I really am glad the humanitarian side of the argument showing concern for the Mott 6th ladies' well-being is being considered, but nobody is discussing the consumer's side. 119 Liz (I have not been to the new place) had staff that was at least 10 and likely 20 years younger than at Mott 6th and you didn't have to use a sink for a bathroom. But their house fees were the same.
Some people are suggesting the all-in fees between these places should have been similar. But this is a terrible value proposition for customers. Yes, paying less at Mott might reduce income for staff, but this has been their business model for years. I have paid $60 all-in at Mott 6th and did not receive one eyeroll or hint of a frown. I'm not saying people should never pay more than that, tip what you want, but I shouldn't feel obligated to pay an inflated price because of how the workers might be affected. Do you feel this way when you buy a $5 footlong at Subway? Do you have second thoughts about buying any goods at rock bottom prices because of what the implications may be for the business?
Instead of arguing over tips, ask why a dump of a place offering GILFs had (and maybe still has) the same house fee as a less nasty place with younger women.