No service provided? Like, the line cook isn't juggling 8 orders in order to package your stuff and get it to you in a timely and accurate way? Agree that you don't really know how well they did until you open up your order, but I also disagree that the tip is based only on "good" service. The idiotic wage structure we have right now makes workerbees dependent on some level of tips.
I don't find that to be a valid reason. After all, some low paid (but still decently skilled) workerbee prepared the food and packaged it up. When I tip, I'm tipping for both the food and the service. It's a crap shoot about whether it's the practice for the servers to tip the kitchen very well, but they usually tip them something.
Why don't we tip bus drivers then? Why don't we tip dental hygienists? Why don't we tip the pilots on our flights or the janitors at our libraries?
The choice of who we tip is entirely arbitrary. How much we are supposed to tip is also arbitrary. There is no logic behind it. The system is entirely stupid.
It clearly existed so that the proprietor can delegate the duty of finding and punishing bad service employees to the customer... which is, again, a terrible system that makes no sense, and it make even less sense now that it's spreading to all manner of jobs where this tenuous connection doesn't even exist!
I'm finding myself more in agreement than disagreement; there's no logic and the system is stupid. Tipping is a convention that's enshrined in minimum wage law (in many jurisdictions) for food service / tipped workers and that established convention guides my own tipping decisions. I'd rather that a minimum wage supported a better minimum standard of living.
How do you know it's low paid? Why not tip 100%? You seem very certain about parent invalid reason as well as your own assumptions. Please enlighten us
It's a tip. I don't have to give one. Any reason I think of not to is a valid reason. This tipping maximalism idiocy will not end until people put their foot down: I am not tipping for anything that wasn't usual to tip for 20 years ago.
Having accumulated points on various platforms, in my experience, United and Alaska had much better availability for close-in flights than Delta. Dunno if there's a difference between redeeming on the Chase site versus transferring to United and then redeeming, but might be worth playing with.
Agreed. Anyone interested should check out a report out of Vanderbilt, "The Loyalty Trap: How Loyalty Programs Hook Us with Deals, Hack our Brains, and Hike Our Prices."
Small counterpoint: Working in a spot where I had visibility to various loyalty programs, several of them definitely rewarded loyalty. Big spenders would get better conversion rates than the regular consumer.
The difference here is that I’m already earning points. I’m not doing anything new to earn them; I mostly remember “restaurants on this card, online shopping on that one” and apps like CardPointers can assist if needed.
But this isn’t about selecting new loyalty programs or even being loyal; this is focused on more transferable credit card points, and airline miles you’re already earning.
It’s about using them at maximum benefit, not earning them maximally.
Unasked & unanswered: over what range of myopia will these be effective? Minus 5, -7, -13? Can they handle astigmatism, either automatically or from an initial prescription? They need to send a high-myope reporter in to ask questions.
>The solution is a non-national global reserve, calculated on a basket of national currencies. This was Keynes argument at Bretton Woods, but the US would not have it then, and does not want it now.
But what does the US want now? It's government's actions are making it more difficult for other countries to trust it for the global reserve currency. If it really wanted manufacturing to return to it's shores, there's other ways to accomplish that without rewiring the global economy: carrots, not sticks.
"admitting" could also be in the sense of "disclosing". I wouldn't expect anyone, even an elected leader, to immediately disclose a health issue that requires some amount of understanding and decision-making.
There's a segment of the population that thinks he knew while he was running for president but didn't disclose or "admit" the issue to the public. Given that this is an aggressively metastatic cancer, and Biden's campaign ended nearly 10 months ago, I think that's implausible to the point of being ludicrous.
