Now, get rid of tipping. The restaurant will raise prices to 23 per meal. And instead of that 3 ending up in the waiter's pockets it will instead be split between the owner and the waiter. Most likely, the worker's wages will be likely suppressed down to minimum wage and the owner will get whatever remains of the 3.
You will need to do more interventions beyond removing tipping to ensure waiters get more than minimum wage.
If we assume that the restaurant owner pays the minimum possible wage out of the revenue, then the claim is correct.
No, the prices would be more transparent, not higher. You've made clear in other comments ITT that you believe tipping to be mandatory ("If you don't want to tip, don't dine at full-service restaurants in America"), which means you consider prices 15% or more higher then sticker price to already be the rule. Requiring that to be part of the advertised price instead of hidden is purely good for free market efficiency. Anything that isn't fully optional should be part of the advertised price. The employers and employees have superior information for correct decisions, and once a transaction (dining) has already been committed to a superior position of power as well.
And it is a horrendous argument.
You are literally actively arguing for greater inequality.
If a company can not cover their costs with their revenue, then they need to cease to exists.
And ofcause they need to pay fair market wages.
