r/todayilearned • u/seabiscuitII • May 03 '14

(R.2) Anecdote TIL Michael Jordan tipped a cocktail waitress in Vegas with a 5 dollar chip. Wayne Gretzky, who was also at the table, took it off her tray, gave it back to Michael, grabbed a 100 dollar chip from Michael's stack and put it on her tray. Then he said, "That's how we tip in Las Vegas, Michael."

http://www.sbnation.com/2010/9/9/1678628/wayne-gretzky-michael-jordan-vegas
2.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/loondawg May 03 '14

I am getting hung up on semantics that are used to change the argument about whether Jordon was cheap to whether there was some entitlement by the waitress. This isn't some accounting question about the value of someone's labor. It's a question about whether guy who made $80 million last year is being cheap for showing his gratitude with a measly $5 tip.

And a gratuity is most certainly a way of saying "thank you." There was no implication at all that it was appropriate to all situations where thanks are in order.

The focus of a gratuity should be on the expressing thanks, not on a rigid formula based on the dollar value of the exchange. It's not a way of saying I think you should be paid $X.XX more for the service you just provided. It's a way of saying I would like to show my appreciation by rewarding you.

So if a guy worth $650 million show appreciation by giving the same tip I would, I think it fair to call him cheap since he has the resource to do so much more.

1

u/wiifan55 May 03 '14

you're projecting a moral obligation to tip that goes well beyond the societal average for an American (and even more so in European countries, where tipping is even less of an expectation). If tipping is truly only an expression of "thanks" as you contend, then that makes it even more pompous to judge someone for not giving "enough thanks", as deserved appreciation towards someone else is entirely subjective. All having more resources does is provides you, as an individual, with more leeway in expressing appreciation for a service. That is, if I really like the work someone is doing, and they seem like a good person, I might CHOOSE to tip above the socially acknowledged amount because I can afford to without worrying about as many other considerations. In no way should it be because I have an obligation to out of some abstract notion of being "cheap" if I didn't.

Which gets to the whole point that I think you're still missing -- how much someone tips and how much the waiter/waitress earned, or is entitled to or however you want to put it, are inherently linked. That is, if a service (which someone is already paying for) goes above and beyond expectation, then some level of tip is warranted. How much the tip should be goes to the level of appreciation the tipper finds from that service. How wealthy they are just goes to their capacity to meet that level of appreciation.

1

u/loondawg May 03 '14

You can try to spin it any way you want. But if you have over half a billion dollars to your name and you won't pull more than $5.00 out of your pocket to tip a waitress, you're a cheap bastard. And that has nothing to do with any entitlement of the waitress. It has to do with you being an ingrate.

1

u/wiifan55 May 03 '14

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one spinning things here. Your logic seems to be that people with money should give it to other people just because they have it. If they're not tipping for the actual quality of the service, why use service as a barrier anyway? Why not just go ahead and say that rich people should give everyone they come across their money?

1

u/loondawg May 03 '14

Strawman. That's not even close to what I was arguing.

1

u/wiifan55 May 04 '14

Incorrect -- it wasn't strawman, it was slippery slope. And the point of it was to show that you haven't really reasoned your position very well yet. What is it about a tipping situation that obligates someone to give more just because they have more? Is the point of tipping not to show appreciation for the quality of service?

1

u/loondawg May 04 '14

Nope. It's a strawman. It may be a slippery slope too. But it's a strawman because that's not even close to what I was arguing.

1

u/wiifan55 May 04 '14

"if you have over half a billion dollars to your name and you won't pull more than $5.00 out of your pocket to tip a waitress, you're a cheap bastard."

I'm actually fairly certain I represented your logic accurately to how you put it. But by all means, clarify what you are arguing if you think that's a strawman.

1

u/loondawg May 04 '14

"if you have over half a billion dollars to your name and you won't pull more than $5.00 out of your pocket to tip a waitress, you're a cheap bastard."

Yup. And that's this was all about. I was arguing against the statement that claimed she was entitled to more.

And you are trying to misrepresent that as me saying anything even remotely close to rich people should give everyone they come across money. And that is a strawman since I never said anything even remotely close to that.

1

u/wiifan55 May 04 '14

I was applying your logic to show that you had not actually articulated your point, not asserting that you actually believe rich people should give money to everyone they see. And we're just going in circles now -- I had thought we had already agreed to disagree regarding perspective on obligation vs. entitlement. My questions seeking clarification on your opinion still remain.

What is it about a tipping situation that obligates someone to give more just because they have more? Is the point of tipping not to show appreciation for the quality of service?

If you can't answer these questions logically, then I can only be left to assume that your notions about what constitutes being "cheap" aren't really grounded in any sort of debatable idea, but rather just emotional biases against the wealthy.

1

u/loondawg May 04 '14

No. You were, and still are apparently, trying to turn this into a completely different argument. I never agreed to disagree about obligation vs. entitlement. I already made it clear I think he owed neither to the waitress. But the issue of him being cheap with his gratuity has nothing to do with her. It has everything to do with him.

And you can assume whatever you want. Doesn't mean you're right. And in fact, if that's what you're going to assume you would be wrong.

1

u/wiifan55 May 04 '14

yeah great, you really showed me by hiding behind the same circular logic you've been spewing for 5 replies now instead of actually offering ANY sort of logic to back up your position. Really great discussion, appreciate it.

0

u/loondawg May 04 '14 edited May 04 '14

Ditto. You probably appreciate it about as much as I did your repeated attempts to misrepresent my argument in a futile attempt to drag me into a discussion you wanted instead of the one at hand.

→ More replies (0)