Tipping in the United States of America?
Why is it that in the USA, restaurant owners think it is OK to pay their staff less than the minimum wage and make the customers make up the rest of the money? Even worse, why do American customers feel that it is their duty to tip, when it is a commonly known fact that if servers do not make up at least the minimum wage, the restaurant legally has to pay for it themselves? Why can't customers in the USA make a change once and for all and stop this silly tipping culture, forcing employers to pay their servers properly, and bring the USA up to the same level as the rest of the world?
Other - United States - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You don't have to tip, its a kind gesture because they get shitty wages. Besides if we didn't have to tip and waitresses got paid higher wages the cost of the bill would be higher anyways
2 :
Why does it bother you so much? I don't know where you are from, but I can guarantee there are stupid and silly cultural norms there.
3 :
First off, minimum wage in this country does not include restaurants as far as servers go. So you are wrong there. Tipping is something a server earns through good service and it is not a guaranty. My question is, why do people from other countries come here knowing that tipping is the way we do things for servers here and stiff them anyhow? When I waited tables, I came to a table that had people from certain countries there, I cringed because I knew I was going to get stiffed. By the way, servers also pay income tax on tips now.
4 :
Quit being so cheap. Tipping is left to the customers because some servers are worth a lot more than minimum wage. And a lot of states now do pay their servers minimum wage or more plus tips. A good server will make $200 per day in tips. A bad server usually makes what they are worth as well. It is called incentive. People who want to make good money will work to get it, people who do not want to work will not make money. I personally think ALL industries should be that way. Doctors, lawyers, mechanics would then actually have to earn their money and not be able to tell you all kinds of crap. Mechanics would actually FIX the car. Doctors would actually HEAL people. police officers would actually PROTECT people. Oh my God, then people would actually be able to live better. The rich then would not be so dam lazy and the poor working stiff would not be so dam poor.
5 :
"Why is it that in the USA, restaurant owners think it is OK to pay their staff less than the minimum wage and make the customers make up the rest of the money?" - Depends on the state and their minimum wage laws. "Even worse, why do American customers feel that it is their duty to tip" - It's the polite thing to do for good service. "Why can't customers in the USA make a change once and for all and stop this silly tipping culture, forcing employers to pay their servers properly, and bring the USA up to the same level as the rest of the world?" - This is a capitalist country. You don't have to come to our country. You don't have to visit America. Don't like it? Don't come. Simple as that. I'm an American that lives near the Canadian border and our hard working American wait staff at restaurants get screwed by the Canadians that come shopping here and NEVER tip.
6 :
Yes, we should get rid of tipping.
7 :
I'm an American and I complete agree with you! Why do I have to pay your employees wages?! Especially when they're not EARNING it!! I hate getting bad service and knowing that if I don't leave a tip I'm considered cheap. People I actually leave good tips for are housekeepers at the hotels who clean up after my "mess".
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
why don't the united states of America gets its oil from Alaska instead of the middle east?
why don't the united states of America gets its oil from Alaska instead of the middle east?
it just makes more sense since Alaska is a state in the usa and the do have the Alaska oil pipe line pumping oil into the states why not just use it's own oil instead of giving it to the middle east some body told me America has enough of it's own oil for the next 500 years. Why not use our oil until we can think of a better way to fuel our homes? not giving money to the middle will stop the war would it not?
Politics - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Because it is far too expensive.
2 :
we are getting oil from Alaska but it's expensive to get it to the US mainland
3 :
We get a lot of our oil from Alaska. That's what the pipeline is for. We also get a lot from Texas, but they charge just as much as the Arabs. I guess Texaco is trying to destroy our economy too. Also, there are other ways to stop the war. For instance, we could put the troops on planes and fly them home, or send them to Afghanistan to get bin Laden.
4 :
Because it would cost the United States Way too much, with the upkeep of the pipelines and security. Also, America is trying to expand to all parts of the world for natural resources and oil, which is very abundant in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia. So after they seize all the oil in the middle East(which is said to be sitting on about $5 trillion worth) then their next targets are going to be certain African nations, then eventually Asia.
5 :
Same with all the oil in LA that they now want to tap into. Because we would rather pollute other countries than our own. And we are too lazy to go without luxuries and deal with the altertative options that may ask us to give a little. We have become a lazy, spoiled country that has forgotten what it means to go without. In short, we have forgotten what all those who sacrificed and gaves their lives for so we could raise a generation of lazy, spoiled, overweight brats.
6 :
This question is best directed at all of the tree huggers in the Congress.
7 :
We get a lot of oil from Alaska. Alaska is the third largest oil producing state in the US but because of the conditions and the depth of the fields in Alaska it is extremely expensive to drill there. Currently the US has about a 10 year oil reserve in place. The US imports 60% of all oil consumption (Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia being the 3 largest sources).
8 :
Alaska is for a reserve use ONLY. When everything gone bad in the Middle East, and the oil access there is short, than Alaska will be used. Why use your reserves when you have others fields to use?
9 :
Because it is not environmentally safe and against the law to drill in national reservoirs. This is exactly what the oil companies want... they are going to keep making record profits and not lower the price of gas until the public outcry demands we drill in Alaska... for them to get richer then when that oil runs out, we are in the same exact place.
it just makes more sense since Alaska is a state in the usa and the do have the Alaska oil pipe line pumping oil into the states why not just use it's own oil instead of giving it to the middle east some body told me America has enough of it's own oil for the next 500 years. Why not use our oil until we can think of a better way to fuel our homes? not giving money to the middle will stop the war would it not?
Politics - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Because it is far too expensive.
2 :
we are getting oil from Alaska but it's expensive to get it to the US mainland
3 :
We get a lot of our oil from Alaska. That's what the pipeline is for. We also get a lot from Texas, but they charge just as much as the Arabs. I guess Texaco is trying to destroy our economy too. Also, there are other ways to stop the war. For instance, we could put the troops on planes and fly them home, or send them to Afghanistan to get bin Laden.
4 :
Because it would cost the United States Way too much, with the upkeep of the pipelines and security. Also, America is trying to expand to all parts of the world for natural resources and oil, which is very abundant in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia. So after they seize all the oil in the middle East(which is said to be sitting on about $5 trillion worth) then their next targets are going to be certain African nations, then eventually Asia.
5 :
Same with all the oil in LA that they now want to tap into. Because we would rather pollute other countries than our own. And we are too lazy to go without luxuries and deal with the altertative options that may ask us to give a little. We have become a lazy, spoiled country that has forgotten what it means to go without. In short, we have forgotten what all those who sacrificed and gaves their lives for so we could raise a generation of lazy, spoiled, overweight brats.
6 :
This question is best directed at all of the tree huggers in the Congress.
7 :
We get a lot of oil from Alaska. Alaska is the third largest oil producing state in the US but because of the conditions and the depth of the fields in Alaska it is extremely expensive to drill there. Currently the US has about a 10 year oil reserve in place. The US imports 60% of all oil consumption (Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia being the 3 largest sources).
8 :
Alaska is for a reserve use ONLY. When everything gone bad in the Middle East, and the oil access there is short, than Alaska will be used. Why use your reserves when you have others fields to use?
9 :
Because it is not environmentally safe and against the law to drill in national reservoirs. This is exactly what the oil companies want... they are going to keep making record profits and not lower the price of gas until the public outcry demands we drill in Alaska... for them to get richer then when that oil runs out, we are in the same exact place.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
what do you know about jobs In united states of America ?
what do you know about jobs In united states of America ?
by the way I live In America seven years I have four years trying to find ajob of my dream I aplied many jobs aplications but I do not receive call untill today I don't know what's the problem today I don't have any money to spent for my daily life even I live a homeless that make me sick so what's the alternative for me ? suliman utah u.s.a
Other - Society & Culture - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If Libetards stay in power, you'll have no chance......
by the way I live In America seven years I have four years trying to find ajob of my dream I aplied many jobs aplications but I do not receive call untill today I don't know what's the problem today I don't have any money to spent for my daily life even I live a homeless that make me sick so what's the alternative for me ? suliman utah u.s.a
Other - Society & Culture - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If Libetards stay in power, you'll have no chance......
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
As if we didnt know this?Even blacks in America;make money depending on skin color.DAMN?
As if we didnt know this?Even blacks in America;make money depending on skin color.DAMN?
Study says skin tone affects earnings By TRAVIS LOLLER, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 26, 11:01 PM ET NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Light-skinned immigrants in the United States make more money on average than those with darker complexions, and the chief reason appears to be discrimination, a researcher says. ADVERTISEMENT Joni Hersch, a law and economics professor at Vanderbilt University, looked at a government survey of 2,084 legal immigrants to the United States from around the world and found that those with the lightest skin earned an average of 8 percent to 15 percent more than similar immigrants with much darker skin. "On average, being one shade lighter has about the same effect as having an additional year of education," Hersch said. The study also found that taller immigrants earn more than shorter ones, with an extra inch of height associated with a 1 percent increase in income. Other researchers said the findings are consistent with other studies on color and point to a skin-tone prejudice that goes beyond race. Hersch took into consideration other factors that could affect wages, such as English-language proficiency, education, occupation, race or country of origin, and found that skin tone still seemed to make a difference in earnings. That means that if two similar immigrants from Bangladesh, for example, came to the United States at the same time, with the same occupation and ability to speak English, the lighter-skinned immigrant would make more money on average. "I thought that once we controlled for race and nationality, I expected the difference to go away, but even with people from the same country, the same race รข€” skin color really matters," she said, "and height." Although many cultures show a bias toward lighter skin, Hersch said her analysis shows that the skin-color advantage was not due to preferential treatment for light-skinned people in their country of origin. The bias, she said, occurs in the U.S. Economics professor Shelley White-Means of the University of Tennessee at Memphis said the study adds to the growing body of evidence that there is a "preference for whiteness" in America that goes beyond race. Hersch drew her data from a 2003 federal survey of nearly 8,600 new immigrants. The survey used an 11-point scale for measuring skin tone, in which 0 represents an absence of color and 10 the darkest possible skin tone. From those nearly 8,600 participants, she focused on the more than 2,000 who were working and whose skin tone had been recorded during face-to-face interviews. William Darity Jr., an economics professor at the University of North Carolina, said Hersch's findings are similar to a study he co-authored last year on skin tone and wages among blacks. "We estimate that dark- or medium-skinned blacks suffered a discriminatory penalty of anywhere from 10 percent to 15 percent relative to whites," he said. "This suggests people cue into appearance and draw inferences about capabilities and skills based on how they look." Darity said it is not clear whether the bias is conscious or subconscious. Hersch said her findings, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science next month in San Francisco, could support discrimination lawsuits based not on race, but on color. "There are very few color discrimination suits, but they are on the rise," she said. "But these suits can be hard to prove."
Other - Cultures & Groups - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yeah, black people could have told them that.
2 :
that's not true
3 :
Shut the F**k Up!
4 :
its a cold world we living in lol
5 :
A research is done by a group of people and they JUST TELL US what their opinion is. RESEARCHES ARE NOT FACTS. I am dark skinned man, and I make more money than many White people.
6 :
I love your post. Im a 33 year old white woman and before I read your post, I would have told you affirmative action is no longer needed. I was very surprised by the numbers. Though according to the study affirmative action may be no help at all to dark skinned blacks, since lighter skinned people seem to fair better even of the same race.
7 :
It doesn't take a stupid marketing survey to confirm what is clearly a remnant of the color bias which governs the world. Most receptionists, TV presenters, customer care executives are White or if colored, they have a light skin tone. When you call any company's toll-free number, if it is a customer from the Developed world, they put on line a White cheerleading girl - and a ghetto accent fat-lipped ho for other customers. Clearly, prejudice can never be ended - it can only be minimized and contained.
8 :
You have answered your question. Yes, you are right that in some field of work and also sometimes "skin tone affects earnings", though this is not the norm. If you were born in any of the countries in South Asia then you need not refer to so many studies to confirm your hypothesis. For example, in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh if a newborn is a (without prejudice): a) Boy: "Excellent", if he is as white as Caucasian: "Very Good", if he is Light-skinned: "Good", if he is Dark-skinned: "Fair". No problem, that guy could somehow manage to survive in the society. b) Girl: "Okay", if she is as white as Caucasian: "Very Good", if she is Light-skinned: "Fair", if she is Dark-skinned: "Oh my God". She may have some problem at the time of her getting married as the dowry would be required. Now you are complaining about employment and earning capabilities for blacks in America. See what good or pity life one would live in our part of the world, just because of his or her skin colour. To add with this, imagine the height that plays its role too. You can have a lot of combination and permutation for arriving at a person's fate or treatment he/she receives in this world. This is the reality on the ground and people are suffering mental agony for something for which they were not responsible (skin colour and height). Look at the leading TV Serials (drama and soap-operas) from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, which are watched all over the world where South Asians are residing, you will hardly find any light or dark-skinned Indian boy or girl in leading or sub-leading roles. Except for villains and jokers these less-fortunate mortal souls are doomed to lower rung roles and society accepts these prejudices by way of keeping mum over such issues. Therefore, thank the leader and people in developed countries for accepting light and dark-skinned citizens on almost equal par, which are at greater discrimination in developing countries.
Study says skin tone affects earnings By TRAVIS LOLLER, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 26, 11:01 PM ET NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Light-skinned immigrants in the United States make more money on average than those with darker complexions, and the chief reason appears to be discrimination, a researcher says. ADVERTISEMENT Joni Hersch, a law and economics professor at Vanderbilt University, looked at a government survey of 2,084 legal immigrants to the United States from around the world and found that those with the lightest skin earned an average of 8 percent to 15 percent more than similar immigrants with much darker skin. "On average, being one shade lighter has about the same effect as having an additional year of education," Hersch said. The study also found that taller immigrants earn more than shorter ones, with an extra inch of height associated with a 1 percent increase in income. Other researchers said the findings are consistent with other studies on color and point to a skin-tone prejudice that goes beyond race. Hersch took into consideration other factors that could affect wages, such as English-language proficiency, education, occupation, race or country of origin, and found that skin tone still seemed to make a difference in earnings. That means that if two similar immigrants from Bangladesh, for example, came to the United States at the same time, with the same occupation and ability to speak English, the lighter-skinned immigrant would make more money on average. "I thought that once we controlled for race and nationality, I expected the difference to go away, but even with people from the same country, the same race รข€” skin color really matters," she said, "and height." Although many cultures show a bias toward lighter skin, Hersch said her analysis shows that the skin-color advantage was not due to preferential treatment for light-skinned people in their country of origin. The bias, she said, occurs in the U.S. Economics professor Shelley White-Means of the University of Tennessee at Memphis said the study adds to the growing body of evidence that there is a "preference for whiteness" in America that goes beyond race. Hersch drew her data from a 2003 federal survey of nearly 8,600 new immigrants. The survey used an 11-point scale for measuring skin tone, in which 0 represents an absence of color and 10 the darkest possible skin tone. From those nearly 8,600 participants, she focused on the more than 2,000 who were working and whose skin tone had been recorded during face-to-face interviews. William Darity Jr., an economics professor at the University of North Carolina, said Hersch's findings are similar to a study he co-authored last year on skin tone and wages among blacks. "We estimate that dark- or medium-skinned blacks suffered a discriminatory penalty of anywhere from 10 percent to 15 percent relative to whites," he said. "This suggests people cue into appearance and draw inferences about capabilities and skills based on how they look." Darity said it is not clear whether the bias is conscious or subconscious. Hersch said her findings, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science next month in San Francisco, could support discrimination lawsuits based not on race, but on color. "There are very few color discrimination suits, but they are on the rise," she said. "But these suits can be hard to prove."
Other - Cultures & Groups - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yeah, black people could have told them that.
2 :
that's not true
3 :
Shut the F**k Up!
4 :
its a cold world we living in lol
5 :
A research is done by a group of people and they JUST TELL US what their opinion is. RESEARCHES ARE NOT FACTS. I am dark skinned man, and I make more money than many White people.
6 :
I love your post. Im a 33 year old white woman and before I read your post, I would have told you affirmative action is no longer needed. I was very surprised by the numbers. Though according to the study affirmative action may be no help at all to dark skinned blacks, since lighter skinned people seem to fair better even of the same race.
7 :
It doesn't take a stupid marketing survey to confirm what is clearly a remnant of the color bias which governs the world. Most receptionists, TV presenters, customer care executives are White or if colored, they have a light skin tone. When you call any company's toll-free number, if it is a customer from the Developed world, they put on line a White cheerleading girl - and a ghetto accent fat-lipped ho for other customers. Clearly, prejudice can never be ended - it can only be minimized and contained.
8 :
You have answered your question. Yes, you are right that in some field of work and also sometimes "skin tone affects earnings", though this is not the norm. If you were born in any of the countries in South Asia then you need not refer to so many studies to confirm your hypothesis. For example, in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh if a newborn is a (without prejudice): a) Boy: "Excellent", if he is as white as Caucasian: "Very Good", if he is Light-skinned: "Good", if he is Dark-skinned: "Fair". No problem, that guy could somehow manage to survive in the society. b) Girl: "Okay", if she is as white as Caucasian: "Very Good", if she is Light-skinned: "Fair", if she is Dark-skinned: "Oh my God". She may have some problem at the time of her getting married as the dowry would be required. Now you are complaining about employment and earning capabilities for blacks in America. See what good or pity life one would live in our part of the world, just because of his or her skin colour. To add with this, imagine the height that plays its role too. You can have a lot of combination and permutation for arriving at a person's fate or treatment he/she receives in this world. This is the reality on the ground and people are suffering mental agony for something for which they were not responsible (skin colour and height). Look at the leading TV Serials (drama and soap-operas) from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, which are watched all over the world where South Asians are residing, you will hardly find any light or dark-skinned Indian boy or girl in leading or sub-leading roles. Except for villains and jokers these less-fortunate mortal souls are doomed to lower rung roles and society accepts these prejudices by way of keeping mum over such issues. Therefore, thank the leader and people in developed countries for accepting light and dark-skinned citizens on almost equal par, which are at greater discrimination in developing countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)