Which is likely incorrect. Suppose currently a meal costs 20, and the average tip is 15%, so that the customer pays 23. This means that the restaurant knows that customer is willing to pay 23 for a meal.
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.
>but the prices would also be commensurately higher.
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.
The purpose of VC funding is not to reach profitability. It’s the reach an “exit” - usually via an acquisition or occasionally via an IPO.
But out of the literally thousands of companies that YC has funded, only about a dozen have gone public and out of those, if you had invested equally when they IPOd, you would have lost about 50% of your investment.
