More on Tipping: A Server Weighs in with Insights and Advice

Long-time reader R. B. sends us his thoughts:

I appreciated your post. I am on the other side of the coin: I am a server and I depend on tips to help get me through nursing school. So hopefully I can help bring some insight. I agree with your overall point that one ought to tip based on service. Bad service? Bad tip. Excellent service? Excellent tip. The restaurant I work at bases my tip out (my pay out to the bar, bussers, food runners for their help) on my overall sales (4%); suppose I sell $1000 worth of food and beverages on a particular night; this means I dish out $40 of my tips out to those who directly helped me. So when I don’t get tipped (whether justified or not), I am still paying the tip out. I had a table of Europeans last week and the bill was around $400. If I did my job well—and I think I did—then I ought to have earned an $80 tip. Well, they left me zero. It happens. But here I am paying out $16; so I essentially had to pay to wait on this table! It usually evens out because some people are generous and see me busting my ass and tip over 20%. And if mistakes happen—which they do—99% of the time a nice attitude and an apology fix everything and I still get the 20%.
 
Another important point is this: if you are nice to me (which is a low bar: just acknowledge I exist and have feelings), I will do everything within my power to get you free stuff. You asked me how my day was? I won’t charge you for that soda. You say please and thank you (embarrassingly enough you’d be surprised how many people don’t use these words at all)? I’ll get you that free dessert all on company moolah baby. I don’t expect a bigger tip when I do this, but you get my point. 
 
I also notice this a lot: how you treat waitstaff directly correlates to a deep part of your character. It’s a good litmus test for first dates. I went on a date with a girl and she was rude/snippy to the server because our food was late. Guess what? 99% chance it was not the server’s fault. The kitchen is busy and things come out late during a dinner rush. Needless to say we didn’t go out again. How can you be rude to someone who is bringing you food and beverages? It blows my mind. 
 
My personal rule is that I tip whenever and wherever I can. I rationalize it by thinking: how much will me giving this extra $1-2 actually affect me financially (*wink* famine and affluence)? The coffee shop? I tip like I would at a bar. The car wash? You bet. The dishwashers at my work? Certainly; they have the worst job in the entire restaurant and are not part of the tip out. And it’s nice because I know the money is going directly into their pocket and the government doesn’t see it (when it’s cash). Always tip in cash if you can.
 
While there might not be a moral obligation to tip, to me it does show something about your character if the service was excellent and you stiffed them. If you are opposed to tipping at sit down restaurants, then don’t go to them—simple as that. 
 
Some points:
 
It’s dehumanizing when someone doesn’t acknowledge you or even looks at you in the eye. Be a decent person and say please and thank you.
 
Don’t be rude because of mistakes (again: the vast majority of the time, the person you will tip had no control over it).
 
Control your kids (most kids nowadays are sadly glued to phones or tablets so it’s not usually a problem).
 
Don’t be a cheap bastard.
 
Have a Merry Christmas!

On Tipping

Here, in no particular order, are my maxims concerning the practice of tipping.

1. He who is too cheap to leave a tip in a restaurant should cook for himself. That being said, there is no legal obligation to tip, nor should there be. Is there a moral obligation? Perhaps. Rather than argue that there is I will just state that tipping is the morally decent thing to do, ceteris paribus. And it doesn't matter whether you will be returning to the restaurant. No doubt a good part of the motivation for tipping is prudential: if one plans on coming back then it is prudent to establish good relations with the people one is likely to encounter again. But given a social arrangement in which waiters and waitresses depend on tips to earn a decent wage, one ought always to tip for good service. 

2. Tip on the nominal amount of the bill, not the amount less a discount. You got the discount, you skin-flint coupon clipper, don't be so cheap as to demand a discount on the tip as well.

Word of the Day: Costive

Merriam-Webster:

1aaffected with constipation

bcausing constipation

2slow in action or expression

3not generous STINGY

Where did I find it? In a fine analysis of the concept of charm by Joseph Epstein.  Here is a taste that features the word under definition:

Some people I talked with thought charm was synonymous with “cool.” In fact, the two, charm and cool, are all but opposed. Cool aims for detachment, distance; charm is social, bordering on the intimate. Cool is icy; charm warm. Cool is costive; charm often ebullient. Cool doesn’t require approval; charm hopes to win it. Cool began life in jazz under the great saxophonist Lester Young, who first used the term, but it soon descended to the argot of drugs. Cool gave way to hip and hep. In Dave Frishberg’s song “I’m Hip,” the singer proclaims that he watches “arty French flicks with [his] shades on” and is so hip “I call my girlfriend ‘Man.’ ” Miles Davis was cool, Louis Armstrong charming.

How does one acquire a large vocabulary? The first rule is to read, read widely, and read worthwhile materials, especially old books and essays.  The second rule is to look up every word the meaning of which you do not know or are not certain of: don't be lazy. The third rule is to compile vocabulary lists. The fourth rule is to review the lists periodically and put the words to use.  Use 'em or lose 'em.

Hugh Hefner’s Legacy

Here:

Divorce, broken homes, bankruptcy, generations of children raised by a single parent, sexually-transmitted diseases, addiction, AIDs, early death, loneliness, despair, guilt, spiritual ruin, and 58 million innocent children butchered in the one place they should be safest, in their own mother’s womb.

Read it all.  I am not clear, however, how the libertarian opening coheres with the sequel.

Camille Paglia on Hugh Hefner

Here

Hugh Hefner absolutely revolutionized the persona of the American male. In the post-World War II era, men's magazines were about hunting and fishing or the military, or they were like Esquire, erotic magazines with a kind of European flair.

Hefner reimagined the American male as a connoisseur in the continental manner, a man who enjoyed all the fine pleasures of life, including sex. Hefner brilliantly put sex into a continuum of appreciative response to jazz, to art, to ideas, to fine food. This was something brand new. Enjoying fine cuisine had always been considered unmanly in America. Hefner updated and revitalized the image of the British gentleman, a man of leisure who is deft at conversation — in which American men have never distinguished themselves — and the art of seduction, which was a sport refined by the French.

Camille Paglia does not merit the plenary MavPhil endorsement, but C. P. is a good partial antidote to P. C. , and she never fails to entertain.

You may enjoy this critical piece: Camille Paglia on Philosophy and Women in Philosophy.

Inappropriate Automotive Niceness

Most of us prefer nice people to surly pricks. And no doubt we should all try to be nicer to our world-mates. But there is such a thing as inappropriate niceness. Here are two automotive examples for your consideration.

I am following at a safe distance the motorist in front of me. Then said motorist brakes for a jaywalker, not to avoid hitting him, but to allow him to cross. The jaywalker is violating the law; why aid and abet his lawbreaking? Why be nice to someone who shows no respect for the rules of the road? Why risk causing an accident? These are among the questions the inappropriately nice should ask themselves.

I am waiting to make a left turn. A man in an oncoming vehicle, wanting to be nice and neighborly, gestures for me to make the turn despite his having the right-of-way. I make the turn but shake my head in disgust  at the man's presumably unwitting and admittedly minor undermining of the rule of law.

The man was probably a liberal. Liberals are good at feeling, but not so good at thinking.

A good conservative maxim: Truth and right count for more than human feelings.

The Message of Visible Tattoos

Tattoo-faceAll visible tattoos deliver the same message:  I am not interested in being hired for any position that involves interacting with the public. Tattoos on the neck and face deliver the message in capital letters.

Time was when tattoos were found mainly only among the demimonde of  grifters, members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, rough trade, a certain segment of merchant seamen, and other denizens of the dark side.  

I tend to take a dim view of tattoos, seeing them as the graffiti of the human body, and as yet another, perhaps minor, ingredient in the Decline of the West.  Christians who believe that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit ought to consider whether tattoos deface the temple.  But I do not dogmatize on this topic.  You can reasonably attack my graffiti analogy, and if you insist that tattoos are beautiful, not ugly, I won't be able to refute you. Or at least I won't be able to persuade you.

If you argue that there is no, or needn't be, a connection between tattoos and cultural decline, you may have a case. You might even be able reasonably to maintain that the bodily temple is sometimes beautified by judicious inking.  Leviticus 19:28 forbids the practice, but that text does not settle the matter.  I tend to think that fascination with the ugly and grotesque does not ennoble us.  The connection between the aesthetic and the moral needs to be explored.  

But I celebrate the liberty of the individual and tolerate the tattooer and the tatttoed.

I only advise caution: permanent or semi-permanent modifications of the mortal coil are to be made only after due deliberation.  You might want to consider such things as: the signal you're sending, your future employability, and, for the distaff contingent, how ugly that tattoo will look on your calf when you are 45 as opposed to 20 and the ink is cheek-by-jowl with varicose veins and cellulite.  Cute baristas in hip huggers with  tattoos on their lower backs bending over the espresso machine invite impertinent questions as to how far down the pattern extends. "Does it come up the other side?" 

If you are thinking of a career in public relations, a bone through the nose is definitely out, as are facial hardware and a Charley Manson-style swastika tattooed onto the forehead.  And if  you sport a 'tramp stamp,' keep it covered.

See here for a harsher view.

Addendum.  Astute Opponent e-mails:

Something you allude to, but don’t completely address, is the allure of fashion, and its strange nature. Fashion has a lifetime of at most ten years, usually in a way that what once conferred stature and gravitas turns into the ludicrous. Fortunately we can discard clothes, and change our hairstyle. This is more difficult with tattoos.

I.e. it’s not just that the tattoo will look ugly when the ink is ‘cheek-by-jowl with varicose veins and cellulite’. It’s that it will look ugly and ridiculous in itself.

I haven’t seen any theory that neatly explains the transformative power of time over fashion. Those of us who are older and have been through a few cycles of such changes are aware of it, and are somewhat, though not completely, impervious to it.  It is philosophically challenging. How can the very same thing turn almost into its exact opposite? Moreover, when you look at what is now most ridiculous about the fashion, it was the very thing which in a bygone era was the most fascinating and important.

Some things do not date, and perhaps that is the essence of great art. I also think writing dates much slower. I mean, you can read Strawson or Moore and you don’t have a strong sense that it was written 50 or 100 years ago. Then you look at pictures of the writers, and they look quite silly in tweeds or glasses or smoking a pipe.

Fascinating questions.  Why are people swayed in their sartorial choices by what is clearly ridiculous and non-functional?  Ghetto blacks strutting around in baggy cargo shorts hanging half-way off their butts; women prancing in high heels; stout lesbians stomping around in work boots at a poetry reading; Beltway boys in their bow ties.  The absurd corsets and bustles of yesteryear.  Statement-making and sexual signaling are part of what's going on.

The Opponent seems to be suggesting that tattoos will go out of fashion and come to look  ridiculous.  I don't know.

Theme music:  ZZ Top, Sharp-Dressed Man

Mirabile Dictu: Irish Reader Finds New Yorkers Civil and Friendly

London Karl, an Irish resident of London, checks in with this update:

I'm just back from my first ever trip to America. Only New York, which I am reliably informed is representative of nothing other than itself, but I was touched and impressed by the civility and friendliness I encountered. People there are way friendlier than the Brits. You may despair over your country, but you have that at least!

This is funny.  New Yorkers are generally regarded as rude and obnoxious.  Donald Trump, for example, is a New Yorker, as is Brian Leiter.  No, I am not hastily generalizing from two examples, I am illustrating with two  examples an antecedently established  general proposition.  

It is too bad that London Karl did not have the time or the wherewithal to travel deep into Real America where he would have found much better examples of civility and friendliness.

Some years back I read a paper at Tulane University in New Orleans.  Wandering around one afternoon on my own, not in the French Quarter, but in some rather nondescript part of town, I walked into a restaurant for lunch.  There I was greeted by a woman who displayed a level of hospitality and friendliness and warmth I had never encountered before.  This, I thought to myself, is what must be meant by Southern hospitality. There was, of course, a commercial motivation behind the display; but it was also deeply genuine. That was back in '87 and I have never forgotten the experience.

Jude_AcersDuring that same trip, however,  I ran into chess master Jude Acers in the French Quarter.  Stationed on the street in his red beret, he plays (or played) all comers at $5 a game.  Nothing particularly civil or friendly about him, rather the opposite.   But then he is a chess player, one, and not from the South, two. After five games, I paid him his $25 and he made sure that I understood that he had played me for a chump and 'taken me' for 25 semolians.  Me, I was happy to part with the money for chess lessons on Bourbon Street in the romantic city of the great Paul Morphy.

He said one thing that has stuck with me.  Near the end of a game, he pointed to one of his pawns which had an unobstructed path to the queening square.  I couldn't stop it, but it still had a long way to go.  He announced, "This pawn has already queened."

A deeply Platonic comment. A timeless use of 'already.'  Sub specie aeternitatis, the pawn had queened, or rather IS (timelessly) queened.

"Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58) 

UPDATE.  London Karl responds:

Trust me, I had the desire and the wherewithal to go into the real America; I just didn't have the time. I preferred the edgy friendliness of the New Yorkers to the passive aggression that passes for English 'politeness'.

 Related articles

The Wages of Political Correctness: A Climate of Fear
William Burroughs, London Ed, Patrick Kurp, and Literary Trash
Saturday Night at the Oldies: Celebrating Freedom and Independence
Do Purely Fictional Items Exist? On Van Inwagen's Theory of Ficta

Is There Any Place for Gentlemen in Post-Consensus Politics?

We are in the age of post-consensus politics.  We Americans don't agree on much of anything any more.  As our politics comes more and more to resemble warfare, the warrior comes more and more to replace the gentleman.  

Here is the best description of a gentleman I have encountered:

The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.  -– John Walter Wayland

By this definition, Trump is no gentleman; he is rather the anti-gentleman. But a gentleman among thugs is a loser.  You cannot appeal to the higher nature of a thug; he has none.  So you need someone who can repay the leftist in his own Alinskyite coin.  You need  a man who will get into the gutter and fight the leftist with his own weapons.  You need a man who will not shrink from the politics of personal destruction preached by V. I. Lenin and used so effectively by his successors in the Democrat Party.

Herein an argument for Trump.  I am beginning to think that he alone can defeat the evil Hillary.  Ted Cruz is a brilliant man compared to whom Trump is a  know-nothing when it comes to the law, the Constitution, and the affairs of state, and Cruz is a better man than Trump; but the Texan  is a senator and thus part of the Republican establishment against which there is justified rebellion.  

Personality-wise, too, Cruz is not that attractive to the average disgruntled voter.  He is not enough of a regular guy. And being a better man than Trump he probably won't descend deep enough into the gutter to really annihilate Hillary as she so richly deserves. Trump can mobilize Joe Sixpack and Jane Lipstick.  These types don't watch C-SPAN or read The Weekly Standard.  They can't relate to the bow-tie brigade over at National Review.  They are heartily sick and tired of the empty talk of the crapweasels* of the Republican establishment. They want action.

_______________

*I borrow this delightful bit of invective from the fiery Michelle Malkin.

Sweat, Perspire, Glow

It was a hot and humid September day, twenty years ago.   I was sitting in a restaurant in Wuhan, China.  There had been a power outage, so the air conditioning was off.  The lady next to me was perspiring profusely.  I somewhat crudely drew attention to the fact probably using some such expression as 'sweating bullets.'

The lady gave me an arch look and said, "Horses sweat, men perspire, women glow."

The good lady was glowing something fierce.

Be Gracious

Does someone want to do something for you? Buy you lunch?  Give you a gift?  Bring something to the dinner? 

Be gracious.  Don't say, "You don't have to buy me lunch,"  or "Let me buy you lunch," or "You didn't have to bring that."  Humbly accept and grant the donor the pleasure of being a donor.

Lack of graciousness often bespeaks an excess of ego.

We were re-hydrating at a bar in Tortilla Flat, Arizona, after an ankle-busting hike up a stream bed.  I offered to buy Alex a drink.  Instead of graciously accepting my hospitality, he had the chutzpah to ask me to lend him money so that he could buy me a drink!

Another type of ungraciousness is replying 'Thank you' to 'Thank you.'  If I thank you for something, say 'You're welcome,' not 'Thank You.'  Graciously acquiesce in the fact that I have done you a favor.  Don't try to get the upper hand by thanking me.

I grant that there are situations in which mutual thanking is appropriate.

Some people feel that they must 'reciprocate.'  Why exactly?  I gave you a little Christmas present because I felt like it.  And now you feel you must give me one in return?  Is this a tit for tat game? 

Suppose I compliment you sincerely.  Will you throw the compliment back in my face by denigrating that which I complimented you for, thereby impugning my judgment?

Related entry: On Applauding While Being Applauded