Comment by TMWNN

Yep. My favorite thing is when I am not even at a restaurant and I'm being asked to tip a retail worker making well above minimum wage. As a former bartender who made $2.65US an hour and relied on tips for my "paycheck" each week, seeing this new "tipping everyone" trend is like a slap in the face.

Bottom line, if your business can't afford to pay its people a living wage, then it can't afford to operate.

Yes, it's pretty common. It's also common for businesses where customers tip to underpay their employees on the expectation that they'll make it up with tips. It's legal to do this in many jurisdictions.

As an American, I wish we didn't do this, but it's a collective action problem that's very hard to solve.

One of the many reasons I left the USA. Too bad US-Americans are so used to tipping 20% they even do it when traveling... giving the rest of us a reputation as being suckers.

Yes, for nearly any restaurant this is the unspoken recommendation, and sometimes enforced automatically if your group is larger than 6-8. Source: I am an American.

When i read it now it is ridiculous how high the tip rate is. Yes 18-25% a lot of them tip on the taxed total bill which is bananas

I kid you not, majority of Americans (myself included) feel some level of guilt pushing the 15% button.

Yes, at least in NYC. And you get to tip in coffee places too, even when your coffee is to go. The card payment device (whatever they are called) gives you options such as 20%, 40%, 60% when you try to pay.

for some people it is. Maybe you'll become a believer when you realize that waiters wages are only around $2.35 an hour plus tips. Some states require that wait staff make -at least- federal minimum wage ($7.50? or so). Most do quite a bit better than that in all but the worst restaurant jobs. Not really a living wage tho. Some people do well on tips in upper crust restaurants, and often bartenders have enough turnover to do pretty well too.

In Canada, these days, even Subway expects a tip. It is insane.

Yeah the lowest option on some point of sale systems now is 20.

Sucrose is 50% fructose, 50% glucose. HFCS has from 42-55% fructose (there are grades), the rest being glucose (well some 25% of HFCS is water, but simplifying to the nutritive parts)

In the body it's literally all the same with minor variations in ratios. Indeed, the revered Mexican coke with cane sugar...the sucrose is broken down to component glucose and fructose in the acidic environment [1], exactly as happens with HFCS variants, and it would have been the moment it hit your digestive tract anyways.

There is zero scientific justification for the weird focus on HFCS. Yes, glucose and grossly excessive amounts of fructose are a serious problem. Especially in forms that rapidly get absorbed and go off like a glucose bomb -- our bodies are not adapted to the extremely rapid intake of glucose forms of food we eat now, including ultra-processed foods fill with refined carbs.

The #1 source of glucose in most diets is white breads, rices and so on. White flour is 60-80% starch, while white rice pushes 90% starch. Starch is strings of glucose molecules, and indeed enzymes turn that starch to free glucose almost immediately when eaten. So from a glucose perspective flour is much worse than an equal amount of sugar.

And of course nutritive sweeteners in all their forms should be avoided. But table sugar isn't more wholesome or better than HFCS.

[1] - Fun video about the sucrose in Mexican coke - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY66qpMFOYo

Interesting hypothesis, is it based on anything specific? I think refined/added sugars in general are probably something best avoided, but admittedly still eat plenty. The idea that one sugar is materially worse than another feels off, but I can't quite put my finger on why.

Not a chance that will happen, given the corn production of America. We have the most productive land in the world for growing maize, and Lord knows we’ll find shit to do with it.

You can avoid HFCS without any cost. Avoiding fluoridated city water is costly.

sugar is as bad for you as HFCS, avoid both except in small amounts. Your taste buds will adjust

I'm not sure you can use personal anecdotes to come to any conclusions about broad trends. To look at some actual data, I took the 2008 and 2024 election results and compared them with fluoridation rates. The split is pretty even:

The top 10 most fluoridated states went 5/5 Rep/Dem in 2008 and 6/4 Rep/Dem in 2024. These were Kentucky, Minnesota, Illinois, North Dakota, Virginia, Georgia, South Dakota, Maryland, Ohio, and South Carolina. Hardly a blue wall.

The bottom 10 least fluoridated states with 6/4 Rep/Dem in 2008 and 6/4 Rep/Dem in 2024. These were Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Louisiana, Alaska, Utah, New Hampshire, and Mississippi. Hardly a red wall.

The bottom three least fluoridated states are all hardcore blue: Hawaii, New Jersey, and Oregon.

I just don't see any evidence here that this has been a left-right polarized issue until this year. The distribution of fluoride by political leanings is just too random.

It's a great demonstration of the granola-to-libertarian pipeline. Jumping the gap in the horseshoe, so to speak.

Yeah fair call. There's always some edge cases which is why I'm not the one making public policy. Although I don't think they sell the policy very well. There would be other ways to spend money for better dental health, NZ really doesn't subsidize dental care much compared to European countries.