Ask any dishwasher if they'd rather have tips or minimum wage (which is what I got as a dishwasher) and I assure you they'd pick tips. There's a lot of workers in the restaurant who aren't as fortunate as your server.

Not sure what the real point of this is but I wish people remembered that in the restaurant hierarchy servers are nowhere near the bottom.

That's untrue in some circumstances, and misleading in many others.

Some folks are making around minimum wage anyway, and some employers steal tips. At least a steady wage gets you something easier to fall back on.

It should be said that minimum wage is low enough that fast food often pays more. So yes, you are correct that minimum wage isn't competitive enough. You'd have to pay more.

Few might trade tips for minimum wage, but trading tips for a steady income? Sure. No more getting shafted. No more getting stuck with low-tipping shifts because someone else is more liked by the manager (folks get punished with low-tip-earning shifts). Customers won't be able to have so much leverage over you because they will no longer be directly responsible for your week's wages.

> Few might trade tips for minimum wage, but trading tips for a steady income

Not if the wait-person believes that their low pay + tips averages out to a good amount more than the steady income would.

Even if that's the case, is that an argument in favor of withholding tips? My point is that tips generally are the bulk of the compensation for restaurant staff, so if you don't tip, you're essentially enjoying a meal subsidized at their expense. It doesn't realistically matter all that much what my preferences about tipping versus higher wages for restaurant staff is as a consumer; my only choices when eating at a restaurant are to tip or not to tip, and personally I don't really see any way I could justify choosing the latter given the circumstances.

The federal minimum wage for servers and other tipped employees in the US is $2.13 per hour. I don't think it's increased in literally 40 years.

some restaurants have slow days, and the waitstaff doesn't have a choice. They get minimum wage because there are no tips, or there are so few customers as to make the tips meaningless vs the hours spent.

However, as noted previously, that sub-minimum wage is "before tips". If, over the course of a week (iirc), the waiter makes less than the actual minimum wage ($7.25 federally), then the employer must make up the difference. That being said, I would guess any wait staff that go this route on a regular basis don't wind up employed for long.

> No waiter would accept minimum wage in lieu of tips. This is all bogus talk.

Actually you just made it bogus, by bringing up a strawman argument. Who mandates that waiters should only be paid minimum wage? Or that they would have to yield tips in exchange for a fixed wage?

Sure, but then you change the equation and reasoning behind the need. By increasing the base amount it becomes no longer about the employee earning a minimum wage (who likely already is and many times over the minimum wage via their tips), but about intentionally punishing the employer.

How comes that a fair wage is "intentionally punishing the employer", but paying subminimum wage is not "intentionally punishing the employee"?

Because the employer is not paying a sub-minimum wage—they are guaranteeing the minimum wage and provide the employee to make more than minimum wage. If you force the employer to pay a higher rate as a base, you are forcing them to have a greater expense, which affects the bottom line