Tipping Arguments

Having caught wind of the recent debate over tipping in Seattle and my reflections of the tipping culture in America, I decided it would be a fun exercise to make apparent the arguments made when tipping. A caveat here I would acknowledge is that I am probably a bit more biased toward the customer side, which is refuting the tipping arguments.

1. The Minimum Wage Argument

Argument:

If a waiter’s base pay is below minimum wage, tips must make up the difference to ensure they earn at least minimum wage.
A waiter’s base pay is below the minimum wage.
Conclusion: Customers must tip waiters to ensure make-up for this low pay.

Refutations:

(2) is false: According to the U.S. Department of Labor, employers are required to ensure that tipped workers earn at least the federal minimum wage when tips are included. If tips fall short, employers must make up the difference.
(3) shifts responsibility: The conclusion assumes customers, rather than employers, should ensure workers earn a minimum wage.

Reflection:

A better argument would follow the pattern of the argument to conclude that “tips must make up the difference”. Then, it seems to become more of a linguistic question of what counts as a tip and whether the employer making up that difference is a tip or not. Other than that, I put this argument here because its one of the more poplars ones that say waiters make this obscenely low-wage, even under minimum wage, but that just factually isn’t true.

2. The Living Wage Argument

Argument:

If a waiter’s base pay is below a living wage, tips must make up the difference to ensure they earn at least a living wage.
A waiter’s base pay is below the living wage.
Conclusion: Customers must tip waiters to ensure make-up for this pay.

Refutation:

(1) Inconsistency:
- Many other min-wage workers (e.g., fast-food servers, retail workers) don’t earn a living wage and don’t receive tips. Why should waiters be treated differently?
(3) shifts responsibility: Same as (3) above.

Reflection:

The second argument, after pointing out the flaw in the 1st one, usually falls on the point of making a living wage. I am partial to the sentiment, but the main concern is that this is inconsistent. If you are arguing for the point that you should be making a “living wage”, why not apply this to all min-wage workers who aren’t making a “living wage”? Its sort of this contradictory/hypocritical space where the only defense might be that “servers are special” so that they can demand this pay and not tip janitors.

3. The Service Argument

Argument:

Customers should tip for service quality.
The more high-end the restaurant, the better the service.
Service quality is commensurate with the bill (percentage tipping).
Conclusion: Customers should tip a percentage of the bill for service quality.

Refutation:

(3) is false:
- Tipping as a percentage of the bill doesn’t correlate with effort or service quality (e.g., opening a $20 bottle of wine vs. a $2,000 one).
(4) Empirically False:
- Many Michelin-starred restaurants in non-tipping countries (e.g., Japan, France, Denmark) deliver exceptional service without tipping. Instead, service costs are included in the price, and the employer pays staff wages.

Reflections:

Though I can comment on (1), I am taking that for granted for the sake of the argument. I have always thought about the idea of tipping a % of the bill. Where did that idea ever even come from? Anyway, it seems silly to me that service quality and cost are assumed to be correlated. The point is, even if you are taking the argument for tipping, why tip a percent instead of a flat amount, right?

Conclusion:

For me, the fundamental confusion here is a lot of progressive customers are assuming that servers are min-wage workers and feel as if they are arguing for “their benefit”. The truth of the matter is that most servers knowingly benefit and make more than min-wage workers while hypocritically claiming they make less. But, there are also people on the customer side who have money and just want to “pay less” who don’t really care if anyone makes a living wage. And so the whole discussion gets turned to the minimum and living wage for labor work is brought up. There’s layers to this.

But in the end, customers and servers frame their arguments in ways that don’t always align with reality. Customers often overestimate how much servers rely on tips, while servers underplay their actual earnings. There is also this pulling tension on both sides. Servers resist removing tips because tipping provides them with potentially higher earnings than a flat wage. Customers resist tipping because they feel forced to shoulder what they see as an employer’s responsibility. The tipping system is ultimately divisive, pitting servers and customers against each other rather than addressing the root issue: labor economics, wage policies, and employer accountability.

Anyways that was the blog. I do want to point out though, really a lot of the people aiming to abolish tipping argue for a free market approach to labor. Funny enough, servers are also against a free market approach because to no surprise they make more than min-wage due to tips. Though, to the free market point’s credit, it would mean that servers get paid a fair “market price” and no longer needs to be obfuscated behind tipping culture. But, a critique and analysis beyond the free market argument would highlight the nature of commodifying labor and it’s political/social implications for minimum wage workers as a whole¹.

To greatly simplify: The Neoliberal Consumer is outraged, The Enterprising Server is morally dubious, The Progressive Consumer is confused, yet all have somehow forgotten about the Scrooge of an owner².

As an aside, you could also say tipping is progressive, insofar as it is taking money from the rich i.e. doesn’t care about the % tip culture and transferring it to the “lower class”. The flaw to that is basically saying as above “It’s okay because I’m being tipped”. ↩
Yet the owner is also apart of the larger game of capitalism. ↩