Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I haven't noticed this yet. I know it was a thing a couple of years ago. Quite famously, Danny Meyer was pushing it in his places. But last I heard it crashed and burned.
Maybe this will refloat it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
Many places now are mirroring Europe and including tip in total bill.
Before you hand over your CC or fork out cash look at bill carefully. In many instances now you'll see a percentage *tip* has already been entered.
I am glad the stores are closing down. Most stores, even in high traffic tourist areas of Manhattan, only hire one type of skin color and age. You can go to a grocery store in Columbus Circle or Union Square and see they have overstaffed 50 black-only cashiers that are all 25 years old. And that is their diversity.
The city will be better without that element. Fire them all and replace with actual-diversity or robots.
It is across the board. I was just at CVS. The pharmacy is overstaffed with 8 females that are all 20-23 years old. The rest of the store is all overstaffed with 8 males all the same age and skin color. Near Lincoln Center?
It is all the stores in all of Manhattan. Close them all. To hell with pandering to all of those diversity superstars. Fire them all.
I am glad the stores are closing down. Most stores, even in high traffic tourist areas of Manhattan, only hire one type of skin color and age. You can go to a grocery store in Columbus Circle or Union Square and see they have overstaffed 50 black-only cashiers that are all 25 years old. And that is their diversity.
The city will be better without that element. Fire them all and replace with actual-diversity or robots.
So where are all those persons supposed to find work? Google? Goldman Sachs?
You could say same about Starbucks, Sweetgreens, Gap, Fresh Direct, Amazon (mostly everything non-corporate such as warehouse, delivery, etc...) virtually all fast food places. And so it goes.
Fact of matter is young whites have other things do to for most part than work minimum wage jobs. Older whites you see are those who need money.
As it is many of these supermarkets or whatever places often have difficult time in finding workers, especially cashiers. First and foremost many simply cannot pass criminal background checks. Others even with aid of computerized cash registers have math skills of a two year old.
^ Exactly. If there isn't enough service workers, then the companies/employers will pay more for them. That's how the free market naturally works. When government butts in, there are always side effects.
That is why I believe in abolishing minimum wage and the welfare abuse. Let the free market decide.
If the opportunities are so awful here, the leeches will flee to California.
As long as a worker can collect wages AND welfare, then minimum wage law needs to be in effect to limit the amount of tax funded welfare go to business's labor costs.
If you have a system of people employed AND collecting welfare, the laws need to be in place to essentially define what percentage of the COL for that labor is the responsibility of the employer and what portion is the responsibility of the tax payer (welfare).
If you have a system where the employed are not allowed to collect welfare, then and only then will market define labor costs freely. People won't be able to accept jobs below COL because they can no longer rely on welfare to make up the difference.
Walmart, for example, purposely under pays its employees AND encourages them to apply for welfare. The lower limit to which Walmart can underpay is defined by the minimum wage laws. Without that law, an even larger portion of Walmart's labor costs will be paid by the tax payer.
People don't understand that minimum wages (and effectively living wages) isn't just about "respecting" the labor... that's just a superficial argument. The real reason why the lower limits of wages exists in law is to prevent companies from furthering subsidizing their labor costs with tax payer dollars.
As far as I am concerned, you either get rid of the ability to collect welfare AND work thus leaving labor costs truly to the market or you allow welfare to be collected by the employed but put laws on the books to pay living wages. What we have now is an environment that encourages abuse of the welfare system.
Subsidizing a failing business wasn't the choice of a tax payer either....
Cop out answer.... Most business need to hire labor. So that doesn't negate that there is a service labor requirement in the NYC.... ie low income labor.
I'm absolutely for limiting welfare. The less govt involvement, the better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
