$$How much is a server worth? $$

I ALWAYS watch Michael Moore for honest, non-bias media.

Me ?...I'm all OVER Glenn Beck

So has anyone ever figured out where Bill P went in all of this mess ? Starts a topic and then you don't see 'em any more. Hit and run....Hit and run. Darn "pot stirrers" are all the same.

While we expose democracy and equality our free market, capitalism model is anything but.

I'm saddened daily by how much we allow our fixation with economics to undermine what should be our core beliefs of democracy.

I would argue that democracy and equality do not go hand in hand. Democracy can be a brutal and uncaring system (Proposition , and representative democracy is little better (USA PATRIOT Act). Your citing "No Child Left Behind" is just another example of how democracy can fail in a very spectacular fashion.

Capitalism, after all, is centered in efficiency, productivity, and profit. Such a system little cares what your social value is, it only cares what you offer the system, what you save the system, and what you ask of ("burden") the system.

I also have to say that Capitalism, at its best, does care about social value. Look at the craft beer movement, the blossoming of farmers markets, and the renewed support of independent businesses. All of these have very close ties to capitalism, in that the discerning consumers choose to spend their money at these businesses instead of the giant, unfeeling chains. They're using their purchasing power to influence the way businesses behave, and if that's not capitalism then I don't know what is.

Because of this, we're starting to see effects on the large businesses. Bud now has a wheat beer for instance, and Wal-Mart sells organic food. Keep in mind that the people who really care aren't falling for these tricks, because the humanitarian disparities haven't changed.

You might argue that the working poor don't have enough disposable income to make a choice, but the fact is that these businesses don't survive solely off of their money. They want the middle class, in all of its incarnations, and that's where the philosophical revolution needs to happen. Personally, I believe its happening right now, but it could take some time to fully implement itself. These aren't the kind of revolutions that happen overnight.

What we need to do as a country is reduce government payouts to businesses. (both large and small) When they can't rely upon the government to bail them out and they have to survive on their own merits, they'll play it safer and keep their business in line with what the people expect. If they fail to do so, then investors and customers will go elsewhere and the people will have spoken.

Now I do have to say that the one area I really differ from true libertarians on is the need for public education. At least for the foreseeable future, there is no way we can have a free society without education. Now, government meddling in education causes some serious problems (No Child Left Behind for instance) but it is definitely better than nothing. Only with an educated populace can we depend upon people to make smart decisions in their own best interest, and thereby break the shackles of both the government and malevolent businesses alike.

Paul, you offer an important correction to my points. Your evaluation of capitalism at its best is important to the conversation. I was very much talking about corporate capitalism, which I did not make clear. Lumping all businesses under the capitalism umbrella voids distinction, which I did. The playing field is so skewed toward the biggest corporations that its tough enough for small businesses to survive. That makes it just more commendable that such businesses do their best to find that delicate ground between profit and social care/value. My argument relied too much on a binary. I appreciate the depth your commentary adds.

If the government has the power to tell us how much employees must be paid, then it has the power to tell us how much we can charge. So, we'll al basically be working for the government. The amounts will be decided by government guys with PhDs, who presumably will make the most money in such a system.

Let me assure you...The government guys won't be the ones making the most money. Been there, done that, ain't never going back.

Isn't the Government going to set the salaries in Nimbus's and Mathew's preferred society? Of course the folks setting the salaries will make the most money. They will be the bestest and brightestest.

Who said anything about salaries?

I recommend Socialism by Von Mises for understanding the problems with centralized setting of salaries (and prices).

There are problems with any governmental structure. Just because something is flawed doesn't mean we can't consider the value it might offer as a corrective or the value it would offer "mixed" with other approaches.

Human nature would prevent true Socialism from every working. Alas, the revolution is never going to be victorious. That's not to say there's not much like to like in the socialist program, as Nimbus articulated in his post about his friend in Sweden(?).

Maybe the revolution's never coming, but I can still look forward to the day where the word "socialism" is not synonomous with Anti-Amerikan.

Who said anything about salaries?

This sounds like a call for salary regulation to me:

What would we do with a society where education was free, and everyone got paid relatively similar amounts? That is what this thread makes me think of. Perhaps some kind of performance incentives that could boost or drop your pay by 25 or 50% (quite significant).

I mean really. Does the guy digging ditches "deserve" (or is he/she "worth") $7.50 an hour, while the lawyer shuffling papers is "worth" $250/hr? And the artist makes $3/hr if they're lucky? And the CEO makes thousands an hour? Countless examples of massive disparities. I'd argue in favor of more parity in salaries. With performance incentives (and free education). Find the average salary in the nation, and that's about what a server is "worth," with a chance to make a little more or less based on performance. The incentive to perform well would still be there!

And then you basically agree with him here:

Short of revolution (oh sweet sweet revolution), maybe Nimbus' "performance model" is the best we can imagine.

It's possible that I misunderstand. Is there another way that you propose that Nimbus's "performance model" could be implemented without government enforcement?

Who said anything about salaries?

This sounds like a call for salary regulation to me:

What would we do with a society where education was free, and everyone got paid relatively similar amounts? That is what this thread makes me think of. Perhaps some kind of performance incentives that could boost or drop your pay by 25 or 50% (quite significant).

I mean really. Does the guy digging ditches "deserve" (or is he/she "worth") $7.50 an hour, while the lawyer shuffling papers is "worth" $250/hr? And the artist makes $3/hr if they're lucky? And the CEO makes thousands an hour? Countless examples of massive disparities. I'd argue in favor of more parity in salaries. With performance incentives (and free education). Find the average salary in the nation, and that's about what a server is "worth," with a chance to make a little more or less based on performance. The incentive to perform well would still be there!

And then you basically agree with him here:

Short of revolution (oh sweet sweet revolution), maybe Nimbus' "performance model" is the best we can imagine.

It's possible that I misunderstand. Is there another way that you propose that Nimbus's "performance model" could be implemented without government enforcement?

I meant my salaries comment as a joke (as in "anyone who believes in salaries does not believe in the revolution"). It looked to me like the thread had dissolved into humor, which I'm okay with.

If you want a serious response, I'll offer. I'm just going to have to think about it, and not tonight. I'm mentally fried after a long day of brainstorming students with the socialist agenda. I mean teaching.

[quote="Matthew D]I'm mentally fried after a long day of brainstorming students with the socialist agenda. I mean teaching.[/quote]

I'm mentally fried from Schalfly Dry-hopped Apa and Sierra Nevada Celebration Pale Ale; I win!

[quote="Matthew D]I'm mentally fried after a long day of brainstorming students with the socialist agenda. I mean teaching.[/quote]

I'm mentally fried from Schalfly Dry-hopped Apa and Sierra Nevada Celebration Pale Ale; I win![/quote]

You are very right, and the score isn't even close!

[quote="Matthew D]I'm mentally fried after a long day of brainstorming students with the socialist agenda. I mean teaching.[/quote]

I'm mentally fried from Schalfly Dry-hopped Apa and Sierra Nevada Celebration Pale Ale; I win![/quote][/quote]

You are very right, and the score isn't even close![/quote]

Hey Matt, I'm willing to throw the game.

I'm so mentally fried I can't quote correctly.

I meant my salaries comment as a joke (as in "anyone who believes in salaries does not believe in the revolution"). It looked to me like the thread had dissolved into humor, which I'm okay with.

If you want a serious response, I'll offer. I'm just going to have to think about it, and not tonight. I'm mentally fried after a long day of brainstorming students with the socialist agenda. I mean teaching.

Follow your muse. A reply is not required on my account.

Apologies for not picking up on the joke. Subtleties are ofter lost on me.

So has anyone ever figured out where Bill P went in all of this mess ? Starts a topic and then you don't see 'em any more. Hit and run....Hit and run. Darn "pot stirrers" are all the same.

Steve-
No need for me to stir...y'all do a fine job of dat without any help from an old hillbilly like me.

BP

I recommend Socialism by Von Mises for understanding the problems with centralized setting of salaries (and prices).

Human nature would prevent true Socialism from every working.

While I agree with that, the point I was making is that the calculation problem would prevent socialism from ever working. Independent of human nature, it still cant work.

This entire thread is an example of the calculation problem. You cant determine how much servers are worth. Period. It isnt even worth discussing. If we did as the OP suggested and eliminated tips, an equilibrium (it would be a range of course) would eventually be reached and that would be the proper amount to pay servers.

I recommend Chap 5, section 3 (p 97-105 in my edition) in the book above for a more detailed discussion.

sorry to toss this one back up to the top but i have some results to share from my experiment.

i asked my coworkers. most of them have a child or children. most of those who do are single mothers or fathers. some of them are parents AND college students. some are just college students but living on their own or with roomates. the most common answer i recieved was in the 15-20 dollar range. many i asked said, "i'd just like to have some health insurance."

one question though. what makes people think that the server at the "high-end establishment" deserves more than the texas roadhouse or outback steakhouse server? i may be serving bud light but that doesn't mean my customer will wait any longer for their bud light than someone else would wait for their $16 glass of chardonnay at a "finer" restaurant. i have to juggle all the tasks and keep all the people happy at (insert name of family/chain joint here) just like the server who works for (insert name of top-end place here). i realize one could argue that a server at a fine restaurant must provide a certain atmostphere and level of professionalism, but ideally so should a server at steak and shake. just because someone is working in a greasy spoon doesn't give them the right to slap your plate down on the table and say "anythin' else darlin'?"