It is not "socially" mandatory as much as the workers suffer otherwise because they are paid less than minimum wage.

If an employee who earns tips does not make the equivalent of minimum wage pay his or her hours worked, then the employer is required to pay difference (i.e., employees will be paid at least minimum wage for their work)

Not tipping still makes the workers still suffer, though, because with tips, many of many of them make above minimum wage.

Honestly, in the general case, I don't understand how anyone can manage to live on minimum wage, unless they live in a barracks, their mother's basement, or under a bridge.

In the case of on-demand companies, the workers are independent contractors so they're not even entitled to minimum wage.

What about in states like California where that's illegal, even if their tips make up the difference between their actual wage and the minimum wage?

They suffer because we made it socially mandatory to tip, allowing at the same time the businesses to pay under minimum wage for workers.

Come on. It IS socially mandatory.

People are harassed for not tipping. People look down on you for not tipping. Even, for bad service, we still have to tip.

the market will necessarily sort itself out here. sad but true. if the workers are paid less, they will find employment elsewhere, the company will suffer (as they rightfully should).

Instacart has 1.9b in funding, if they are stealing from their workers, it only means that their business model is broken.. or we as consumers can fall into this dishonest game and normalize it.

> if the workers are paid less, they will find employment elsewhere

Thats a big assumption that is demonstrably untrue in many specific cases.

The signal is not sent by not tipping. You can disagree with it all you want, but the people who decide to institute tipping will not hear you if you don't tip.

They will, by being force to pay a correct minimum wage (or lose the worker)

> (or lose the worker)

Not how it works, unfortunately.

You're only hurting the workers; their employer's don't care.

That's exactly what they want you to think, and that's why this whole tipping nonsense continues. If you stop tipping, Workers will not accept to work for low wages anymore.

Bu continuing to tip, you indirectly hurt workers.

I agree with this 100%. It's the same short-sighted approach that led to teachers getting paid pittances and forced to buy supplies out of pocket.

By in the short-term propping up those employees, we reduce the overall pressures to improve their conditions / negotiate better wages, and we've somehow managed to shift the blame from the employer to the employees and customers/students.

>Workers will not accept to work for low wages anymore.

Right, because most service workers have a plethora of options, right? Tipping is a social construct that I'm fine with. I'm also open to the argument against it. I don't think it should give employers a pass on paying minimum wage.

The reality is that you are never going to convince enough people to stop tipping and, even if you did, you'd simply drive down the wages of people who already don't make much money.

The reality is that workers are part of an offer and demand market which is already adjusted to be at equilibrium with the tips.

If you remove some of the tips (not everyone will take part as you said), employers WILL have to adjust for it in order to reach a new equilibrium, or start losing workers.

Sure; they'll pay minimum wage or slightly above it. It's not a skilled position (I wanted tables for three years) and most places will take pretty much anyone who walks in. The vast majority of jobs are Chili's, not Morton's.

You speak of helping the workers, but you know what; they love the tip system. They make far more on tips than they would others. If you think Chili's is going to pay waiters 35k and bartenders 45k you're crazy.