Darn, this seems like a site meant to uncover and curb corruption.
I was hoping it was a site where everyday folks share their stories about when it helps to give a nice tip or innocently grease a few palms.
Well known cases would be the "$20 trick" you give to the hotel clerk to get a free room upgrade. Once during an airport emergency, I gave two $10 bills to the bellhop to cut the long line at my hotel taxi stand (the bellhop keeps one $10 bill and gives the other to the taxi stand valet guy, who waved us into the next cab).
I remember seeing on Friends that you can shorten your restaurant wait times by giving money to the hostess, and the book Doormen claims you can get lots of perks by over-tipping your doormen. What I need is a menu of all such extra services that can be achieved and the average cost / success rate, so I minimize the chances of looking like an idiot.
Sorry, instead of it being a site where your wealthy greedy self could gain a meaningless personal advantage over others it is a site that is trying to make the world a better place for everybody. I know it is useless for "everyday folks" from your class, we'll try harder next time.
Five minutes ago I was looking for a donation link on your site, but I completely lost interest after reading this post. The person you replied to grew up in a lifestyle and culture different than you. This doesn't mean that he's greedy or that his motivations are meaningless. You seem like you've got a huge chip on your shoulder and that's not going to help you in the long run. Why would people be interested in engaging someone who spits venom after a fairly innocuous comment?
People can get angry over something that another person would think nothing of. Even something as simple as throwing away a half-eaten candy bar. Just because a man is brought up to do something wrong, it does not absolve him of the fact it is wrong.
That 'innocuous' comment has enough social subtext for people of certain viewpoints to find it repulsive. Like, say, a guy running an anti-bribery campaign.
Personally, I don't begrudge people paying more to get better service/food, but extravagant tipping for better service in a situation where people are expecting to be served fairly sends a strong signal: "I am too good for your rules."
Not everyone has the same outlook on life as you do.
We can play this game all the way down to the most impoverished society on the planet. A poor Indian could find it reprehensible that a middle class American will throw away a candy bar. A starving African could find it reprehensible that a poor Indian will use comparatively expensive spices in his food. After all, why not eat the most tasteless food possible and then donate the extra money? The point is, unless you are from the most impoverished society on the planet, you are doing something that someone somewhere could find reprehensible because of social subtext.
The question needs to be asked, where does this game get us? Nowhere. All good people are ultimately batting for the same team. Sure, truly evil people should be named and shamed, but that's not what happened in this thread. Guelo picked a fight because he thought he had the right to, and he doesn't. At least, not with Leelin. Hateful dialogue has absolutely zero positive benefit and often hurts the person doing the hating: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2067014.
> The point is, unless you are from the most impoverished society on the planet, you are doing something that someone somewhere could find reprehensible because of social subtext.
When you see a liberal with hunched shoulders, it is because this issue is bearing heavily on their mind. /s
You're right, of course. Selling all your possessions to donate the proceeds to a poor family only gets you so far, and then only in the short term. The real goal is battling for systemic change, either by fixing the system or boosting the economy to give more people more wealth. Infighting because you disagree on a 0.1%, that doesn't help at all, and is why passion needs a little control from time to time...
As an American who has lived in India, I am with Guelo.
The "everyday folks" the parent refers to--for most of us, (relatively) wealthy people with white-collar jobs living in rich Western societies--constitute some 5% of the world's wealthiest people. Most human beings living today are not in a position to blow $20 (Indian gross income per capita, per World Bank, 2008: $1040/yr) on a perk, let alone a bribe for something as simple as applying for benefits or starting a business. That's where the outrage comes from.
Education is an important part of changing that culture, and they deserve your donation.
You're argument is orthogonal to my point. I'm aware of the wealth differences. I see similar differences quite often in the inner city of Chicago. One overarching trend among the less well off that Guelo demonstrates is a venomance that gets in the way of cooperation and progress. As an example, I have seen young children refuse to be taught by quite capable teachers because the teacher is white and wears jeans that cost more than $20. There's an unfounded resentment here and it needs to be named. It's as if an apology is expected for being born into the middle class. The hate here is unhealthy because ultimately the person doing the hating is the one that loses.
My objection isn't to the wealth of the responder. My objection, and I think Guelo's, is that although there may be a market out there for sites that help people with the means throw around $20 bills, it wasn't really the time or the place to bring it up as a response to a site trying to fight genuine corruption, which the US does not suffer from much and which disproportionately affects the very poor.
Also, poverty in America is not, as far as I can tell, much like poverty in the US, although I've not spent any time in the rough parts of Chicago; like most middle-class white people, I spend most of my time on the north side.
The child doing the hating has lost already, they didn't lose because they hated after the fact. They're children growing up in one of the most neglected public school systems in the country in one of the most segregated cities in the country. When I was growing up there, I feared and hated white people too, because my only experiences of them were negative ones. Sitting in that horribly overcrowded, neglected school with my decade old books faced with a teacher who would have much rather taught at the private school his/her kids went to, and who thought that my motivations were as simple as jealousy over his jeans wasn't an easy situation for a kid, and probably still isn't.
And why exactly would you ascribe a trait or "trend" that you notice in Guelo to the "less well off"? Do you have to be poor to be against bribery - or, rather - tipping for special treatment? Is the only possible motivation to be against the corrupt administration of services jealousy? These are not rhetorical questions.
Unrelated: I am mystified by your competent use of the term "orthogonal" coming just two words after you used "you're" instead of "your." That is just bizarre!
It's not a grammar mistake, I have trouble when I type quickly. Another error that I make: I often type a word that sounds similar in place of what I actually meant. Case in point: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2067123.
Innocuous? Don't make me laugh. I don't see this as spitting venom or that the poster has a huge chip on their shoulder - that's rather an extreme characterization.
My first thought on seeing the title for the site was that it was a project to try to reduce corruption and bribery. Because I was curious I clicked through to discover more. Nicely designed site, tackling a real social ill which obviously affects the poor more than it does the rich. Must have taken some time to get up and running, and as it's not a profit-driven thing, you'd need to be fairly passionate about what you're in it for.
And then along comes this guy making asinine comments about greasing palms to get the jump on people in queues and other trivial frippery - that he even presumed it was a site that would give those with fat-wallets a few hints at how to snare a few perks is telling.
Given your interpretation of this conversation I doubt you would have donated at all.
As far as the donation goes, my conscious is clear. I donate a big piece of my income to charities and my family and I work with thousands of impoverished kids in the inner city of Chicago every day.
Based on my experience, characterizing the poster as having a chip on his shoulder is accurate. I run into this problem all the time when working with those less well off than me and it's a serious problem. It's a significant barrier on communication between otherwise well intentioned people.
Finally, I stand by my characterization of innocuous. There was no harm or offense intended and I'd like to see you argue otherwise. I myself had the same reaction to the title of the submission and it's because of my middle class upbringing. What is importent here is not shaming people for their upbringing but rather to seek an understanding of why people react in different ways.
Hey ... no offense was meant, I never said that you're not a generous or giving person - I was just pointing out that we have no way of knowing whether you would have donated regardless of seeing the post that annoyed you. I think that you should go with your gut and donate anyhow :)
We'll have to agree to disagree, it's not obvious to me whether that guy his a chip - but in fairness I will always side with those less well off rather than those who are more affluent because all other things being equal that is the fair way to balance the inequalities in this world.
It was not innocuous, it was crass and gauche. I was snorting in derision whilst reading it and was very glad and not at all surprised that it was responded to strongly.
Middle class in the US (I presume you're from the US) is far beyond the reach of most of the world, when will you begin to learn this? I'm from Ireland where we as a nation only recently became affluent, maybe this colors things somewhat. Look, I have no issue with you but it's easier to rub shoulders with other people from vastly different backgrounds due to the decentralized open nature of the Net and maybe we should all remember that :)
Second, the word "innocuous" means "harmless", not "not intended to offend".
It's quite obvious that the original comment was not intended to offend anyone. The guy who made it was probably oblivious to its potential offensiveness.
But that doesn't mean it was harmless. He was basically advocating making bribery easier, which is not only offensive to many people (no matter what his intentions were), but could very well make the world worse if people start acting to make what he's advocating a reality.
That said, kudos to your volunteering efforts and donations. More people should follow your example.
Wow, I'm sorry you found my comments so offensive and insensitive (and for pseudo-hijacking). I understand this community to enjoy discussing hacks, both computer and non-computer related, and the underground world of tipping is one of the more mysterious and fascinating classes of hacks in my eyes.
What I'm requesting actually isn't so different from what the authors of this site ultimately want; more transparency and widespread knowledge of common bribes. Once everything is out in the open, establishments can either explicitly offer the higher priced solution, or the public outcry can be strong enough to put an end to such practices.
For example, I'd be all for a priority queue at the taxi stand for people with real emergencies. I'm a bit more iffy on express lines at Disney World or restaurants, and I'm guessing very few people would approve of an express list for kidney donations.
Actually I'm in favour of a free market for kidneys. Some folks have two kidneys and need money. Some folks have no kidneys and plenty of money. We shouldn't forbid them from figuring this one out.
You left out the people with no kidneys and no money. They are the reason people frown on selling organs. (That, and the question of whether all the donors would actually be voluntary.)
They're in need of charity regardless; allowing compensation doesn't change that, and would likely make the required charity less expensive by increasing the supply.
I could possibly obtain many kidneys, in return for plenty of money. In fact, I believe this is the whole point of not having a free market for body parts.
What? That some folks might start buying 'em (very expensively, the transplant surgery alone is tens of thousands) to throw away just for shits and giggles? I'd say that's the least problem with a free market for kidneys.
Tipping low-wage customer service workers for unadvertised services and favours is now some sort of evil "class" issue that indicates greed and corruption?
Do you get mad when other diners at your favourite restaurant tip better than you and get friendlier service for their trouble?
I have to agree with guelo. The services you describe are unadvertised for a reason. You're effectively asking someone from a lower class to possibly break the law (by getting paid under the table, and presumably not reporting the additional income) and possibly get into trouble with their employer because they want your extra money. If that's not a class issue, what is?
Every scenario he described involves people who already make money from tips. If they underreport their tips, that's their own issue. I've read experimental reports from people attempting to bypass social conventions by means of $20 bills, and it only works when the bribee's job and legal status are not on the line.
I'm guessing that bypassing social conventions is where most of the outrage comes from. Queueing etiquette is something sacred; defectors face strong social punishment. Seems wrong to have someone taking something that's yours--your place in line--simply by having more money.
But queueing is just a non-monetary rationing system for a slightly scarce resource that most people don't care enough to pay for. It'd be fairer if everyone waiting participated in an auction for places in line, and the proceeds were distributed evenly, but unless you care enough to set that system up I think the moral outrage against people who buy the front position directly from the coordinator(s) of the queue is misplaced.
To cite one example, the Alton Towers theme park in the UK has a ticketing system that allows you to pay more for "fast track" tickets.
Fast track tickets allow you to join a separate queue. The number of fast track tickets available are limited so the queues remain very short, and actual boarding of each ride is controlled so it is never dominated by fast track ticket holders.
The fast track ticket prices vary depending on which rides they are usable on, and how many times you can re-use them.
The system seems to work very well. Those who assign a high value to getting on every ride can opt to pay the extra for a more intense day. Those who are happy with the slow pace of a day out with some queueing can still afford the regular priced tickets.
There doesn't seem to be any moral or social stigma attached to those using the fast track system, but I think part of the reason is that it is perceived as fair, and everyone has the option to participate if they choose.
"it is perceived as fair, and everyone has the option to participate if they choose."
But why doesn't everyone choose to do so? After all, it would mean a shorter wait, and who wouldn't want that?
Could it be that not everyone can afford to use the system? Is this really fair? And how do you know that it's "perceived as fair"? By whom? How many people who are waiting in the slow line have you surveyed?
"But why doesn't everyone choose to do so? After all, it would mean a shorter wait, and who wouldn't want that?"
I see it as a trade off.
Lets say you are in a queue that is 2 hours long. You are offered the opportunity to half your queue time for £5, and you can pay multiple times to repeatedly half your queuing time as many times as you want. How many times will you pay the £5 for an ever decreasing return?
There is a trade off here between queueing time and cost. Regardless of your available wealth you won't repeat the payment indefinitely. Internally you assign a value to your lost time, and you trade that against the value of the payment you are willing to make.
The balancing point of the trade off depends on your personal circumstances, availability of monetary wealth and your desired goals.
The fast track system builds the same trade off. The more you are willing to pay the more reduction in wait times you can get, but the higher up the scale you go, the smaller the gain becomes, and there are a range of available ticket types that target different goals (Multiple use, certain rides only, single use, booked time slots, etc). Each user can trade off money against queue time to maximise their goals.
It's fair because all of the available options are clearly documented and made available to everyone indiscriminately. The choice is yours to trade money for time.
It's also fair because those who don't assign high value to the trade off are protected in some way. Fast track tickets are limited in quantity, so most people have to queue, there is not a situation where 10% get stuck waiting exponentially longer. 90% have the same queue, and only the 10% who assign the highest value to the trade off can receive the benefits.
Just because some people can't afford something doesn't make it unfair. I can't afford a Ferrari, but that isn't unfair.
"By whom?"
By me. ;-)
Seriously though, while I have witnessed people cutting into lines unfairly and arguments starting in many other situations I have never seen a confrontation due to the fast track ticket system.
(Perhaps this is because it is sanctioned by the organisation so maybe people just grumble silently in this case, who knows)
They're not even bypassing social conventions. If they were, people would refuse to take the tips. The $20 tip itself is a social convention, even though not talking about it is also a social convention.
(No, seriously, I've worked in jobs where it's socially acceptable to get tipped. Unless you're a waitress that makes less than a minimum wage, nobody reports tips.)
True but that doesn't make this statement from the GP any less ridiculous: "You're effectively asking someone from a lower class to possibly break the law".
I know of waiters/waitresses that don't report all of their tips. Do we now say that tipping them is asking them to break the law? Of course not because that's their responsibility, not your's or mine. We're certainly not stopping them.
I mostly disagree there too (at least in the US). Tipping is so ingrained in American culture that I don't think you can put the burden on the tipper to know that doing so can get someone in trouble with their employer.
Just as it's their responsibility to report the income, it's their responsibility to inform the tipper that they cannot accept and, if they want to explain, tell them that it could get them in trouble.
Persistence with that knowledge is unacceptable but that's another matter.
I accidentally conflated tipping and bribing. I feel tipping is acceptable in certain narrowly defined and publicly acknowledged circumstances, whereas bribing is almost always wrong. I also feel there isn't a sharp distinction between the two.
>Tipping low-wage customer service workers for unadvertised services and favours is now some sort of evil "class" issue that indicates greed and corruption?
It is absolutely corruption. There is no question about it.
Sure, the corruption is from a less powerful position, but the morals and outcomes are largely the same: Someone is selling privileges they have no right to sell, and the same mentality is the mentality that allows corruption in public office.
"Do you get mad when other diners at your favourite restaurant tip better than you and get friendlier service for their trouble?"
What a terrible example. Tipping occurs at the end of the transaction, and is intended as a reward for good service. If you had to pay the server before getting served, and it decided the level of care and concern you would get, I am quite confident that it would be forcefully abolished by every restaurant immediately.
It works that way when you order pizza online with a credit card.
Since you enter the tip in advance the driver knows it. A bigger tip upfront (yes, you can still tip with cash) gets you a faster pizza, nicer service, and occasionally additional perks like extra sauces, etc.
That would seem to me to be beside the point: Buying favours requires some form of capital, which is more available to some classes than others. If you don't have any, you can't buy favours from any class - your own or otherwise.
Are you saying that having less money than someone else puts you in a lower class in society? Or are you saying that being in a higher class makes money more accessible, somehow?
I can, for example, give 100 bucks to a friend to do my homework, and he might accept and do my homework even though he has more money than me. Trading money for favors is not necessarily a measure of wealth, and wealth does not preclude asking/providing any kind of favors
That's not trading money for favors, that's employing someone. If you give 100 bucks to the teacher to ignore the fact that you don't do your homework, that's trading money for favors.
You can see it however you like, however you're completely missing the point. If you pay 100 bucks to a teacher to look the other way while you're living on ramen and have 300 bucks in your savings account, while your professor has say 20k in his checking account and property to his name, who's wealthier or upper class? The point I was making is that trading money for favors is not some exclusive power only the wealthy/upper-class does to the not-wealthy/lower-class.
Ahhh that's a whole different enchilada! If you told me that bribery in which money changes hands generally has a higher incidence when the briber is significantly wealthier than the bribee and can provide a monetary amount worth while for the party accepting the bribe, I would definitely have to agree with you.
A valet parking employee might get 'bribes' from different people to fetch their car first in the queue, such people might be DHH waiting for his custom Zonda HH (and giving the valet a 50), me waiting for my 335i (and giving the valet a 10 dollar bill), or the dude next to me that earns as much as the valet waiting for his Corolla (giving the valet a 5 dollar bill). The catch is that to bribe people with money, you need to have money to 'throw away' so to speak. Any one with sufficient disposable income can bribe a valet, and most that can actually do in some way or another, but how do the car and money less bribe a valet and why should they since they don't have a car anyways?
You're forgetting that the people that are being "greased" are those same "others." I've worked as a server, a host, and a valet, and I would have been very grateful to make an extra $10-20 here and there. In a way, the rich are subsidizing the income of the service employees and making the dining (or whatever) experience more affordable for everyone else.
It might be regarded as ill-mannered to hijack a thread about a serious subject that affects the lives billions with your thoughts on a subject that mildly inconveniences the relatively well-off..?
I was hoping it was a site where everyday folks share their stories about when it helps to give a nice tip or innocently grease a few palms.
Well known cases would be the "$20 trick" you give to the hotel clerk to get a free room upgrade. Once during an airport emergency, I gave two $10 bills to the bellhop to cut the long line at my hotel taxi stand (the bellhop keeps one $10 bill and gives the other to the taxi stand valet guy, who waved us into the next cab).
I remember seeing on Friends that you can shorten your restaurant wait times by giving money to the hostess, and the book Doormen claims you can get lots of perks by over-tipping your doormen. What I need is a menu of all such extra services that can be achieved and the average cost / success rate, so I minimize the chances of looking like an idiot.