SkyTrooper

I actually dropped the term "tip" in favor of "fee" a while ago. Right now I would define "driver's tip" as "a fee payed to a pizza delivery driver by a customer that is a certain percentage of the written bill, contingent on the performance of the driver in the areas of cleanliness, friendliness, and timeliness as judged by the customer. The fee is so notorious in the US that the agreement to pay the fee by the customer is implied when he orders a pizza for delivery." I don't think so, if I were making a legal case I would have to find a precedent where a driver sued a customer who did not "tip" him even though his service was excellent. No I'm not saying that at all. You are confusing "custom" with "implied contract by custom." Example of a Custom Some guy thinks it would be nice to hold the door open for girls, so he does. Someone else sees it and does it too. 100 years later, it has become a Custom. You have never agreed to do this, so you have no legal or moral obligation to open doors for girls. Example of an Implied Contract Established by Custom Someone invents the horse drawn carriage and gets the bright idea to use it to transport people from one place to another, and charge them money for it. The first person to try this has to ask "what are you selling?", "how much per trip?", "will you pick up other customers on the way?", "will you agree to take me there by the shortest route possible?", "will you agree not to stop off and grab a few drinks at the Saloon while I wait?", etc. 1,500 years later all these things have been sorted out. Now you just have to jump in a cab and say "25th and State please." You can be reasonably expected to know what the contract is when you get in the cab even though you haven't discussed it with the cab driver, so you can't feign ignorance about what you were agreeing to by getting in the cab and requesting a destination. For something where significant time and money is involved, criminals will occasionally attempt to feign ignorance anyway and these things will be brought to court, where they gain recognition by law. I hope my explanation on the difference between a custom and an implied contract by custom shows you why you are wrong about this. You can argue that the current objective criteria I am working with for an implied contract is wrong, or that a payment to a delivery driver does not meet the criteria, but I am getting tired of responding to the claim that there is no such entity. Your attack goes beyond 'A=B' to the realm of 'A does not exist.' I am certain that there is a such entity as an "implied contract" and that you can choose to enter into one. Before I debate if the criteria is correct or if a payment to the delivery driver meets the criteria, I want you to concede that an "implied contract" can actually exist. Otherwise I am just wasting my time. This observation of yours should seriously clue you into the fact that there is something going on that you are missing. If there was no agreement to pay the driver for bringing you the pizza in a timely manner, why would they break traffic laws to get it to you? If you get your pizza four hours after you order, what recourse do you have? I submit that someone who will be equally satisfied with a pizza delivered hours after he ordered by an unkempt employee with a rude demeanor and by a pizza delivered 30 minutes after he ordered by a competent and productive employee should not order a pizza for delivery under the current conditions in the US. If you can find a local pizza parlor that will guarantee delivery in 30 minutes and tell you that "the driver's payment is included in the price" than you should take your business there.

I thought you were arguing that there is no such term as an implied agreement, and that what I was arguing for was properly characterized as an "implied contract." When you said that an implied contract that establishes a payment to the driver fails at the "certain" criteria (it will not always happen). I argued that the times it did not happen were due to either people knowingly breaking the contract (criminals) and people coming up with complicated reasoning against paying the driver (philosophers who have made logical errors). I was under the impression that all of our argument boiled down to the difference between and "implied agreement" and an "implied contract." An "implied agreement" is apparently different, and when I agreed to argue instead for an "implied contract" you took off.

Consider it withdrawn for now. Defeat this first, http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141935 and we can get back to the other issue later if you want.

I think a discussion based on this: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141935 Will lead to either me finding out about some irrational premise I have or you finding out about one, which will resolve this in the most timely manner. I still think that intentionally seeking out irrational people in order to profit from them is a form of personal subjectivism (eg. Machiavelli, Nietzsche). I'm unsure exactly why, but I'm willing to give you the point until we come to a conclusion about the tipping question.

Sorry, I simply lost track of all the arguments I was engaged in. I'll reply to that post out of courtesy, but my thinking on this topic has evolved since. This reflects a good summary of my current reasoning: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141935 I'm still not sure that what you're saying here is true, but its not part of my current argument. Although it is true that it would be ridiculous to have to go on morningstar and pull up balance sheets every time you go buy a coke, you are still responsible if you do business with a company that is clearly exploiting employees. Buying a stereo that is stolen or slave cotton or conflict diamonds is wrong. If the employee was being lied to in order to deliver the pizza, I think you would also be wrong. I think you are only responsible if: 1) You know that he believes that he will be payed if he delivers to you 2) You decide to have him deliver to you anyway, knowing what contract he believes he is entering into More generally, you are only responsible for an implied contract if: 1) The implied contracts meets the objective criteria for an implied contract (notorious, certain, legal, and reasonable) 2) You have entered into the implied contract of your own volition Your wording is wrong. Can you say in a situation where you are gaining value at the expense of someone else that you are the victim. When the driver looses money due to his belief, and you say it is his own fault, you are blaming the victim. Clearly there are cases where we can blame the victim, particularly if their problems are a result of their own irrationality (eg. if one of the Jackass guys was killed in one of his stunts). I'm still not sure about this, since although I might gain from the irrationality of others I do not generally wake up in the morning saying "I wonder what sucker I'll benefit from today?" Isn't one of the principles of economics that rational people benefit one another through trade? So I'll touch on each of those examples 1) I have never bought a Japanese car, and wouldn't want one. 2) I buy stocks as a value investor meaning I buy companies that I do the work to evaluate that they are good. Basically I use a modified version of Graham's approach, which I do not believe relies on the irrationality of the market. Its proved fairly profitable so far. 3) The clearance question is an operations management question, but I don't think that owners act irrationally by overstocking. They are merely being lazy in not calculating out the correct quantities of stock by using just in time stocking. 4) I think zero percent credit cards are actually an example of the problems involved in trying to exploit the irrational. The credit card companies expect that they are going to sucker in enough customers to stay until the 12 month zero interest period ends to make a profit, but it backfires on them. 5) The pizza coupon is an example of "discount pricing." This is the same as on airlines when the person next to you gets the same seat as you for less because he booked early. Companies want to sell all their products, so will sell for less to the people most willing to work for it and "clip coupons" who would normally not buy their product at all. I can explain more but I'll have to bust out an econ textbook. I know that is cursory treatment of the examples. If you want to focus on just one we can discuss it further. So your summary of the psychology of a delivery driver is "who can I sucker into tipping me today? There are sure enough irrational suckers around for me to compensate for the Inspectors of the world!" Let me know if I am reading you wrong here. I think this is fundamentally wrong. All the delivery drivers I knew were rather intelligent, competent people. They liked driving their cars and interacting with customers and simply wanted to trade their work for money. I'll drop the rest of the discussion about trading value for value, because its not relevant to the current argument. Edit: fixed spelling and grammer

It's subtle but essential difference. If the customer judges that the service was bad so does not tip, I have no issue with that. If the customer judges that the service was good and tips 10%, I have no issue with that. My issue comes in when the customer judges that the service was good and tips nothing.

Objective criteria for what? I'm not sure what I am missing that you want me to address. This is a summary of my current argument: When the customer decides to order a pizza the parties involved are the Customer, the Driver, and the Owner. 1) A contract defines the conditions under which two parties are willing to trade value 2) From the nature of (1), there is such an entity as an "implied contract" (a contract which is understood by both parties but not stated) 3) A custom is a practice followed by people of a particular group or region. 4) From the nature of (2) and (3), an "implied contract by custom" can be established which is a contract that has been used in a particular group or region so many times that the contract is mutually understood, but not stated 5) Possible objective criteria for a contract to qualify as "implied" are that it must be notorious (well known), certain (will always occur), legal (not involving an illegal act), and reasonable 6) "Pizza Delivery" is the act of having Pizza delivered from elsewhere to the door of the Customer 7) From (4) and (6), "Pizza Delivery" has occurred so many times in the US that it has become a partially stated agreement and partially an "implied contract by custom" and meets the criteria of (5). 8) The form of (7) varies in the US, but generally the stated portion involves the payment for the pizza while the "implied contract by custom" involves the payment for the delivery, timeliness of the order, and the behavior of the driver. Under the "implied contract by custom" the Customer is given the privilege of determining if his expectations for the last three criteria have been met. 9) From (1) and (8): if the Driver fails to fulfill (8) he does not deserve his portion of the payment. If the customer does not pay the Driver's portion of the payment the driver cannot assume that he fulfilled the terms of (8) and take that portion of the payment by deception or force. If the customer dislikes the terms of (8) he should renegotiate the contract prior to entering into it.

Oh man. Yes "implied contract by custom" is a far better way to put it. I thought I was living on a different planet with objectivists decrying me as an apostate.

Let me bring you up to speed: And possible criteria for an "implied agreement established by custom." A common claim against an "implied agreement established by custom" is that it is not entered into by volition. I think this claim is untrue because people are aware of the custom, and are aware of what entering into it implies.

I apologize I'm having some difficulty keeping track with the several different discussions I seem to be having. My answer to "How is it in one's rational self-interest to tip?": My answer to "Explain how tipping furthers one's long term rational self-interests in life?" The question "show me the exact consequences of not tipping" is a Pragmatist's question, not an Objectivist's.

I'm actually confused now. I thought we were investigating the nature of the agreement that involves the Driver, the Owner, and the Customer. I hadn't considered the rest of the population except as it established the original implied agreement (which is in existence before the pizza place is built). In physics terms, I was thinking of other people as outside the system. Are they relevant? What positions are we actually holding? I have been saying that BaseballGenius cannot 'take' the tip (because it is unethical), and that if you are a customer and not planning on tipping you need to clarify that with the store (or you are acting unethically). I am also holding that the only things you "should" do are things that are ethical, by definition. Ethical meaning acting in your own rational self-interest. When people have said that you "should" tip the driver, but that ethics does not dictate that you "should", I have found that a baffling position to hold.

Does one example of someone being uncertain about the implied agreement mean that there is no such agreement? That seems to be what you are suggesting. Of Americans that do not believe they have agreed to tip a driver that delivers a pizza in a timely and courteous fashion, I would guess they are probably less than 1% of the population.

After discussing this for so long, I am prepared to advise exactly what baseball genius should do. I'm still not sure what to advise the objectivists that are opposed to this particular implied agreement what they should do, except I know that if I had a problem with the agreement I would make it clear to the company I was ordering from. The following scenario illustrates my advised course of action for BaseballGenius. After some searching, Driver arrives at Customer's house. He gives Customer the pizza, the Customer signs the credit card slip and draws a line through the 'tip' section. DRIVER: “I’m sorry sir, were your expectations not met today?” CUSTOMER: “What? No, your service was excellent!” DRIVER: “Oh, well people usually tip if we provide good service. Its how we make our money, you see we drive our own cars and pay for our own gas.” CUSTOMER: “I see… I don’t actually ever tip, I think of it as an outdated byzantine custom.” DRIVER: “Well ok then, have a good day sir.” The driver returns to the store. DRIVER: “Excuse me Sir, the man at 3351 Oak says that he will never tip a delivery driver.” OWNER: “Does he?” DRIVER: “Yes Sir. OWNER: “Are you sure you just didn’t meet his expectations?” DRIVER: “I’m certain Sir, he told me that he would never tip a driver under any circumstances.” OWNER: “Interesting.” DRIVER: “I would like to not be assigned deliveries to that address anymore, and to have a comment added to his account so that drivers know that they will not be tipped if they go there.” OWNER: “You are employed to deliver to anyone I tell you to, regardless of whether they tip or not.” DRIVER: “With all due respect Sir, but because of the depreciation on my car and the cost of gas, if I am not paid tips when I deliver pizzas I do not even break even based on what you are paying me.” OWNER: “You can deliver pizzas to that address, or you can quit.” DRIVER: “Than I will quit Sir. If you can hire an employee to deliver pizzas at a loss to himself you are free to do so. Personally, I would not want foolish employees working for me.” OWNER: “You make a good point. If the customer has said he will never tip, than I will charge that customer an additional delivery fee that is 15% of the bill and give that fee to you. However, if he offers to tip you than you must refuse to accept the money.” DRIVER: “I think that is fair, Sir.”

I mean to say that if he provides good service he can expect anything from 10%-20%, and that if he provides mediocre service he can expect less than 10% or nothing at all. I can be certain that this will occur unless he runs into someone who has rejected the implied agreement he entered into but has not informed anyone. If there is circularity involved here, I am not aware of it. Please expand on that.

a. notorious - I assume this means well known b. certain - I assume this means can be expected to always occur c. legal - you can't claim illegal acts of custom d. reasonable Would the following agreement meet all the criteria for an implied agreement? "The driver will bring the customer the pizza in a timely manner. The driver will be nice to the customer and will make the customer feel comfortable when he pays for the pizza. The pizza will be warm and the driver will check before leaving the store that the pizza is in good condition. If the driver does all of these things than he will be given a fee 'the tip' that is 10%-20% of the bill. If the driver does not do these things than the customer can choose not to pay 'the tip'. If the driver does some of these things but not all of them the customer can choose to pay less than 10%. The customer will be trusted to evaluate if these criteria have been met." I think this meets criteria "b" in the United States, since we can reasonably expect that tipping will always occur when this agreement is fulfilled by the driver. When tipping does not occur the customer has either judged that all of the above criteria were not met or has come up with a complicated philosophical explanation that denies the existence of implied agreements. For these reasons, we can "assume this means can be expected to always occur." Edit: Note by the above agreement, which I consider to be most likely, baseballgenius is still wrong if he fills in the blank tip line on the credit card slip. He has agreed to allow the customer to evaluate if he has fulfilled the agreement.

Why? I've clearly shown how I came to my conclusions and you have ignored them. Than I show you why I disagree with your logic and you ignore that. I've addressed every point you've asked me to address. I think you have concluded that you live in a world where every low wage worker reads Marx and is out to exploit you're money from you, while I am a neo-Kantian out to support them. Like I've said I would much rather take your side since pragmatically it seems to save me money. However, objectively every argument I've seen so far seems to support that I should tip a delivery driver if they provide good service.

This is a helpful criteria. b seems an impossible requirement to meet for any implied agreement. In my experience it does not "fail miserably" since, although its been a while since I worked in a Pizza Hut, I remember the drivers complaining to me almost every time they did not get tipped (eg. "That bastard stiffed me!"). My usual questions were how long it took them to get the pizza there and if the driver had been friendly. On occasions when the cooks were significantly behind and pizzas were getting to the drivers late, the drivers did not complain to me about not being tipped even though they would ask each other "did you get tipped on the last run? No? That sucks." Drivers would in those cases prod the cooks into working faster or actually help the cooks make the pizzas. I think this shows that the nature of the implied agreement is that the drivers do not expect tips when they make mistakes or the food does not get to the customer on time.

Our misunderstanding was apparently in the assumption that you believed I was trying to prove that you should tip delivery drivers because you take cabs. I was providing support for the fact (which I took as self-evident) that an agreement can be implied and that the implied agreement can be established by custom. Note that although the form of the agreement is established by custom it is still mutually understood and only entered into by your own volition and the volition of the other party. I hope that helps. The rest of your post is legal discussion about Cab companies so I hope you understand why I am dismissing it. I defined "custom" and "implied agreement established by custom" a while back, but these alone may be insufficient. The answer to "who deserves tips and who doesn't?" will follow from the Identity of (1). All I know for certain is that pizza delivery guys are among them. What I noted first, and what led me into this train wreck of a discussion is that if you don't tip when you have a pizza delivered in the US the pizza driver is probably not making a profit: breaking even at best. This violates the "trader principle" of trading value for value, which violates the virtue of Honesty. This is actually not an Objectivist question, but a Pragmatist question. Its like forcing someone to prove what the effects of Marxism will be before seeing it in action. The exact effects cannot be known. Some brainstorming: (just brainstorming, not arguments!) I can note a time (when I was a pizza hut shift manager in high school) when I had a driver written up, who was ultimately fired, for filling in huge numbers in the blank "tip" line mentioned in the very first post.. and I'm certain a great many would not be caught doing so. Clearly a large charge on your credit card that you don't notice will not be in your rational self-interest. I'm also sure it can impact your reputation somehow since although you could probably break a written contract and not ultimately be sued, you will still be referred to as dishonest or in this case a "stiffer." Ultimately, since we are talking about a sum of about two dollars, this is like the prudent predator question "how is it against your rational self-interest to steal someone's Cheetos?" Edit: Split question 3 into two parts.

No. You have not provided support for (6), and (8) does not follow (7). The agreement between the owner and his driver states that the driver will be allowed to keep the tips that he can be reasonably expected to get. You have an implied agreement with the owner that you will be tipping his driver. As a waitress pointed out earlier in this thread, this implied agreement is not pulled out of thin air, since even the government allows waitresses to be paid less than minimum wage because tipping is so prevalent of an implied agreement. Your definition of "agreement" was the same that I was operating under. I dropped the wording "implicit" in favor of "implied" some time ago, but otherwise we are in agreement on what an "implicit agreement" is. Thank you for finally granting me points (1) and (2).

No. All cabs do not. Incidentally, you have completely evaded the purpose of the example. Would you like me to explain that example again? I was under the understanding that your seminal post on the topic was this: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141397 I addressed all these points, although I put my argument positively to avoid having things spiral into bickering. Your post boils down to: 1) The agreement is only between you and the owner 2) The agreement is completely explicit 3) Because of (1) and (2), any claim on an implied agreement is irrational exploitation of you Also included was your "history of tipping" which is founded completely on conjecture. Honestly after I read your post the first time I thought you might have had a reaction to Marx that has caused you to hold prejudices against low-level workers.

Obviously arguing from example is pointless if people don't feel like thinking about the examples. Yes in many places a rate is posted on the cab but in many places it is not. I've taken cabs in Mexico and abroad where it is definitely not. The other parts of the implied agreement between you and a cab driver that I mentioned were ignored by you for some reason. The point is that the vast majority of any agreements are actually implied. A custom is a practice followed by people of a particular group or region. Obviously you cannot be morally required to do something just because everyone else does it. This line of thinking would probably lead you to something ridiculous like the anti-concept of a Kantian "duty." An implied agreement established by custom is an agreement that has been transacted in a particular group or region so many times that most of the agreement is mutually understood, but not stated. This is actually rather convenient, because so many people have used this agreement that you don't have to negotiate every detail when you buy something. When you buy a car you don't have to ask "are the tires included?" When you mail a letter you don't have to ask "how long will it take to get there?" When you sit down at a restaurant you don't have to ask your server "am I expected to tip you if your service doesn't suck?" (at least, not until now) All the arguments against my Argument A, point (2) are baseless. There is a such thing as an implied agreement established by custom and at this point in this discussion you are engaged in some serious evasion if you deny this. My arguments are reproduced below for your convenience. I look forward to any responses.

You get in the Cab, you say "25th and State please" and the Cab Driver responds "Ok." Where is the agreement that you are paying for your ride? Where is the agreement that the Cab driver can't pick up another customer on the way? Where is the agreement that the Cab driver won't stop and do some grocery shopping on the way while you wait in the Car? Where is the agreement that the Cab driver won't do donuts in a parking lot? All of this is implied by custom.

At least we have clearly established the basis for our disagreement. Please explain why the Cab example, which you accepted as an example of "Action establishing an implied agreement" is different from ordering a pizza. How is the action of "ordering for delivery" different from the action of "getting in a cab and stating a destination"? It seems to me that the Cab ride agreement is both customary, that the meaning is established by custom, and that the action is "implied" or understood by the custom alone. This seems to go expressly against your statement Do you accept that my Cab example contradicts this statement (which you seemed to)? What about my other examples of implied agreements established by custom? Have you examined Argument B yet (it does not rest on Argument A)? I still feel fairly confident about my two arguments (summarized in post #172)

The reason that the employer can pay less than minimum wage (legally) is because there is legal recognition of the custom of tipping. Custom establishes that you tip a waitress (which I have argued) and the law recognizes that a waitress will make a certain amount in tips which will compensate for paying less than minimum wage. Now, I'm opposed to minimum wage law in general. However if the custom is so well established that even the law recognizes it than I don't see how you can continue to argue that you are unaware of it. This is further support for my "Argument A" in post #172.

I will respond to your points in a moment, but first I want to clear up my post #152 so you can be more clear what you are arguing against. I have made two arguments in that post that I feel have not been defeated. The relevant entities in the analysis are (you) the customer, the driver, the product and service, the payment, and the owner. When I said "implicit" before I meant "implied"; sorry about that I know its a significant difference. Argument A 1) There is such an entity as an "implied agreement" 2) An implied agreement can be established by custom 3) There is an agreement between you and the owner 4) "Pizza Delivery" occurs so often in the US that is has become a partially explicit (stated) agreement and partially implied 5) Ignoring the implied portion of the agreement constitutes a breach of (4) Argument B 1) Assume there is no such entity as "implied agreement" or that you have not entered into one 2) From (1) you have actually entered into an explicit (stated) agreement with the owner where you will be delivered pizza by an employee who will lose money by doing so (his costs will exceed his income) 3) No employee who is aware of (2) would willingly enter into it 4) By (2) and (3), the employee is not willingly delivering you a pizza 5) By (4), some sort of coercion is involved (force, dishonesty, etc) 6a) Assume coercion is not involved 7a) (5) and (6a) contradict, so (1) must be false 6b) from post #147, the owner of the business does not insulate you from the mechanism used to provide the services 7b) from (5) and (6b), you are acting unethically I hope that clears things up. You are denying Argument A, (1) and (2). I think I have addressed these sufficiently and I don't really have time to address them again right now. I will again in a later post. This is essentially Argument A, yes. This criticism of to the idea of an implied agreement established by custom is insufficient. You do not enter into this because everyone else does it, but because everyone else understands it. This is the "if everyone else jumped off a bridge would you?" argument. This is not an "if and only if" statement. Although doing something only because many other people do it is irrational, the fact that you are doing something that many other people do does not make it irrational. This conclusion only follows from your idea that "If and only if I am doing something that everyone else does, I am doing something irrational." I think by examining it you can see why that statement is wrong. You are debating Argument A, point (4). Obviously we can debate the identity of the agreement between you and the company in the US in circles, so before we embark on that please look at Argument B again. (The summary I put at the top of this post is only a guide, please reference my post #152) I think Ad Hominem is uncalled for. If you just want to "agree to disagree" I am fine with that, but I am fairly certain I am right about this. Edit: spelling