wait staff in the US make around $2-3/hour. they aren't paid a living wage.
Not true. That's why we have federal minimum wage laws. If the wait staff are actually employed and not acting as independent contractors, then they are paid the minimum wage for their state. (Although I will grant that this being a living wage is definitely arguable.)
Edit: Correction - although not California (my state), apparently some states do allow minimum wages in the $2-3 range if employees receive tips [1]. For the downvoters, I only count about 5 states that do this, however. The original statement does not accurately reflect the majority of the U.S.
Question: Is it legal for waiters and waitresses to be paid below the minimum wage?
Answer: According to the Fair Labor Standards Act, tipped employees are individuals engaged in occupations in which they customarily and regularly receive more than $30 a month in tips. The employer may consider tips as part of wages, but the employer must pay at least $2.13 an hour in direct wages.
An employer may credit a portion of a tipped employee's tips against the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. An employer must pay at least $2.13 per hour. However, if an employee's tips combined with the employer's wage of $2.13 per hour do not equal the hourly minimum wage, the employer is required to make up the difference.
The employer who elects to use the tip credit provision must inform the employee in advance and must be able to show that the employee receives at least the applicable minimum wage (see above) when direct wages and the tip credit allowance are combined. If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference. Also, employees must retain all of their tips, except to the extent that they participate in a valid tip pooling or sharing arrangement.
So, although waiting tables is - predictably - not a great job, nearly all waitstaff in the US will be making 7.25/h as you would expect from federal minimum wage? And contrary to what most people attempt to convince me?
Coming from a country with a culture of smaller tips and significantly less social pressure to give them, I usually say that I should not be forced to make up for the employer's false advertising when receiving only mediocre service. This now seems correct - not tipping wi make the employer pay the remainder, not force the waitstaff on to the streets. Right?
Nearly all waitstaff in the US will be making more than 7.25/h. If "not tipping" suddenly became endemic, I imagine plenty of waitstaff would be forced "onto the streets".
"Tipped workers" are paid under different rules, and it varies state by state. They typically have a minimum cash wage ($2.13 federally and in NY for example) and an hourly "tip credit" ($5.12 fed/in NY) to bring them up to standard "minimum wage" ($7.25). They only get paid $2.13 an hour by their employer.
Actually this is true. Average tips are calculated when determining hourly wage. I worked as a server for 4 years in high school/college. My hourly wage was about $4/hr while the minimum in Florida was $6.25. My paychecks mostly went to paying taxes on my tips.
yes, you're right, what i said wasn't fully true for expediency's sake, but your statement isn't fully true either. federal minimum wage laws don't apply to tipped workers in the same way (iirc, it varies based on the state, i'm not sure).
if an employee doesn't at least make minimum wage after tips are considered, an employer is required by law to compensate an employee up to the point where they do make minimum wage. in theory.
Is there an inherent reason you tip on the full price?
Yes, theoretically the higher your bill the better time you are having. (Think celebratory events as opposed to a lunch break.)
Is it a tax?
No, it's gratuity. You're showing your appreciation for the staff enabling you to have the best experience possible at that time (in theory).
If tipping is to support staff wages does that mean waiters who serve fancier higher priced food items are entitled to larger wages solely for the fact that their table happened to order a costlier meal?
Serving higher priced food usually means higher caliber of customers, in the tipping sense. For example, patrons of Denny's restaurants might tip well if the coffee refills are on time, but in a finer dining establishment, for example, service requests for something off the menu (like a newspaper) would not be out of the ordinary.
If you tip your head 90 degrees to the left, it kind of looks like an angel around earth - the 'halo area' is the main Van Allen Belt loop causing Auroras by firing the particles towards each polar cap.
That reminds me of the passage in the Bible claiming four angels standing at corners of the earth. Not to get into a theistic thread or anything, but who needs religion when science is that stunning? Beautiful imagery!
I think that's shortsighted thinking. This is about improving the user's search experience. If that happens I think everyone wins.
Most mainstream users are not tech savvy. Imagine a traveling person arrives in a city and spontaneously decides to see a movie. They enter the search 'good movie playing in nowheresville'. As it stands now their query will likely be matched by the keywords 'movie', 'playing', and 'nowheresville'. The returned results might include a news article about local theatres, with no actual focus on reviews. The searcher might get frustrated and just decide to rent a movie instead. However, with schemas in wide use search engines will know exactly what web sites are talking about movies and whether it's in the context of reviews. The searcher can then be passed on to the relevant site.
In other words, do you think it's better to tell search engines this is sort of what I have or this is exactly what I have?
Information in specific types — including reviews — exposed using microformats, RDFa or microdata has already been used by Google for over 2 years, they call it "Rich Snippets", and it does improve the quality of experience for users, assuming that you equate an increase in clickthroughs to mean that the user percieves that page to be more useful compared to other SERPs results (and anecdotally I always go for results which include rich snippet information gleaned from pages with the required semantic enhancements).
This announcement is not the proposal of a new technique, but rather the extension of one which is already working and is a good thing for the web.
Seeing comment scores is useful, because it lets me easily see the "best" comments.
This is actually why I think comment scores should remain off indefinitely. People (including myself) have become too reliant on scoring as a measurement for the merit of comments. That may have worked when the site first started and had a small close-knit group of users. However, any site which experiences growth as HN has will inevitably become diluted for both quality of comments, and scoring, I believe. Yet, people will not adjust for that as they continue using scoring to inform them what is "best".
I don't know, this worries me. I think a reason discussion quality has improved is the only comments posted now are from those who really want to add to the discussion. Knowing people might later credit you with your score gets dangerously close to the original problem of people intentionally scoring points off one another.
I'm a convert. I last voted to display scores, but now I think hiding them is best.
The reason is because HN was (is) becoming more affected by the same cycle we've seen play out where content from a small set of users which reflect core site values makes the site good, but this draws more attention and users until content quality begins to suffer; quality posters leave, and find some new site which starts the cycle again.
I think leaving off the comment scores is the only way to check that unwanted behavior. We have to deal with the inconvenience of not relying on scores to skim comments, but I think that can actually be a good thing; I think that's just HN at a new (more sustainable) maturity.
Sure, and we still research Gravity today. That doesn't mean we're guessing a ball will drop when released the same as it always has, now does it? At some point you do know what you're talking about, to a degree of certainty beyond "winging it", at any rate.
I find it funny someone downvoted my comment above. They must imagine we really don't know anything about anything. Perhaps we should just throw out all scientific experimentation, proofs, textbooks, etc. ever done and pretend the universe is actually working according to Dr. Seuss type principles. It's just as likely, right? </sarcasm>
Don't know why you were downvoted, it's a decent point you make. There are people who dedicated their entire life to an idea or ideal, and succeed _that_ way.
Perhaps it's useful to distinguish between "entrepreneurial" success-stories and achievements like Einstein's
Well, yeah, I might give him some slack if he limited it to entrepreneurial success, although I still wouldn't agree with it. He contends the entrepreneurs behind Club Penguin (sold to Disney) or Mint (sold to Intuit) -- or to go old-school, Berkshire Hathaway -- "winged" their way to success.
But he doesn't stop there:
Even Fortune 500 CEOs, Nobel Prize winners, and U.S. presidents — all are really good at winging it.
Proclaiming Nobel Prize winners in fields like Chemistry or Physics are "winging it" is, frankly, uninformed and insulting.
Yes, I didn't say all entrepreneurs have a clear idea of what they want to do, how they will do it, and how it's likely to come out -- many clearly don't. However, that's not always the case. I believe Club Penguin, a site that clearly targeted a demographic of youth, and Mint which targeted personal finance, are examples of companies set up from day one with a clear idea of what they were trying to accomplish.
I think you're missing the point of his argument. It isn't that we don't know anything, or that we cannot know anything. It is simply that people who are successful do not know how they became successful. Even the work of someone like Einstein is subject to the vagaries of chance; it's entirely possible that had he not been inspired by some trivial incident in his life, he might never have had the insight that led to relativity. The author may overstate the argument, but his fundamental point is sound.
people who are successful do not know how they became successful.
I'm afraid I don't follow. You're saying Warren Buffet, arguably the greatest investor of all time, doesn't know how he became successful? Or that some random chance gave him his uncanny investment insight? If that's the case why should we bother trying to control our lives at all? Why don't we just walk around with our eyes shut and hope luck drops into our lap?
You're saying Warren Buffet, arguably the greatest investor of all time, doesn't know how he became successful?
Yes.
Or that some random chance gave him his uncanny investment insight?
Possibly. The point is neither we, nor he, know.
[W]hy should we bother trying to control our lives at all?
A good question. Without getting into philosophical questions of free will, I suspect the pragmatic answer is that there is at least a weak correlation between the publicized 'formula' for success and actual success, for the same reason that most lottery winners are repeat buyers. By doing something, you expose yourself to fate. And generally, any activity we can afford to keep doing will at least permit us to make a living, which is the outcome for most. After all, we can't all be Warren Buffet---not even the Warren Buffets of the world.
Generally something along the lines of 'work hard, work smart, be persistent.'
Why is Warren Buffet the only one with his level of investment success?
No one knows; that's the point of the article. It could be pure chance. Put 1000 people in a room and have them each flip a coin for double or nothing, and in the end you will likely have a person who has made 1000x their original investment. Should we laud the winner's coin-flipping ability?
So, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that before Warren Buffet was even born, he was destined to become the successful investor we know? Further, that he shouldn't take any credit for thinking through all his decisions and coming up with the more profitable choice enough to substantially beat out millions of other investors?
To answer your question, no, we don't laud the winner's coin flipping ability, because, in the absence of cheating, the person's actions and decisions don't influence the outcome. All participants have an exactly equal chance at being the end winner, and nothing will change that. However, some savvy investors, like Warren Buffet, are able to ensure they win over others using the stock market; the difference being that their decision making does directly influence whether they "win" or "lose".
It seems to me you're suggesting investors could use coin flipping to make all investment decisions, and that makes as much sense as trying to decide by other means, since they don't know what they are doing anyway. Correct?
I said nothing about pre-destination, and Warren Buffet is free to take as much credit as he likes. I'm supporting the gist of the article, which is that complex phenomena like economic systems are much more like coin flipping than they are like dropping an object and predicting it will hit the ground. Contrary to what you say, the coin-flipper's actions and decisions do influence the outcome: he has to decide to keep playing, and he has to decide whether to call heads or tails. The difference is that the system is comparatively simple, so we easily see that chance alone determines the outcome. Barring cheating or a systematically biased coin, we can't imagine how it could be anything other than luck. On the other hand, investments are wrapped in much more complexity, and it's easier to imagine that there are skills that could confer an advantage, even if there aren't.
[Y]ou're suggesting investors could use coin flipping to make all investment decisions, and that makes as much sense as trying to decide by other means...
I'm not suggesting it, but now that you mention it there are some studies that do. I suspect there are real investment skills that can be learned and applied, much the same way a blackjack card counter gains a small edge that can be exploited over time.
Warren Buffet is free to take as much credit as he likes
Let me rephrase the question: Would you give Warren Buffet credit for his investment success?
he has to decide to keep playing
You said "in the end" which I took to mean the coin flipping would continue until only one winner remained of the 1000.
and he has to decide whether to call heads or tails
To ensure we are imagining the same crucial parameters let me clarify these points: first, the coin itself is not biased in any way; second, the flipping action is not biased; it could be carried out by a mechanized flipper, for example; third, the choice of heads or tails is always made before the flip. Under these circumstances the actual calling of heads or tails does not matter. The caller will always have exactly a 50% chance of winning and losing.
I suspect there are real investment skills that can be learned and applied, much the same way a blackjack card counter gains a small edge that can be exploited over time
Well, that's the first thing you've said I can easily agree with. Yes, I certainly believe, given enough time, Warren Buffet could teach someone to follow his methodology to have nearly identical success. So which is it? Is Warren Buffet someone who knows what he's doing or not?
Would you give Warren Buffet credit for his investment success?
For making a good living, yes; I think that much was in his control. For becoming a billionaire? No, there were far too many variables involved that were not within his control.
I certainly believe, given enough time, Warren Buffet could teach someone to follow his methodology to have nearly identical success.
I think Warren Buffet could teach someone to have some success, I don't believe he could teach someone to be a billionaire because becoming a billionaire depends in large part on chance. Most professional card counters never became rich either, they just made a good living.
You seem to be viewing the article as discouraging, while I see it as encouraging. While it means that much of our prospects for success are beyond our control, for the most part we have as good a chance as anyone, so get out there and do something.
For becoming a billionaire? No, there were far too many variables involved that were not within his control.
Well, yes, I can agree nobody can completely know or control the future. One may become terminally ill, or the Earth may be hit by a meteor at any time. However, that was not the argument made by the author. It was that none of us knows what we're doing. He seems to suggest we have little control over the outcomes which we do see, saying things like Nobel Prize winners are "winging it", as if they have the same understanding as anyone else (in this case none) when it comes to their expertise. I find that highly disconcerting.
If we imagine a chess match, where we know the duration will be a few hours, and the fitness of the players will not be compromised for the game duration, we can understand the winning or losing outcome is entirely in the hands of the players. If we further imagine the best chess player in the world accepts this match, and both players fully intend to win, if the best player wins would you agree it is because he (or she) does know what he (or she) is doing?
I do think the author overstated the case; I think when he says a Nobel prizewinner is 'winging it', I interpret it to mean in their process of coming to understanding. By definition, people like Nobel prizewinners or billionaires had multiple turning points in their careers where they made decisions under uncertainty. And by definition, uncertainty means chance is involved. At those points they were winging it and could easily have been wrong. Just like our coin flipper.
Similarly, in a championship chess match there will be points where even the most skilled player in the world may be uncertain as to which move is best. At those points, they too are winging it. If they intuitively make the best move without being able to fully explain why they are making it, does that not prove the author's point?
Aha! I think I've identified where our primary contention lies. First, as to the author overstating the case, I agree. If he really meant nobody is 100% certain of any given decision I can see where he is coming from, although I still wouldn't entirely agree. People who get off the freeway and drive home are not winging it. They are quite certain of the way (even if never guaranteed to survive the trip). This is just one of many instances which clearly does not agree with "none of us knows what we're doing". We clearly do a lot of the time.
Now, the place where I believe we are in discord is those instances when we are less certain we are making the right choice. If I walk up to a roulette table and choose black rather than red, and happen to win, I am certainly winging it and agree with you and the author entirely. However, I say the best chess player in the world would be able to tell you exactly why he (or she) made every move. They won't know with 100% certainty whether any given move is best, but they do know the logical mental progression taken to arrive at their choice, since they know strategy and likely outcomes. Similarly, Nobel Prize winning economists or physicists in large part know exactly what they are doing, for example, when driving home, and when working mathematical calculations. Our disagreement is over those rarer occasions when they are less certain of the correct choice. You seem to say it's the same as a 50% coin toss in these cases, and they are winging it. I firmly disagree. While they can't know with 100% certainty which choice is correct, they can know what is more likely correct (and why they believe so), and that is what separates them -- and Warren Buffet, and chess masters -- from everyone else.
So you would be OK with crediting our coin flipper if the coin had a 60/40 bias? It was his consistent skill in picking the 60% side that made him 1000x richer?
First, we have to look at the game. Let's say I'm one of the participants, and we are all told there are 1000 of us which will play a winner takes all coin toss game. There is one coin and each pair of players walks up to the coin, decides who will be the caller then watches for the result of the flip. We must all play until one person holds all the money. The first thing I'm going to do is casually head to the very back; that way I don't get eliminated until I reach the last person holding everyone's money, minus mine. At that point, if the coin was fair at 50/50 I would be happy to allow fate to decide whether I won very big, or lost my small stake. However, if the coin was biased at 60/40 favoring heads, and me being the astute observer I am noticed this tendency while awaiting my turn, when I reached the coin I would be sure to be the caller and firmly call heads. If I won, yes, I would give myself substantial credit for knowingly tipping the results in my favor.
The shorter answer to your question boils down to whether or not the winning caller used known information about the bias to his advantage. If he did, yes, he deserves some amount less than full credit -- fate will ultimately decide -- but more than zero credit, which would be in the case of a non-biased 50/50 choice. Also, I feel compelled to say I do believe Warren Buffet made the majority of his investment decisions on a mental certainty of far greater than 60% (unless the stake was quite small). One of the things about Warren Buffet's strategy is he buys for the long term, so, even if he's wrong in the short term, he won't sell. The company would practically have to go out of business for him to lose. The chance of that for companies he invests in is very slim.
the amount of federal tax revenues from the top income quintile has increased substantially
Yes, but that chart doesn't say anything about the number of rich people over that range of years. I expect a lot more millionaires exist today than in 1979.
I'm not sure I understand your point. The data is normalized to population, it's in quintiles and percentiles. It doesn't matter how many millionaires there are, the top 1% is still the top 1%. What is your contention exactly? That there is some sort of ultra-rich top 0.1% or 0.01% who are shirking their tax liability and leaving the rest of the top 1% to carry it? Or that the top 1% is not large enough of a grouping of high-income folks and that somehow they're paying too much and the top 5% or so should be paying more?
Regardless of the tax rate the actual tax revenues from the top 20, 10, and 1% has increased substantially in the last several decades, to the degree such that only 40% of households are contributing fully 85% of federal tax revenues today.
You're right about the data being normalized, so it doesn't matter how many millionaires there are, and the top 1% is still the top 1%. However, that top 1% can be a richer 1%. Take this from the article:
In the late 1970s, the top 1 percent took home 9 percent of total national income. Now the top 1 percent’s take is more than 20 percent.
The chart you referenced shows tax revenues on the top 1% roughly doubled for the time period from 1979 to 2007, but over that approximate time period so did the total percent of the national income going to the top 1%! That would appear to explain much, if not all, of the increase right there. One wouldn't be able to take home double the income yet pay the same in taxes without serious loopholes.
Not true. That's why we have federal minimum wage laws. If the wait staff are actually employed and not acting as independent contractors, then they are paid the minimum wage for their state. (Although I will grant that this being a living wage is definitely arguable.)
Edit: Correction - although not California (my state), apparently some states do allow minimum wages in the $2-3 range if employees receive tips [1]. For the downvoters, I only count about 5 states that do this, however. The original statement does not accurately reflect the majority of the U.S.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages