I’m not defending it, but I can explain it, since it was the same strategy used in drug development in the early to mid 2000’s.

Essentially, you have labor costs on your financial reports.

• If you have a blockbuster product, layoffs improve your financials even more.
• Poor product? Layoffs make your financials not look terrible.
• Work productivity goes up too much (unit of work measured / hours of labor)? Well, that means you can do layoffs because you don’t need productivity that high. Plus, at least initially it will look even better since you lowered the denominator.
• Terrible productivity? Layoffs make it look better quickly.

Why the fuck would anyone do this? Because individuals are held accountable to quarterly financials instead of long term success. You can only “hold off the wolves” so long before the leader either gets forced to do layouts, quits, or is fires. Companies that are privately owned don’t have the same pressure though. Of interest, employee owned companies are also much better, but often take on a terrible work life balance culture due to massive peer pressure without oversight. So even though the “easy” solution is to have employee owned work environments with no management, even that can lead to toxicity.

I would love to agree, but I think this falls into hindsight being 20/20.

For myself, I eat meat. However, I can easily imagine a world where that would be considered ethically horrible. I believe it was punishable by death in Japan for like 1000 years in the past. However, I was raised to eat meat, and honestly don’t see a problem with it. I’m sure I would feel different if raised differently.

When we say “I would hold my same morals regardless,” I think we may be giving ourselves too much credit… Or not giving enough credit to those who lived in the past.

Don’t focus on quantity, focus on quality.

It’s kind of like how Canada has systematically killed indigenous people. I’m sure plenty of people don’t/didn’t like it, but it still happens through systematic neglect and violence of that group. The US was able to utilize systematically racism to a much broader scale, and is now using it to push through fascism.

I mean, California lost gun rights under a conservative government that wanted to disarm blacks. But the country still thinks that liberals made it happen… Somehow…

Regardless, it is our country, it is our problem, but it will fuck us all. So any useful advice would be appreciated, rather than just try harder.

Was the punishment of Germany for WWI not at all relevant. Not the refusal of most other nations to take in Jews when Germany tried to ship them away not relevant either?

If you were to ask me it, I would have suggested to not abjectly punish an entire nation for the actions of aristocrats and not close international boarders to refugees due to discrimination against a minority group as factors that outside nations can do.

Alternatively, Germany did need… outside intervention…

The US has utilized systemic racism to train it’s population from childhood to hate and fear each other. We aren’t able to work together because we have been programmed not to.

So, how would I organize a general strike with fascists who believe the current process is great, or are in such a compromised position (by design) that striking could literally kill them?

Your advice is like telling someone who is homeless to get a job.

Based on your argument, it’s not your job to do anything. Agreed. Hate and don’t support the US… That might help change opinions. If you want us to continue to resist… Yeah, plenty of people do and have. But telling people to essentially kill themselves because “it’s the right thing to do” is kinda some bullshit. About 40% of our nations population are hateful fascists. This is an issue that has built up over generations. Its going to take a lot more thank just trying to organize a general strike to fix it.

This is always the question, and there is never an answer.

“I’m not sure where you’re getting anything about spitting in your food, typically in a sit down restaurant the bill and tip are reconciled at the end of the meal so there’s no opportunity for that even if they wanted to.”

Tips are collected prior to pick up for many sit down restaurants if you plan order take out (which is independently more BS given you weren’t even waited on). Delivery services and restaurants have suggested they would tamper with food if no tipe is provided. Perhaps that was more localized to California or the Bay Area though.

“And are you implying that being expected to tip is the same as being raped?”

Umm… No.

My point is that it is an exploitative process that has been normalized by US society. If you think rape is horrific then that’s good. You should. You should also be absolutely horrified that it has been treated as a running joke for prison sentences for generations in the US at this point. My general annoyance is that so many exploitative aspects of US society have been just… Accepted. Tipping is probably the most benign.

Thanks for the links on the history of tipping, I’ll have to take a look.

Although, I don’t see how this takes away from the general issue of owner exploits employee, employee exploits costumer, if costumer does not give in to the (voluntary) exploitative system the exploited worker turns on exploited consumer instead of employer.

It just seems your suggestion is to keep being exploited until the system fixes itself because otherwise the worker can’t afford their cost of living. Luckily for me I can’t afford to go out anymore so I’ll just pay the excessive cost of groceries and GET ASKED FOR TIPS IN THE GOD DAMN GROCERY STORE NOW!!!

Anyway, this is probably not a debate worth having, but thanks again for the links.

So, what is the solution then?

1. No one go to restaurants anymore.

• Employer probably has some form of insurance and will get paid out after claiming low demand for the service in the area.
• Employees still get fired.
• Community lose a restaurant and there is a lower chance of another one coming.

2. Go but don’t tip.

• Worker gets screwed because their wages aren’t worth the work without tips.
• worker either needs to quite or unionize (strike) to get a higher pay.
• Worker is afraid(?) to do that so blames the costumer for not tipping.

3. Grass roots campaign to change tipping laws entirely

• Workers are against it because they tend to make more with tips than with flat wages because some people can and will tipe very high.
• Owners are against it because they lose more money on labor.
• Costumers are for it because it doesn’t guild them into having to pay an undisclosed fee with a guilt trip assigned. However, they are unlikely to rally in favor in larger numbers than employers and employees because it does affect their day to day life as much.

It may be just me, but this seems like turning serfs on serfs while everyone goes to the powers that be rather than actually addressing the issue. I mean, I’m fine with just eating out less and tipping when I do, but I don’t see how not tipping is morally wrong when they entered system was about morally exploiting the costumer.

Also, the process only exists because restauranteurs had difficulty paying their employees during the great depression and encouraged them to accept payment To Insure Promptness (TIP). Can we just go back to a system when I only tip when my food is delivered quickly and the service is above average rather than to prevent people from spitting in my food because that is somehow now socially acceptable?

Am I missing something though? Because this whole thing seems like a less horrific version for rape being an implied additional punishment of jail in the US.

I’m fine with this idea. But just so I understand, doesn’t not going to the restaurant also hurt the staff? Is the idea to hurt the owner and the staff at the same time?

I ask because during COVID restaurant staff were definitely calling for people to go to restaurants more to “keep them alive.” At least they were in my area.