If Waffle House can't hire employees at a price point the market demands then it shouldnt operate. The restaurant model makes no sense when customers subsidize the wages of employees directly.
If WH can't hire employees at a price point the market demands it *won't* operate - there will be no employees. People are willing to work at those rates so there will be a pool of employees available.
The American system requires people to vote with their feet (freedom of choice of employment) and their wallets (freedom of market choice), thereby giving individuals the direct power instead of some bureaucratic entity who may or may not have the individuals' best interests in mind.
Another way to say this argument is "the USA economy requires a service sector of people inches from poverty in bad working conditions, to survive."
If a country has to stand on the blood of its working class to survive, that country probably shouldn't exist.
> People are willing to work at those rates so there will be a pool of employees available.
The alternative is homelessness. This isn't ethical.
Other countries have fast food restaurants with workers that have housing and healthcare. If the American government and corporate strategists can't organize its economy in a way to deliver this life to its citizens, it should be replaced, no?
Unless you think "might makes right?"
You speak like zealot. I can't take any of this seriously.
At your peril, I guess.
What do you think the end result is of prices of rent and food going up, price of goods going up, and wages not moving?
Markets work the way they work and will respond accordingly. The outcome may not be ideal but humans aren't always the most rational or predictable.
It means it sounds like you aren't really interested in paying attention to this issue which means you may be blindsided by a recession or economic collapse.
> Markets work the way they work and will respond accordingly.
This doesn't really mean anything I don't think, I'm not really gleaning information here.
American minimum wage laws are an international disgrace.
FWIW you're going to see a lot of chain restaurants turn to automation to avoid labor in particular, but it also has the benefit of consistency and food safety adherence.
I'd much rather send feedback to the managers. They control the entire experience.
Are there any restaurants that pay management $2/hr and let the customers tip them up to living wage levels?
It's a very naive view not only of restaurant operations, but of the human world as whole.
>Are there any restaurants that pay management $2/hr and let the customers tip them up to living wage levels?
This is an interesting question which has no relation to tipping. It seems that in the US tips make most of what server earns - it's not the rule everywhere. However, I'm not in position to judge which way is better (e.g. where a good server really earns more).
Nevertheless, money paid to servers come from customers, and you have to pay more if you want to make servers earn more. It can be called "tips", and be a choice in a range, or it can be hardcoded into prices (with some administrative overhead, of course). I'm not a fan of administrative overheads, but YMMV.
And while it is indeed factored into minimum wage like this, don't you mean to say: "Not* tipping should be illegal"?
Like if you agree that this is all just an allocation strategy on the business side, and really it should be factored in from the beginning, it shouldn't be that much of an affront to just follow it through and give them a good tip. Not to deny this is an imperfect state of affairs, but if the complaint amounts to simply having an extra social responsibility to make sure the people who serve you get paid well, I don't see why we as individuals need to feel angry or cheated.