka the mythical republican "responsibility" would first start by creating enough jobs to reach full employment. When you leave everything up to responsibility you also have the duty to provide everyone with the ability to live up to their responsibility.
Society as a whole doesn't benefit from exploitation or unsustainable businesses.
listening to Changelog while riding my bike at night after getting out of the factory
Return to office might have some reverse effect but online remote employees can be one of the biggest generators of this problem.
They are. It takes time but they are. I work in a business that is having a hard time hiring entry level healthcare workers because Walmart and Amazon warehoueses is now paying $15-20/hr when it was only $12 pre-covid. Walmart and Amazon would only raise wages if they truly had a labor supply issue, which they do, we all do.
With their huge efficiencies of scale and deep cash reserves, they are better able to offer higher wages than competitors. During the pandemic, both Walmart and Amazon have seen huge growth. They can continue this growth post-pandemic by squeezing their competitors on wages, and eventually emerging with less competitors.
No soup for you.
Sounds like they're in a no win situation.
If they don't raise wages: "boo they're paying their workers slave wages!"
If they do raise wages: "boo they're using their huge scale to further crush their competitors!"
Nothing, good point.
> That is what they are doing now, right?
I haven't seen that near where I live (in the US) though I wouldn't doubt there are a number of locations experiencing that.
Kroger decided to close a store because it didn't want to pay a covid front line temporary increase of $4/hr.
I don't see a big increase in wages, and I work a lot of lousy jobs.
If job conditions were a bit better, a lot of employees will stay at a low paying job because they actually like their fellow employees, and sometimes the job.
I don't know why being nice/respectful is so out of fashion in corporate america?
I grocery shop at Safeway, and The Nugget markets. Safeway employees hate their job. They even have a hard time retaining new immigrants. When I shop at Safeway, I sometimes need to move to another line if I feel the checker is having a bad day. (I overheard an employee state a manager wanted him at a store 70 miles away at 5 am the next day, and he told that manager he didn't have transportation other than the bus. I wanted to grab the phone and lay into that "Manager".)
As opposed to The Nugget, which is notated as one of the best 100 places to work. It's like going back to the fifties. The employees are nice. It might be they hire people whom will have better jobs one day?
Anyways, it's not just about wage. I have had lousy low paid jobs I liked, and well paid union jobs I despise.
If you're talking about Seattle, Kroger closed that store because it was underperforming for years, not because of a temporary wage increase that affected every grocery store in the city. Weeks later, they started advertising open positions with wage increases for nearby stores they didn't close...
When it comes to political decisions, firms lie all the time about their motivations. I don't understand how anyone can take what they say at face value, without any means to verify their claims.
The reality is that nobody closes their grocery business because labour costs went up for them and their competitors. Customers still need groceries to live, and you and your competitors just pass the costs directly to them, without any change to profit margins or market share. Closing your grocery over this is as nonsensical as closing your grocery because the spot price of milk went up to $15/gallon.
Of course they're not going to say "we're closing because we don't want to pay our employees a decent wage", that would be bad optics. You can be pretty sure that if you ask employees at the store, they'll say that whatever the stated reason, the intended message from the parent company is "we ain't gonna pay you more".
It gets argued again and again that the profit incentive is necessary for cutting inefficiencies, and looking at it from Kroger's perspective, this appears to be another such example. Yet this is only the case for Kroger - when considered in its full context, as a supplier of necessities for working class folks, it's the total opposite. It's the composition fallacy at work: just because companies with a profit motive evolve to cut inefficiencies wherever possible (such as by externalizing costs) does not mean that society as a whole reaps the same benefits.
> Salary and Years of Experience
> Based on the May 2017 salary information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), orderlies make a median wage of $13.07 an hour or $27,180 a year. Half of orderlies receive more, and half make less. The lowest-paid 10 percent make less than $9.73 an hour or $20,240 a year, while the highest-earning 10 percent get over $19.52 an hour or $40,610 a year. Orderlies employed in psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals are paid the highest average wage of $17.21 an hour or $35,800 a year. Nursing care facilities pay one of the lowest average wages of $12.00 an hour or $24,950 a year.
> Wages often start out low for entry-level orderlies and grow with experience. Some orderlies complete additional training and state requirements to advance to higher paid nursing assistant or registered nursing roles. In July 2018, PayScale.com showed this hourly pay progression by experience for nurse aides, orderlies and attendants:
> 0 to 5 years: $8.19 - $15.24
> 5 to 10 years: $8.28 - $15.83
> 10 to 20 years: $8.84 - $17.16
> 20 or more years: $8.73 - $20.00
Often working 24, 36 or even 48 hour shifts.
Often for $15/hr or less (many places will pay EMTs literally minimum wage, and tell their employees, "you can have as much OT as you want").
Part of it is supply and demand. Private EMS is often an in-road or holding pattern to a more "cushy" unionized fire department EMS position (where firefighter paramedics can make into the six digits). So private EMS has little motivation to be competitive - "there's a line of 21 year olds who will happily take your job".
the problem is the restaurants are seeing fewer customers due to the pandemic so they can't raise wages, while the upper 1/4 or so of the population hasn't been financially impacted by the pandemic and housing and rents have continued to climb. restaurants can't raise prices in this situation and they can't raise wage, which squeezes the workers who are now not putting up with it any more.
return to work means continued increase in housing prices and if restaurants fully open they're going to have to pay more and that means that those wage and rent increases for the businesses will have to get passed on as rising prices.
if there's a switch to remote work then that will make cities more livable again at current wage costs and menu pricing. you lose some disposable income from the seriously high wage earners that have left the city, but they'll mostly take the distortion of the housing market with them while the bulk of the population that makes less than $150k will have more left out of salaries to eat out at the restaurants.
short term the effect of popping housing bubbles would be recessionary, of course, but it'd act more like Volker's popping of the 70s stagflation bubble, give it 5 years and the "new normal" of consistent housing prices would take over.
And who feels that pressure the most? Service workers, who had jobs in the cities, sure, but didn't reap any of the economic benefits of all that urban wealth concentration. They're overrepresented in the population who fled, which means their jobs are now underserved.
Long term, this will probably just be viewed as a correction to a few overpopulated urban cores. We'll find equilibrium again, though not at the same state as before.
But regardless, the fix here is the same: pay more for the jobs and you'll find people willing to do them.
Exactly, so restaurant owners should raise wages to compensate. There's not a shortage of workers, there's a shortage of owners willing to pay the current market wage.
A lot of jurisdictions showed them this when they paid almost the the same as their FT take-home pay during Covid. I don't think they've left for something better; I think they're mostly not doing anything.
Restaurants have a lot of legal exceptions because you need people to work on sunday, vacations, weird schedules, etc.
So compared to other situations in the same country, it's not a good deal.
Actually a lot of industries have this problem.
I was a smartphone tech. I repaired phones. You know when a majority of our business was done? On weekends and holidays. Whenever my GF had a national holiday, I had to work because it meant the people who put off fixing their phones will take that day and come it for a repair because it was way more convenient than during or after their working hours.
I also had to work until 7pm every night for the same reason. My owner was banking on people coming home from work and stopping, so we stayed open an extra two hours. Some days I had five people in my office. Other days? Maybe one or two. But those two hours generated a lot more revenue than you probably think over the course of a month.
This is observed as a shortage - more customers willing to buy a restaurant meal than the restaurants are willing/able to supply at current prices. This must equalize to a new equilibrium with higher prices and fewer restaurants. .
I've over-simplified a lot, but it's pretty much right out of an Econ 101 textbook.
Some of this might be transient - for example the demand curve may shift right again after some time and with COVID well in the past.
The supply curve might shift back up if, for example, government wage supports are reduced.
The only thing preventing restaurants from changing their prices is the 'penguin on an iceberg' issue. You may be correct in raising your prices, but if other restaurants are willing to lose money longer before they raise their prices your business may suffer/fail because of it before the rest of the market changes their prices/wages.
Yes. A so-called “observed shortage” is not a shortage, its just buyers wanting a good without wanting to pay the price it costs to buy in the present market conditions.
A real shortage involves either a constraint which prevents price adjustment to an equilibrium of supply/demand or demand and supply curves shaped in such a way that no equilibrium point exists (which, I guess, is just a very special equilibrium-preventing constraint.)
The solution to an observed shortage of labor is “employers pay more and quit whining”.
The solution (if it is solvable at all) to a real shortage depends on what constraint prevents equilibrium from being reached.
No, that would only be true if there was not an observed shortage; that is, if the current market price was clearing the market with no unmet demand at the market clearing price.
An observed shortage that is not a real shortage means that the market price can rise to the point of market equilibrium without reducing quantity traded. In fact with a normal supply curve shape, the minimum price increase to achieve equilibrium will increase the quantity traded compared to the status quo, as quantity supplied will increase with price. Quantity demanded will be lower than in the status quo, but since the “observed shortage” is quantity demanded being above quantity supplied and, therefore, traded at the current price, that reduction is literally just reducing the “observed shortage” to zero, not reducing quantity traded.
But there can also be a fuzzy area here. There may be situations where most sellers have not raised their prices to respond to decreased supply (for a variety of reasons), and therefore other mechanisms (like who gets in line the earliest) determine who gets to buy. At the same time there may be a small number of sellers who do raise prices (think of the toilet paper hoarders who resell on Craigslist at huge markups). If you consider that higher reseller price to be the "market price" then that wouldn't wouldn't strictly be a shortage, but if you consider the unchanged price to be the market price then that would indeed be a shortage. (In fact, this is why for every natural disaster there are articles with headlines like "Price gouging is actually a good thing; it's the solution to shortages.")
So as a restaurant, very roughly speaking, you basically can raise prices until the line starts to go away. Unfortunately customers can be very stubborn and would rather wait in a 1hr line somewhere else, or not go out at all, for quite a while before eventually coming around to the new normal and accepting your new, higher price.
And you will still probably end up with fewer restaurants along the way, as those least-profitable and with the shortest lines outside, go away.
Restaurant sales are rarely made up of price conscious buyers. Sure there's a limit, but short of the blue light special crowd, most customers are eating out for either variety, social reasons, or being tired of cooking.
Yes. This is exactly the question answered by the concept of supply and demand curves. Of course you can argue about the shape of those curves but their existence is not in doubt.
The normal market solution to a shortage is to raise prices until there is no longer an excess of supply at that higher price
In economics, outcomes are all that matter.
For the first pair, since the change in the supply (a shift of the curve itself, not a walk along the curve) of restaurant meals is negligible except in the case of restaurants closing in aggregate, a left and downward shift of the demand curve (as you note) has the net effect of downward pressure on both prices paid and quantities supplied of meals.
The second pair's supply curve itself shifts left and upward (not downward), which results in a net effect of increasing the prices (wages) of restaurant labor, and decreasing the quantity supplied (number of workers).
A similar analysis could be performed from the new state of each pair: the first pair might actually see its supply curve shift left and upward due to these dynamics (restaurants may close in aggregate), causing the quantity of meals supplied to decrease further and prices of meals to rise, possibly though not necessarily up to the level they were before. For the second pair, demand for workers might increase in aggregate, resulting in a right and upward shift in the demand curve, which would further ratchet wages upward (barring another supply curve shift) and would help increase the number of workers to a level closer to what it was before any of these shifts took place.
This is the key... the problem isn't really the market... it's the market interference.
First COVID and the "lockdowns" (effective or not)... and then the resulting "free" money that makes it more lucrative to be on unemployment than working a job.
$665/40=$16.63
The financial incentive to not work is strong. Add in 40 extra hours of free time...
Hilton Head is a popular vacation destination, but as development started radiating inland towards I95, all of the workers are priced out. The housekeeper at the hotel I stayed at in 2019 commuted 2.5 hours daily, and restaurants started reducing hours due to labor shortages. COVID made it worse, but the problem existed because you can’t work in most places without covering the cost of operating a car.
My understanding this year is that popular restaurants require reservations 60+ days in advance.
There may be some demand shifts at the low end from sit down to fast casual, but those are the places where tipped workers are paid the least. A waiter at a good steakhouse is making a good living, an IHOP waiter makes $10/hr or less.
At the low end, I think those workers have shifted to curbside retail. I’d guess the average Target has 12-30 more staff to handle curbside orders alone.
1. Most waiters don't get health benefits 2. Most waiters don't get retirement plans 3. Most waiters are at the whim of the restaurant managers 4. There's only so many tables you can turn in a shift, and tips average under 20%. 5. Most waiters don't get any PTO
Say you have a four-top that has meal service of $120 (booze tips usually go to cocktail waitresses, wine goes to waiter). An average section for a "good" steakhouse will have no more than 5 tables per waiter; otherwise service sucks.
So each table earns the waiter $24 in tips. With 5 tables, that's $120 per turn. High end steakhouses don't turn fast; again, the appeal is having a long, hearty meal. So maybe 2.5 turns on a good night. That would be $300 in tips. But then you have to tip out. Busboy gets $25 (helps you turn faster, helps with some service), dishwasher gets $10 (should get $100), hostess gets $20 (so your section gets sat promptly), and at least $50 for the line cooks who are the real stars. Now you're done to $195. That needs to be reported as income, so it gets held back by mgmt for tax.
You get 3 good shifts a week, and 2 crap shifts. After a week you've made $195x3 plus $125x2 for a grand total (pretax) of $835/week. So your gross is $44K. I'm ignoring the base hourly wage because it's usually nothing.
$44k isn't bad money. It's above the nationwide median, but considering all the downsides, it's not "a good living." If you get sick, tough shit you lose out. If the chef jacks up the menu, you lose out. And it's a young person's gig. People want their waiters to be young and attractive, not balding and showing grey hairs.
I've heard of bartenders making more than $100k/yr, (but still with no benefits).
Maybe my view is skewed from seeing prices in expensive cities, but I think the beef alone at a good steakhouse is gonna run you more like $75-$100 per person, and that's not even for the high-end wagyu (which will probably run $150-$250 for most cuts). Then add another $10-$30 per person for appetizers and side dishes, and maybe dessert on top of that.
I feel like it's pretty hard to walk away from a good steakhouse spending less than $80 or so, even if you have nothing to drink. And the more common case is probably quite a bit more than that...
I think well educated professionals sometime miss what reality is for millions of people. $44k for a few shifts is better and more reliable income than a retail gig. The similar premium gig for a low skill person is probably a janitor.
In reality, half of the US population lives in a state with a regular minimum wage for waiters (California, New York, Washington, and a bunch of other states), and the other half averages $5/hr which is $7800/yr if you work 30 hours a week. Also there's cash tips that aren't reported on taxes. And like others have said, you're estimating $30/person at a steakhouse which is TGI Fridays prices.
Put that together, and you're looking at the equivalent of six figures pre-tax for 5 nights of work, with no email at night or on-call. Sounds pretty good to me.
In my area some waitstaff also make $3.50/hr because the company assumes they make tips. Some also hold all your credit card tips and give them to you on the paycheck...so it isn't all roses.
We have similar issues up in Charleston, with my girlfriend ‘s restaurant in an HCoL (Mt. Pleasant) really struggling to find staff beyond the 16-26 “living with mom & dad” crowd where HCoL is little of a factor.
I would add I have at least a half-dozen friends in BoH that intentionally (an)used our state pay benefits for a free vacation to smoke weed and play X-Box though sadly citing it as their first vacation in a forever. There’s definitely a problem a multi-faceted problem here.
"My understanding this year is that popular restaurants require reservations 60+ days in advance." >> This is what a shortage looks like. Long lines and empty shelves. People who are willing to pay the advertised price, but can't because there isn't anything to buy.
"started reducing hours due to labor shortages." >> Meaning that there is more demand for labor than supply at the current price (wage). The supply curve for labor moved down, causing a shortage of labor at the current price. That's a 'shortage' as perceived by businesses that don't want to pay the actual market clearing price/wage.
In your example, a labor shortage is leading to a restaurant shortage. In both cases caused by changes in the supply and/or demand curves (down and/or right, respectively).
You could also go farther upstream to the housing market and say that because the supply curve of housing moved down, house prices went up, and that caused labor's supply curve to move down accordingly.
All of these things ultimately mean fewer things and less stuff, at higher prices.
Then those the are unwilling to raise server wages will either die due to lackmof labour or become ghost kitchen fire the serving staff and do take out and delivery exclusively.
I think delivery and take out is going to stick around in a big way. there is less expectation to tip the restaurant when not eating on premises. and it think wage regulation of gig work is coming for the likes of ubereats doordash and grubhub
on the cheap end you will have take home food with no tips and on the high end a living wage will become standard with less pressure to tip
I personally haven't worked in a restaurant, but I see how the staff and chefs are always running around, doing 20 things at once. Stimulants use like cocaine and amphetamine is endemic in the industry as well, probably for that reason.
As a restaurant worker, the pay is usually terrible as well. So while some super rich corporation won't lose millions off of your mistakes, you can lose your job and be forced to live off of your inexistent savings. That sounds very stressful to me.
Your assessment for what constitutes stress seems to be, at best, highly subjective.
For me, the cumulative stress of the software industry is a lot higher. I can never quite "turn off" and in the long-run it's a lot harder for me to control my psychological stress, than when I was working in a kitchen.
(And of course these are highly subjective, I'd expect nothing less from a psychological phenomenon. Anecdotes will likely be all over the place.)
For some people, server jobs are a between what they're doing. Especially for artists/filmmakers it's money between the gigs that don't pay. I met tons of people as a barista doing exactly that.
Worked through college, and yes conditions need to be better overall. A concern would be if it's now a FT 40h something or other, it squeezes out people who take 6 months making coffee to get to their next acting gig. Also, barista jobs are a dime a dozen once you make some friends. Very easy to get rehired, people talk.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that hard work is as valuable/more valuable than skilled work. But it seems to be a pervasive idea.
The problem is that the turnover rate in restaurants is ALREADY very high. Most employees see it as a “stepping stone” while they get their careers on track.
The industry is terrible. If you didn't work in it, your solutions sound a whole hell of a lot like "bootstraps". I think "there should not be such thing as poverty wages" or "if you can't afford to pay people you can't afford to run your business" are better
> Low wages are the most common reason people cite for leaving food service work. But in one recent survey, more than half of hospitality workers who've quit said no amount of pay would get them to return.
> That's because for many, leaving food service had a lot to do also with its high-stress culture: exhausting work, unreliable hours, no benefits and so many rude customers.
Knowledge work does look different from physical work, but you can work hard at both; you need to work hard at either to be successful.
As for why hard physical work is so valued - only a century or two past, it was the only practical method to prevent the starvation for yourself and your family. Knowledge work being a viable means of survival (for non-nobles) is pretty new, all things considered.
Even my own parents never really understood how knowledge work could be as valuable as getting out and working with your hands; and they were born in the early/mid 1900's.
I probably should have used the phrase "unskilled work" in my original post, but I was trying to convey the person's frustrations about "hard work." From an outsiders perspective, a skilled knowledge worker doesn't look like they're working very hard, but we know that's not true.
Those people are only serving us the food we need to live.
After a certain point, programming becomes less hard. It becomes a set of very familiar syntax snippets to copy/paste around.
Rushing around a kitchen in the heat, and often toxic, juvenile environment all week never changes… versus programming in your house?
Give me a break. You’re not coming close to putting the same real pressure on your body.
Programming can be copy/paste, but the hard days when you have to figure out how to eliminate some mutex across some threads so the whole performs without a race condition - that will always be hard.
- 20 years of work
- x years of study
- being born with the right nature/nurture mix for computer work
…to get to this point. That’s a very significant initial hump in difficulty that restaurant work doesn’t have.
I've worked in a factory as a machine operator, and in a company as a programmer, and they're not comparable in either difficulty or compensation.
people with engineering degree struggle to find job as SE.
let alone that you need to put hundreds/thousands of hours into it in your free time
and then still learn a lot as dev in order to move up
i'm not saying that it makes SE harder, just different.
Go work 20 years of Friday and Saturday nights in a popular restaurant. Does not have to be the same one, as the expectation is the same.
The level of effort I need to put into coding dropped off exponentially.
As one ages the level of effort out into restaurant work goes up.
Let’s rely on science and not bias. Programming is still not sweatshop work on the regular. I work 4 solid hours a day.
Why isn’t there a flood of ex-restaurant workers becoming software engineers? Because getting over that hump is really hard, statistically speaking.
Classist wage disparity is a real problem in America today. Often knowledge workers who don't work hard earn more than physical workers who do work hard.
earnings are measured with productivity, and knowledge work has more scaling to their productivity output. You can dig holes really hard, but a hole dug is a hole dug. A line of code written is not just a line of code, as power of compounding output stacks on top of each other.
Historically, the people doing "hard work" were peasants, serfs, and other lower-class people.
The people doing "skilled work" were the educated sons of nobility, and later of wealthy merchants.
An awful lot of the unhealthy and destructive dynamic in our modern work can be traced to feudalism.
Skilled, in late antiquity/mediaval times, meant the engineer doing trebuchet, or building ships, or building high quality steel, etc.. et.c.. it was actually hard work.
None of them were things that the ruling class/aristocracy did. They just paid for it (with the levies/taxes they took from their land).
Eventually another higher skilled level arised, as thinkers/scientists became hired by the court of a monarch, or baron.... and being a patron (paying for someone to do poetry, science, etc) was a sign of status.
The skilled workers have always been the middle class. It took the industrial revolution, where they could become rich themselves, and monarchy started becoming irrelevant.
It really boils down to how much money a business can make from your outputs. A line cook makes the business less money than someone building an AWS service. This is not a law of nature, just the status quo.
Wait until they learn about passive income and proper usage of leverage!
It comes from well-paid workers also liking to pretend that they are hard workers. It's required for the moral superiority.
Because the labor theory of value seems intuitively true,
Unfortunately it does not reflect the reality of how humans exchange labor.
I think it probably depends on which restaurant you work at and on your skill set and ability to thrive in that fast paced environment.
The difference is that software is easier money if you have the knack for that type of work.
But it’s like anything: you have folks who are passionate about cooking but not business savvy. They might be excellent cooks but the potential customers just eat greasy shit and don’t appreciate nuance of vegetables and spices—and so the chefs are at the mercy of substance-less customer demands. How can one be excited about that?
Anyway, I don’t think the folks quitting their jobs fit this category because talented chefs can make a lot more than minimum wage. But it’s still relevant as one must be excited to go to work in the morning.
Equally true of software development, systems/network administration, etc. It can totally suck, or it can be a source of joy, growth, and profit, all depending on where you're workin' and who for. Some of the best jobs I've had in both industries have been almost like "gettin' paid to play" because the whole crew was doin' stuff they already enjoyed doin' and doin' it for a boss that knew how to motivate in positive ways and how to join in and be part of the fun of it all. That plus a paycheck and benefits? Why would anyone ever want to go back to a shit job after knowing good jobs exist out there.
Software development is done from a laptop, in whatever air-conditioned room or office you'd like.
Restaurant work is, by definition, hot, loud, and surrounded by people who treat you like a servant.
You could take two people who have the exact same "knack" for each profession, and one of them would still be much more miserable.
It just sucks more to be in a restaurant than it does to write code. I think that's kind of tough to argue.
FYI, one of the reasons restaurants don't do this is the tax impacts. When someone tips 20%, there is no sales tax assessed on the tip — the full 20% goes to the worker. If you increase prices by 20%, that is subject to a sales tax (roughly 10% where I live), which amounts to a 1%-2% increase in the total price.
On top of that, moving tips to wages results in more income and payroll taxes being taken out (most workers do not fully report all of their tips, which saves them both income and payroll taxes).
It might not seem like a lot — just a couple percent here and there — but restaurants have pretty thin margins.
I wonder what percentage of tips are still cash tips, which is the only case where you can get away with that. I imagine the percentage of tips that are on a credit card (or even app like Doordash/Seamless) vs. cash has been increasing over time, but I can't find solid numbers.
Generally speaking, Americans are more generous when the money goes to directly to a service person than to a faceless business that sets itself up as a middleman in that relationship.
One reason several of them have mentioned is that many customers are happy to regularly tip much more than 20%, and this is often correlated with the highest spending customers. Making it a non-discretionary 20% puts an artificially low cap on how much they earn from the customers that pay the most. At one time some customers would leave extra cash on the table after paying the "no tipping" bill, but no one carries cash anymore.
Places that net $40/hr have enormous difficulty hiring right now. These are not poorly paying jobs but the broader lifestyle is pretty terrible even at good restaurants, made even more terrible because of the employee shortage.
One overlooked issue is that many restaurant workers in the big cities are originally from "flyover country". When the restaurants closed during COVID, a large number went back home. I was talking to a waitress in the middle-of-nowhere Iowa a few months ago and she had just moved back after several years working in New York City restaurants.
I don't think I've ever seen a sign advertising anything near that for restaurants.
I have friends working these jobs. The consistent pattern is that they are only working the minimum number of shifts required to pay their bills, and they live pretty cheaply. You can't staff the restaurants when all of your employees only want to work 1-2 days a week. They could easily work more hours, and did before COVID, but are choosing not to now. And because restaurant work is extremely flexible and available on-demand, it makes their life flexible.
Many people have adapted their lifestyles to having less money and not working, especially with the generous unemployment benefits. Restaurant workers I know fall into that camp. My SO was receiving $75k/year on unemployment during COVID and turned down jobs paying $125k+ because they discovered the unemployment benefit was sufficient for a lifestyle of doing nothing that they were happy with. Not likely to take a job anytime soon either.
As a tangential observation, while I know many people in this position, none of them is doing much with their newfound free time. Just kind of coasting.
Changing this would mean making explicit and obvious things that were previously implicit and looked past: Front-of-house would need/want/demand a far higher hourly wage than what the back-of-house workers would/cloud, and everybody would have to report ALL their income for taxes.
There is also the problem that unprofessional service staff might not try as hard to please the customers, though maybe those get filtered out over time.
The change is that the IRS now holds the restaurant owner accountable for the taxes due on the tip. The result is that instead of the money going to the server directly, it first has to pass through the hands of the business owner. I don't know if this still goes on, but some years back I recall hearing that some restaurant owners would then "distribute" those tips to other members of the staff — the busboys, kitchen help, etc.
Traditionally, waiters always "tipped out" the busboys and bartenders they worked with, on any given shift, and better service (theoretically) promoted more generosity from the waiter. But now that the business owner has his hand in it, the business owner will operate according to his own interests. The waiter is cut out. The waiter has less control, and less direct incentive. The waiter has less of a payoff.
Rumor has it (or, if you will, common sense has it) that some owners abuse their role as middleman.
The owners always had to withhold taxes from their wait staff, just as your taxes are withheld by your employer.
The difference is that since almost all tips are now on credit cards, the business owner doesn't need to assume the % sales to withhold, and withholds based on virtually all of their employees tips.
The end result is that the wait staff can't commit tax fraud by not reporting tips. The business owner didn't have to report cash tips, only withhold based on a % of sales. They still withhold on % of sales if actual tips are less than the % of sales.
That said, gifts totaling under $15,000 are non-taxable.
https://www.palisadeshudson.com/2013/09/if-gifts-are-not-inc...
Yup. A couple of restaurants in the Seattle area tried this. "20% price increase, no more tipping".
Over time, their employees left, saying they were being paid less.
Remember this the next time you hear the "if you tip 15% or less I'm literally paying to serve you!" (which is also BS. The IRS, if you don't disclose tipped income, assesses a standard rate. If you're truly earning less than that in tips, you can document it and pay less. But almost no-one wants to do that because the IRS is behind the times, and almost all servers make more in tips than that standard rate).
It works perfectly for many tens of millions of restaurant workers in two dozen developed countries around the world.
The bottom line is that it is the workers making the choice you disagree with, in pursuit of their own self-interest. It would be one thing if choosing one policy over the other was revenue-neutral to the restaurants and workers, but empirically that is not the case.
Isn't the solution obvious? Adjust wages/prices to such a degree that it does fully compensate for the missing tips.
I don't see anyone screaming about ditch digging jobs or dishwashers saying we should "save those jobs!" . Backhoes and automatic dishwashers have freed people from meaningless work. We should do the same for everything we can. There's a stereotype of struggling artists working at fast food/coffee shops, imagine how much better human life could be if we freed them to do their real work (the arts).
The analog in software is working for a surveillance company versus architecting your software to cut out needless middlemen.
If we “freed” people from work with welfare, 99.9% of recipients would smoke weed and watch cartoons, not create art. It might still be preferable to having people work low-engagement jobs, but let’s not be too idealistic.
FTR I also think the social safety net should be bare minimum existence, for a single person something like a bunk bed, 3 minimum nutrition meals (simple food like beans, rice etc not steaks...), clothes from a thrift store etc. -- It's more complex when kids are involved because you have to consider that you're essentially growing the future generation so have to consider the repercussions of underinvesting in formation.
This bare minimum would still leave lots to be desired and thusly incentivized (such as money for weed and a tv/netflix) ... But they'd have the time and basic support to do something contributing that only humans can do (at the moment at least) .
Example; There've been some pretty positive things happening around community gardens in some places (when they're not being attacked by self-appointed neighborhood Nannies that don't like to see people gathering together around something beneficial).
Example 2; I remember "maker" clubs and similar community groups doin' lots of really fun activities that benefited more than just the group itself (free community virus cleanups, operating system install parties, community LAN parties - everyone's welcome).
I'm sure that if enough positive activities were presented to society as a whole, you'd just naturally find a growing percentage of humanity doin' good things for each other that used to be considered "work" at some point in the past before whatever "safety net" made it unnecessary to do for survival's sake anymore. People might even still do some of those things at a higher level of quality than others and net themselves some personal gain out of it.
Problem is that humans aren't willing to cooperate with one another enough to even approach any sort of Utopian ideal, and they're often too ready to jump at all the reasons such a thing is "impossible" without being willing to even consider any ideas that might lead to it bein' a reality.
Instead of career tracks you will be offered volunteer tracks.
However, this is a complex solution to the problem and it is prone to being gutted because it will be seen as socialist and once there is full employment politicians will demand everyone to quit their clubs the same way they demand welfare recipients to quit today.
Yeah, that just took the wind outta my sails. I literally give up trying to restore my hopes for humanity or any sort of better future for myself or anyone else. We're all fucked. I need to just accept that.
The Restaurant workers had portable credit card stations to ensure they didn't have to run back and forth to a central register. The garbage trucks had automated arms for picking up trash bins. A busy restaurant had ~1/3rd the staff of a similar restaurant in the US. This compares to my condo association which recently hired snow shovelers who don't have a snow blower because they were cheaper than the ones with a snow blower!
There is no employment crises in Switzerland, and by simple inspection I'd believe that the American service/labor sector could absorb the 3-6x improvement in productivity present internationally without an existential crises.
Which raises the question of why anyone would work, if doing whatever you want and still living a comfortable life was an option.
It sounds like a lovely future, but I don't the automation exists yet to replace all the jobs.
You work to be able to afford nicer clothes, more vidya games, fine whisky, more-comfortable retirement when you do stop working, vacations, better school for your kids, a nicer house with a view, and so on.
The carrot remains the same, the stick is just somewhat smaller.
Let's say you got $20k/yr[0] for free. Do you think you could live comfortably on that? Would you be willing to work to improve your comfort level?
[0] full time US minimum wage with no time off is about $15k/yr
People with literally billions of dollars of wealth still devote time and energy to earning more. I don't think its a stretch to think that people who merely have enough for tolerable food, clothing, shelter will continue to do so.
For a minimum wage worker it is absolutely trivial to see that the tradeoff isn't worth it and subsequently they behave predictably like a lazy person. People acting according to free market logic deserve the stick. Do you see the problem?
If I look at the size of the median house, the price of the median car, that doesn't seem true. If most people would be satisfied with a basic income scheme and nothing more, why aren't most middle class people trying to save half their paycheck and retire before 50?
I agree on one hand, but there's a lot of hand waving and hopeful/wishful thinking built into that answer.
It's very easy to say, "Do something else," but if it were that easy, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place. And if 20 million food service workers all get CS degrees, guess which will be the next industry with plummeting wages and few job opportunities?
We have more people on earth than ever before, but we also have more automation and less need for those people than ever before. It seems like at some point society is going to have some hard questions to answer about employment, pay, etc.
'cept with 20 million CS degrees, the software industry would boom - more code, more customized, bespoke software for every firm, presumably increasing productivity and output and thus, increases wealth.
Not to mention these people may also "stumble" upon something great by being entrepreneurial.
So it'd be strictly better to have 20 million CS degrees holders, vs 20 million hospitality workers.
But, sometimes on Friday nights we’d lock the doors 30 minutes early and clean just so we could get to enjoy our weekends 30 minutes sooner.
That was pretty rare unless a manager happened to be there that evening and also wanted to go enjoy their weekend.
I honestly can’t think of anyone I worked with there that would’ve clocked out and worked for free. I think people would’ve quit quickly. There were like 5 other Dunkin franchisees in the county and they’d all hire you on the spot if you’d done the job before.
The answer is automation, logistics and supply chain improvements so you can service more customers with fewer, but more specialized employees who can be paid a living wage.
Of course UBI or other safety net would be a good way to avoid social upheaval as well.
I know it's not an apples to apples comparison with any proposed UBI implementation, but looking at the social upheaval caused by the COVID-19 quarantine and stimulus programs, I'd say cutting a check to people and leaving a void in their life where work used to be is a fertile breeding ground for aimless people who will be easily radicalized. It's not something I ever considered pre-2020 as a big proponent of UBI, but now I feel it's something that has to give us concern.
Even if we make an assumption that it IS a zero sum game (and that there are no other jobs), then we're into a wildly different conversation around how we deal with allocating finite resources in a culture that supports property rights, and no one is going to solve that in a hacker news comment chain.
That is not automatically guaranteed.
Part of the problem with the Western economies is that the mills/mines/etc. used to employ a LOT of people.
A good example is the Natrona Heights steel plant. It used to employ something like 10,000 people at its height. After automation, it will now employ a couple hundred.
Where do 9,500 people switch employment to?
Take your example of the steel plant. Presumably when the 9500 people were laid off, productivity remained the same (or increased) and costs went down. Where did the extra profit go? Was it dispersed among the remaining 500 workers? Was it used to help the displaced workers who devoted years building the steel mill and keeping it running? The very people who designed, forged, and brought on-line the machines which replaced them? No, the upside went to the owners, because they have a slip of paper that says they own the mill.
Our problem is not that we're automating away jobs, it's that the displaced workers don't get to share in the benefits of that automation. Eliminating a job is seen as a disaster, rather than a victory. We should want to eliminate terrible jobs, not keep them around just so someone can stay busy. And I guarantee you, people who don't have to work will find something to do. There's always work to be done, just not all of it is profitable (e.g. raising children, taking care of the elderly, volunteering, open source coding, etc.)
Ever heard of Carnegie Tech (CMU), the Wharton School, or Swarthmore college? They exist precisely because of the existence of massive profits from steel.
I don't know how to express this but it frustrates me a great deal.
Money is akin to a video game. It's not real. It's just a token that allocates work. It doesn't decide how much work there is. People decide. You can spend the same dollar an infinite amount of time and thereby create an infinite demand for work.
Therefore work becomes a philosophical or an existential problem. We work for our own benefit to satisfy our needs and desires. To do so we have to do "productive" work, meaning work that helps someone else satisfy their needs and desires by proxy. What if you have already done enough to meet the basic needs of everyone? Yes, we are reaching the edge of humanity. The realm of philosophers. Why do we live? To work? We already worked enough to live. Beyond this point all activity including work is meaningless. When you accept that life itself is meaningless then so is the work that you do to sustain yourself.
How have humans dealt with this in the past? They did wholly pointless work. The pyramids weren't built because they were needed, it's because rulers decided to build them. Another way is to simply start a war. Once there is urgency, politicians are ready to spend whatever it takes, no matter how pointless the war. The Chinese just build infrastructure and housing even before there is a need or purpose.
Here, I'll do it. I'll prove that there is no lack of work and it is purely a political problem: Climate change prevention requires the creation of a huge amount of jobs. Yes this one sentence is a bomb. How does more work, research and technological progress make us poorer? It doesn't. The whole climate change denial/skepticism thing can't be explained by economics because we will end up better off by preventing climate change and I am not even talking about the benefit of preventing climate change. Just the benefit of creating more work. The powerful combination of economics and climate should make any capitalist immediately support the effort.
The only people who actually benefit from denying climate change are those directly working in the fossil fuel industry. Germany once gutted 100k jobs in the renewable industry to keep 20k coal jobs alive. It's 100% not about economics.
Doubling their rate to $20/hr would be a pay cut.
I think another is the response by the service industry to the requirements of the ACA. Everyone I know that works in a restaurant had their hours capped just below the line at which they'd have to be provided health insurance. Now they have multiple jobs. Juggling more than one job is a PITA, but even more so when your schedules are constantly shifting. These folks need full-time work with a predictable schedule, so they can do things like go to the dentist or take their kid to the zoo.
Profit sharing, on the other hand...
I wonder what McDonalds would do if you tried it.
I think people on HN may be forgetting the restaurant industry does not have the same margins as tech ... and close to no one working these jobs (on the employee side) is ever hoping to stay there for decades.
I know it sounds crazy because we've had them for so long, but maybe it's not sustainable to have so many of them?
In any case, this seems like a great area to let the market figure it out. If restaurants go out of business the owners and employees will find something else to do.
I'm not sure more corporate concentration would be a better situation.
And even if it does, why should restaurants be held to a higher standard than other sectors? It's fine for Google and Facebook to buy up everything, but restaurants can't consolidate?
If all the restaurants did at the same time, they could. But if only some do, then the restaurants that underpay their workers will have lower prices and outcompete them out of business.
You can look at this an yet another example of the core problem where consumers don't have visibility into the externalities of the purchasing choices. When picking a restaurant, you see the food prices, but you don't see that one restaurant is more expensive because it treats its workers better. That's an encapsulated abstraction. So we choose based on price, which inadvertently incentivizes restaurants to treat employees like crap.
The customers can suck, yes, but more often than not your boss has the same sociopathic qualities of that mythical asshole geninus founder except you're not working at a startup, you have no equity, you're being paid bare bones, and the boss is not a fucking genius.
Long term it likely would help, but short term it would make it harder, not easier, to get employees.
In no small part because so much of the tip wages are under the table.
Anecdotally I've stopped eating at restaurants/food carts that I absolutely loved when they've raised prices about that much
---
You aren't gonna get all restaurants onboard with this at once unless you outlaw tipping, and I don't see that happening.
As an American living in Australia, I really do miss tipping. I think that on average the restaurant service here is a lot lower. At most restaurants at the medium level (e.g. $25 hamburgers) you pay in advance, and then a waiter will bring the food to you when its ready. Do you need more water? Get it yourself... Ketchup, you have to ask but it won't be offered. The waiters don't care because they are making good money anyway. The only place you get American style service is at the very high end places.
Individual service persons should not be held hostage to your interpretation of their service for their wage. If they're routinely underperforming they'll be sacked.
Tipping can still take place. It just doesn’t need to be obligatory. It’s the difference between a culture of servitude vs a culture of service.
Grilld is a popular mid-range burger chain and their burgers range from AUD $9 to $16.90 (USD $6.60 to $12.40). All advertised retail prices in Australia include 10% GST (good and services tax).
At a more formal restaurant you will likely find a AUD $25 burger but that's about the top end for burger prices.
Although I'd never pay $25 for a burger. (Sydney here)
I remember being particularly unhappy about being served breakfast in Houston while I was there for a conference and being referred to as "sir" - I almost asked the waitress to stop but I realised that would probably cause even more problems so I stayed quiet.
So I would reject the idea that the service in US restaurants is somehow fundamentally "better" than elsewhere - it's just different and some of us actually regard that style of service as a negative.
Also, I consequently completely avoid chain restaurants. I haven't entered McDonald's since 2008 or so.