Restaurant Sees Profits Triple After It Ditches Tipping

[DRII]

I have no idea.

Maybe nobody. Maybe somebody. But that still doesn't mean that equitable is in the eyes of the beholder.

We have a saying in the US: Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the man behind the tree.

There are all kinds of taxes around. Income, sales, property, transaction, fees for all kinds of things. Licensing. Use taxes. We used to have a Windows tax - that is a tax on the number of windows in a building - nothing to do with Microsoft. Someone in my state proposed a view tax. If you had a scenic view of something like a mountain, then you'd be taxed on it. Is that equitable? Can you request an exemption if you're blind?

i've never heard that

although the sentiment is certainly true...

 

[mikeler]

I suggest you read what you wrote and it's common for people to tip mainly out of guilt in America and you should feel guilty given the wage rates.

I advocate fifteen dollar an hour minimum rates and you support less than three, so you are the cheapskate, brother.

Prove where I support less than $3/hour.

 

[movdqa]

You are a relativist.

I don't see how you can be anything but when it comes to things like fairness and taxes.

 

[Bartelby]

So what do you support, my guilt ridden brother?

Prove where I support less than $3/hour.

 

[Gut4Tennis]

What he is talking about is nothing more extravagant than annual accounts written up to be audited and when we had competent journalists they would troll through all these documents to see if the government actually did what they said they would.

These documents are also where governments have to bare their soul about waste and incompetence so they generally release them when the news won't be watching and try to bury them as much as possible.

So deep in the reports there are indeed scandals waiting to see the light of day, but that's because this is 'a goldmine' of real data.

Another local scandal was a government that stated it would spend half a billion dollars on indigenous housing and when they looked at annual departmental reports the papers found that none had been built!

Bare souls indeed

 

[Bartelby]

So where does your relativism end?

You are quite wrong about this, by the way.

Economists are quite happy to call some taxes fairer than others - with progressive ones seen as fair and flat taxes seen as unfair.

They do this even when they consider unfair flat taxes as more efficient and therefore support them.

It's a fairly simple logic that they operate - if tax rates increase with income it's a fairer tax than if billionaires and paupers pay the same rate.

So no one really agrees with you, strangely enough.

I don't see how you can be anything but when it comes to things like fairness and taxes.

 

[movdqa]

> So where does your relativism end?

It's all relative.

> You are quite wrong about this, by the way.

> Economists are quite happy to call some taxes fairer than others - with
> progressive ones seen as fair and flat taxes seen as unfair.

What does God have to say on the matter? There's a fairly absolute position for you.

> They do this even when they consider unfair flat taxes as more efficient
> and therefore support them.

Why do you think the opinion of an economist is any better than someone else?

> It's a fairly simple logic that they operate - if tax rates increase with
> income it's a fairer tax than if billionaires and paupers pay the same
> rate.

I don't really see the logic here. For there to be logic, you need premises and means of implication. You'd have to provide your logical process to make a case. Of course other people might have differing premises and different means of implication and different conclusions.

> So no one really agrees with you, strangely enough.

Would you care to prove that?

 

[jhhachamp]

It's a fairly simple logic that they operate - if tax rates increase with income it's a fairer tax than if billionaires and paupers pay the same rate.

I've met many people that think that a flat tax is more fair than a progressive tax. I myself do not feel this way. It is certainly a valid opinion though.

 

[movdqa]

It's not a simple issue.

Here's a discussion showing a variety of opinions and reasons of support for various positions:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2011/08/05/january-28-2011-tax-justice/8012/

"TIM O’BRIEN, correspondent: There are some things the government must do, and the first reason for taxes is to pay for them. Beyond that there is wide debate over how taxes can be efficient and fair and what kind of society they should promote."

"PROFESSOR GREG MANKIW (Professor of Economics, Harvard University): People on the left think that the tax code is not nearly redistributive enough, think that the rich are really getting away with murder. People on the right think that it’s not the job of government to be redistributing income and that the tax code we have is too progressive."

 

[mikeler]

So what do you support, my guilt ridden brother?

So Australia pays their workers $15/hour if the other Australian in the thread is to be believed. Is this true? If so, how do meal prices compare with the USA?

My biggest concern is keeping the restaurant open. It's often a low margin business and $3/hour + tips is better than $0 for their workers.

One of the things that is great about the USA is that each state can try their own solutions. So some of the more progressive states are implementing a living wage. I'll be curious to see the results after a few years of implementation.

 

[Gut4Tennis]

Once pot is legal everywhere

 

[Bartelby]

It's not the overwhelming consensus in the profession.

There are right wing ideologists who promote flat tax but they want a rate of income tax at say ten percent.

We are talking here about what intellectuals who practice a science think and this is the way they distinguish taxes.

I've met many people that think that a flat tax is more fair than a progressive tax. I myself do not feel this way. It is certainly a valid opinion though.

 

[Bartelby]

You never answer a simple question, do you?

Or are you in fact saying, in as many words, that you do support three dollars an hour and you assauge your guilt with tips?

My biggest concern is keeping the restaurant open. It's often a low margin business and $3/hour + tips is better than $0 for their workers.

 

[Bartelby]

See my post just above where you prove it.

Prove where I support less than $3/hour.

 

[movdqa]

It's not the overwhelming consensus in the profession.

There are right wing ideologists who promote flat tax but they want a rate of income tax at say ten percent.

We are talking here about what intellectuals who practice a science think and this is the way they distinguish taxes.

Just to be sure: we're talking social science. Not hard science.

Economics as a hard science to an engineer is laughable.

Mankiw is the chair of the Economics Department at Harvard but he swings on the conservative side. Economics does tend to swing more to the conservative side as it's more about the real world.

First time I heard of Mankiw was when my son needed one of his textbooks for a course. $165 for a one-semester course textbook. I expected a two-semester textbook for that much.

I found his combined book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Economics-Edition-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/128516587X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

List price is $377. Amazon price is a steal at $286.

Is that equitable?

 

[Bartelby]

The arguments of an engineer to people who are trained in argument is also laughable.

And economics is a science despite your ridiculous prejudice.

Just to be sure: we're talking social science. Not hard science.

Economics as a hard science to an engineer is laughable.

 

[movdqa]

> The arguments of an engineer to people who are trained in argument
> is also laughable.

I do have a BA. And I am trained in argument.

I also studied accounting and finance.

And predicate calculus.

Are you familiar with discrete mathematics? Artificial intelligence? The mathematics of argumentation?

> And economics is a science despite your ridiculous prejudice.

Economics is a social science. I'm sure that you can find lots of literature on the debate between hard and soft sciences. I can provide lots of examples on the laughability of economics as a hard science. But I'd expect even you to be able to do the same.

 

[Bartelby]

I don't find the distinction between hard and soft sciences to be a particularly enlightening one and neither do most academics.

Mathematically-based physics came to be viewed as the science-defining science for most of the twentieth century, but that changed in the sixties with Kuhn et al.

Germans call any systematic field of knowledge a 'Wissenschaft' and i think that's the norm now everywhere.

 

[dParis]

The arguments of an engineer to people who are trained in argument is also laughable.

You were trained in argument? You need to go back to where you were trained and argue for a refund. Good luck.

 

[mikeler]

The arguments of an engineer to people who are trained in argument is also laughable.

And economics is a science despite your ridiculous prejudice.

Trained in argument eh? Sounds like Bart is on the local debate club.

 

[movdqa]

> I don't find the distinction between hard and soft sciences to be a
> particularly enlightening one and neither do most academics.

My experience is the opposite. But perhaps it's the type of academics that I associate with.

That said, if economics were a science, then why can't the Fed - basically a collection of top economists, see a bubble when it's staring them in the face?

 

[Bartelby]

The Fed is a private organisation tasked with public duties which most of the time fails spectacularly to live up to its responsibilities.

In countries with public and indepedent Federal Reserves, Wall Street lackeys like Greenspan can't get a foot in the door.

Greenspan spent his time knowingly stoking irrational exuberance and then turned around and said it was a problem.

And gullible people believed him!

 

[movdqa]

The Fed is a private organisation tasked with public duties which most of the time fails spectacularly to live up to its responsibilities.

In countries with public and indepedent Federal Reserves, Wall Street lackeys like Greenspan can't get a foot in the door.

Greenspan spent his time knowingly stoking irrational exuberance and then turned around and said it was a problem.

And gullible people believed him!

Cool.

So which of these countries with public and independent Federal Reserves has done a better job than the US has in the past twenty years?

Do you think that the economists at the Fed during Bernanke's tenure got it right? How about Yellen?

 

[Bartelby]

I thought you were the one with extensive knowledge of Greenspan so why don't you begin with him and I'll add to the discussion.

Cool.

So which of these countries with public and independent Federal Reserves has done a better job than the US has in the past twenty years?

Do you think that the economists at the Fed during Bernanke's tenure got it right? How about Yellen?

 

[movdqa]

Your point was that Greenspan did an awful job and that there are other central bankers that are much better at economics and that would presumably do a much better job managing their economies at the time and being much better at predictions compared to Greenspan. I would like to test your assertion by looking at a few of the people that you were describing.

I would then do a comparison with Greenspan's record.

 

[Bartelby]

You were the one who claimed Greenspan was incompetent and I agreed.

 

[mikeler]

The Fed is a private organisation tasked with public duties which most of the time fails spectacularly to live up to its responsibilities.

In countries with public and indepedent Federal Reserves, Wall Street lackeys like Greenspan can't get a foot in the door.

Greenspan spent his time knowingly stoking irrational exuberance and then turned around and said it was a problem.

And gullible people believed him!

The Fed is independent but hardly private.

 

[jhhachamp]

It's not the overwhelming consensus in the profession.

There are right wing ideologists who promote flat tax but they want a rate of income tax at say ten percent.

We are talking here about what intellectuals who practice a science think and this is the way they distinguish taxes.

It's funny that you label people who agree with your opinion as "intellectuals" and people who disagree with your opinion as "right wing idealogists." The reality is that all sorts of different people have opinions on both side of the issue and both are valid opinions, even if one idea is more popular than the other.

 

[Bartelby]

That's not my understanding of their rather controversial status.

The Fed is independent but hardly private.

 

[movdqa]

You were the one who claimed Greenspan was incompetent and I agreed.

I didn't say that he was incompetent.

I did imply that he couldn't see a bubble and there's a famous quote where he stated that you couldn't see a bubble until after it had popped.

Economists in the United States at the Federal Reserve and working in many private banks haven't had a good track record at forecasting, analysis and prediction and that calls into question the usefulness of the field as a hard science.

That doesn't mean that the Federal Reserve has done a bad job in managing the economy - they're just bad at telling you when something will happen or may not see things coming that are obvious to many other people.

I used to be more aligned with the Austrian School of Economics but it didn't seem to work for Europe for a very long time. The US led the way out of the Great Recession and the rest of the world took notice and now we have QE all over the world. You'd think that we would have destroyed our currency but we actually ran into the problem where our currency became too strong.

So I was knocking economics given the track record of our most esteemed economists. But I didn't say that they haven't done their jobs.

 

[Bartelby]

I'm sure that there are economists who advocate flat taxes, but there was a strong ideological movement toward flat taxes that has since largely disappeared.

The economics profession operates with the distinction that I mentioned. It's not meant to be one that has normative import.

If rich and poor pay the same rate it is considered a flat tax and if the rich pay a higher rate it is considered a progressive tax in the non-normative sense.

When they talk politics, economists are happy to say flat taxes like VAT weigh more heavily on the poor and they invent compensating mechanisms because they are so 'nice'.

It's funny that you label people who agree with your opinion as "intellectuals" and people who disagree with your opinion as "right wing idealogists." The reality is that all sorts of different people have opinions on both side of the issue and both are valid opinions, even if one idea is more popular than the other.

 

[Bartelby]

Greenspan couldn't see bubbles because he wanted to stay on the right side of whoever was President.

I didn't say that he was incompetent.

I did imply that he couldn't see a bubble and there's a famous quote where he stated that you couldn't see a bubble until after it had popped.

Economists in the United States at the Federal Reserve and working in many private banks haven't had a good track record at forecasting, analysis and prediction and that calls into question the usefulness of the field as a hard science.

That doesn't mean that the Federal Reserve has done a bad job in managing the economy - they're just bad at telling you when something will happen or may not see things coming that are obvious to many other people.

I used to be more aligned with the Austrian School of Economics but it didn't seem to work for Europe for a very long time. The US led the way out of the Great Recession and the rest of the world took notice and now we have QE all over the world. You'd think that we would have destroyed our currency but we actually ran into the problem where our currency became too strong.

So I was knocking economics given the track record of our most esteemed economists. But I didn't say that they haven't done their jobs.

 

[jhhachamp]

I'm sure that there are economists who advocate flat taxes, but there was a strong ideological movement toward flat taxes that has since largely disappeared.

Just because something is less popular and not currently being pushed in the mainstream does not make it invalid or mean that no one supports that viewpoint.

If rich and poor pay the same rate it is considered a flat tax and if the rich pay a higher rate it is considered a progressive tax in the non-normative sense.

You don't have to talk down to me as though I don't know anything. This is pretty basic stuff.

When they talk politics, economists are happy to say flat taxes like VAT weigh more heavily on the poor and they invent compensating mechanisms because they are so 'nice'.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[movdqa]

> I'm sure that there are economists who advocate flat taxes, but there
> was a strong ideological movement toward flat taxes that has since
> largely disappeared.

I think that the more conservative economists like Mankiw advocate more for a sales tax over an income tax.

> If rich and poor pay the same rate it is considered a flat tax and if the
> rich pay a higher rate it is considered a progressive tax in the
> non-normative sense.

Mankiw wrote a paper or article in 2012 stating that the effective Federal income tax rate was generally about 30% when you factored in SS, Medicare and other Federal taxes. Similar to the rate that the wealthy pay. So we have a defacto flat tax.

The general notion of income taxes doesn't include various Federal taxes but they still come out of your paycheck or estimated payments.

> When they talk politics, economists are happy to say flat taxes like VAT
> weigh more heavily on the poor and they invent compensating mechanisms
> because they are so 'nice'.

The income tax is also a redistribution system in that there are a lot of people that pay negative taxes - that is they get a check from the IRS that's greater than any amount of income taxes that they pay in.

I've had a few interesting investments where I made money but paid 0 taxes on it. It was in buying and selling shares of a master limited partnership that sold production from a depleting asset. This structure threw off depletion credits which were greater than the income and capital gains. It took me about a day to fill out the tax form and I was rather astounded at what I saw. BTW, the amount of taxes saved wasn't worth the amount of effort I put in to get the tax forms right. The company was offshore and they screwed up another aspect of their tax reporting and I would have had to file for an extension to get everything cleared up. Fortunately we have software to do this stuff for us today - I don't think that you can do moderately complicated tax returns without software these days.

 

[movdqa]

Greenspan couldn't see bubbles because he wanted to stay on the right side of whoever was President.

I think that there's some truth to this, particularly between 1995 and 2000. He had a willing partner in Rubin I think. But the economy did fairly well, with some severe bumps, during his overall tenure.

You could say the same thing with Bernanke (though Paulson should probably receive more credit for avoiding a complete financial meltdown). Bernake and Yellen have been awful with predictions though Yellen has been a lot more careful in making predictions as she saw how bad it went for Bernanke.

Now we have Europe copying the US approach. So yes, our top economists have had some problems and economics has taken a number of black eyes over the last couple of decades and even Paul Krugman has deeply questioned economic theory in the aftermath of the last financial crisis. Do you recall that article that he published in the NY Times?

 

[Bartelby]

Between talking down to you and you not being sure about simple points, I'm finding it a bit hard to reply so I won't.

Just because something is less popular and not currently being pushed in the mainstream does not make it invalid or mean that no one supports that viewpoint.



You don't have to talk down to me as though I don't know anything. This is pretty basic stuff.



I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Bartelby]

The economy did well under Greenspan because he kept on stoking the fires of 'irrational exuberance'. Greenspan was the BubbleMeister par excellence.

I think that there's some truth to this, particularly between 1995 and 2000. He had a willing partner in Rubin I think. But the economy did fairly well, with some severe bumps, during his overall tenure.

You could say the same thing with Bernanke (though Paulson should probably receive more credit for avoiding a complete financial meltdown). Bernake and Yellen have been awful with predictions though Yellen has been a lot more careful in making predictions as she saw how bad it went for Bernanke.

Now we have Europe copying the US approach. So yes, our top economists have had some problems and economics has taken a number of black eyes over the last couple of decades and even Paul Krugman has deeply questioned economic theory in the aftermath of the last financial crisis. Do you recall that article that he published in the NY Times?

 

[movdqa]

The economy did well under Greenspan because he kept on stoking the fires of 'irrational exuberance'. Greenspan was the BubbleMeister par excellence.

There are some benefits to bubbles even though it doesn't feel like it when they pop.

The internet bubble actually produced a lot of good technology and a lot of bad products. But companies took those ideas and refined them into new technologies and products that have enhanced life and the economy.

At any rate, how about a few of the names of your central bankers that did a better job than Greenspan, Bernanke or Yellen?

 

[Bartelby]

Financial bubbles are in part created by irresponsible people like Greenspan given his control over economic levers.

Internet bubbles are more the exclusive stupidity of the private sector but if you have an idiot like Greenspan then there's fuel to create an internet bubble.

 

[mikeler]

That's not my understanding of their rather controversial status.

I know a person that has worked there for a long time. I'll get her take.

 

[movdqa]

> Financial bubbles are in part created by irresponsible people like Greenspan given his control over economic levers.

Financial bubbles seem to be part of the human experience, at least since we've been congregating in cities and countries. Financial bubbles far preceded the era of central banking.

But you said that you knew of other central bankers that have done a much better job than Greenspan and I'm curious as to who these folks are. I'm still waiting for you to provide a few names.

> Internet bubbles are more the exclusive stupidity of the private sector but if you have an idiot like Greenspan then there's fuel to create an internet bubble.

Well, the private sector - that is the tech sector, didn't bid up prices to the stratosphere. Traders and investors did that.

 

[Bartelby]

We are talking about things Greenspan had control over, not the entirety of human history throughout which he was not present.

Your second point merely confirms my point about the private sector, which I did not confine to tech in the narrow sense.

 

[movdqa]

> We are talking about things Greenspan had control over, not the entirety of human history throughout which he was not present.

We were talking about economics. You said that he did a lousy job and that you knew of other central bankers that had done a better job. I asked you to name a few examples. Most of what you've written is an attempt to duck the question.

Bubbles seem to be part of the human condition. Greenspan certainly stoked them with low interest rates but he also snuffed them out. Would we have been better off without them? I think that the overall US economy was probably better off with the internet bubble. But not the mortgage bubble.

> Your second point merely confirms my point about the private sector, which I did not confine to tech in the narrow sense.

The latter wasn't purely Greenspan's fault. Nobody forced traders and investors to hit the buy button.

 

[Bartelby]

What human condition are you talking about and how could it be related to financial bubbles which are in fact relatively recent in the big scheme of things?

As Wikipedia advises uncontroversially:

The term "bubble", in reference to financial crisis, originated in the 1711–1720 British South Sea Bubble, and originally referred to the companies themselves, and their inflated stock, rather than to the crisis itself. This was one of the earliest modern financial crises; other episodes were referred to as "manias", as in the Dutch tulip mania. The metaphor indicated that the prices of the stock were inflated and fragile – expanded based on nothing but air, and vulnerable to a sudden burst, as in fact occurred.

 

[movdqa]

What human condition are you talking about and how could it be related to financial bubbles which are in fact relatively recent in the big scheme of things?

As Wikipedia advises uncontroversially:

The term "bubble", in reference to financial crisis, originated in the 1711–1720 British South Sea Bubble, and originally referred to the companies themselves, and their inflated stock, rather than to the crisis itself. This was one of the earliest modern financial crises; other episodes were referred to as "manias", as in the Dutch tulip mania. The metaphor indicated that the prices of the stock were inflated and fragile – expanded based on nothing but air, and vulnerable to a sudden burst, as in fact occurred.

I'd suggest reading up on Kondreytieff Cycles to look at bubbles earlier than the two famous ones that you referenced. I do not have the title of the book that I read about it handy as that was over a decade ago. I recall reading another book on the history of bubbles but that was over a decade ago as well.

The human conditions are greed and fear.

 

[Bartelby]

I know a bit about about Kondratieff cycles, but we were talking about financial bubbles and they can't exist before the term existed.

From memory, Kondratieff cycles are about growth, so you are plainly wrong.

 

[movdqa]

> I know a bit about about Kondratieff cycles, but we were talking about financial bubbles and they can't exist before the term existed.

This is incorrect.

We can use a term to describe something even before the term exists. That should be obvious.

> From memory, Kondratieff cycles are about growth, so you are plainly wrong.

Kondreytieff cycles are about cycles. They are related to growth too but one of the seasons often correlates with bubbles.

 

[Bartelby]

1. You can apply a term retrospectively in a loose sense sometimes, but you would still be wrong. Financial bubbles are clearly new so you are plainly wrong.

2. So I was right about Kondratieff cycles being about growth and you admit you were wrong to link them to bubbles and your attempt to suggest correlation is unfounded.

 

[movdqa]

> 1. You can apply a term retrospectively in a loose sense sometimes, but you would still be wrong.

No, you're wrong. It's so obvious. Think about it.

> Financial bubbles are clearly new so you are plainly wrong.

No, they aren't.

> 2. So I was right about Kondratieff cycles being about growth

No, you're wrong. They're about cycles.

> and you admit you were wrong to link them to bubbles and your attempt to suggest correlation is unfounded.

Bubbles are part of cycles.

BTW, you stated that there are far better central bankers than Greenspan. I've asked many times for you to name a few. Why do you continue to duck this? Is it perhaps because you're dead wrong?

 

[Bartelby]

You've contributed nothing new. Just repeated yourself more stridently. You're being quite pointless.