
The Economics of Dining as a Couple - Turukawa
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-30/the-economics-of-dining-as-a-couple
======
forinti
"Marriage counselors tell us that couples frequently tie the knot without
discussing the core matters that can cement or sunder their marriage:
finances, children, religion."

Which is why people should live together before getting married. If it doesn't
work out, it's a whole lot easier to undo than a divorce.

~~~
chris_st
That's one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but turns out to work
out badly in practice.

In fact, people who live together before marriage are _more_ likely to
divorce, not less.

Look at it this way: you move in with someone you're in love with, but haven't
made a substantial commitment to. However, now you're sharing rent, utilities,
etc., and are monogamous in the sense that you're not dating anyone else.

Time passes, and you find you're not compatible... but all those side
commitments you've made become really hard to undo... and it looks easier to
just stay together.

On the other hand, if you're willing to take the time to ensure the
relationship is sound before marriage, you're more likely to stay that way.

~~~
rayiner
The difference disappears when adjusting for age:
[http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/should-
couples-l...](http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/should-couples-live-
together-before-marriage).

~~~
shoo
> There was still a slightly increased risk of divorce among cohabitors, but
> Kuperberg says this is explained by other factors. For instance, research
> shows that people who cohabit are more likely to have less education, more
> likely to have previously lived with another partner, and less likely to
> have lived with both parents as a child—all characteristics that put them at
> a higher risk of divorce to begin with.

Fascinating. I find the middle one pretty interesting: that "more likely to
have previously lived with another partner" is correlated with divorce.

Off the top of my head I can think of a number of possible explanations: some
people may never consider divorce for moral/religious reasons, some people may
be better or worse than others at entering into and maintaining long term
relationships, some people have learned from one or more prior experiences and
are less tolerant of bad relationships[0], etc.

[0] i'd like to believe it's largely this one, but maybe that's because i've
spent too much time reading relationship advice threads

~~~
dragonwriter
> For instance, research shows that people who cohabit are more likely to have
> less education, more likely to have previously lived with another partner

But that's not a separate factor. If the whole point of cohabiting is to _try
things out and provide an easier dissolution if they work_ , the higher risk
of cohabitors having cohabited with someone else before _isn 't_ orthogonal to
the decision to cohabitate, its _central_ to it.

------
aristus
Tongue in cheek, but this a good analogy for transaction costs and signaling
theory.

I drive my wife nuts by keeping my order secret, but eight times out of ten we
end up sharing everything. Unless she's eating a whole fried fish in which
case I just stare politely like Tom Hanks in _Splash_.

But damn, people, why let FOMO drive so much angst and gamesmanship at a meal?
You're hungry and probably not thinking straight. There's no dishonor in two
people ordering the same dish. Just pick something and stick to your guns.

~~~
YokoZar
Imagine you were ordering for yourself and the restaurant served half
portions. Would you really order two copies of the same thing?

Diminishing returns in food enjoyment are real, we also enjoy variety for it's
own sake. You get less of both when your order contains duplicates.

And that's when you know what you're getting -- if you share food, both people
ordering the same new dish increases the downside risks dramatically for
little upside benefit.

~~~
shostack
This. I wish every restaurant served small plates/samplers.

I consider myself somewhat of a foodie and can be a bit ADD with wanting to
try all the things.

So wherever we go to dinner I'm always trying to get things we can fully
share.

~~~
hueving
we would not get along. :)

I'm a picky eater and generally see one thing on the menu I really want.
Nothing bothers me more than when someone demands the table does family style
and I get 1/5th of what I wanted and 4/5ths of crap.

------
mark_l_watson
Nice article. My wife and I have a strategy. We usually eat at really nice
restaurants, but not the super expensive ones. We each order a main dish that
the other person also likes because we usually share 1/4 or 1/2 with the other
person. To save money so we can eat out more often, we tend to not get
appetizers. We don't drink alcohol which also saves a lot of money. Not
getting variety by sharing our main dish seems stupid, and we are quick and
tidy when we move food between plates. We tend to mostly just go to 4 or 5
local restaurants so it is nice to be known by the waiters and owner.

When I am with friends, no wife present, I like to order pretty much random
things from the menu and not get stuck in a rut.

Our best food strategy though is to cook at home because we both really enjoy
cooking. We eat out frequently, but it is almost always with friends or
family.

------
siliconc0w
Often I feel like the only reason i'm even invited is so I can order all the
unhealthy food my partner wants but is unwilling to order.

------
mnarayan01

      you may well prefer “the first bite of sole meuniere” to “the 20th bite of ribeye,”
    

seems to be a common theme in McArdle's articles on food, but for me it never
seems to be true. If I have the same thing day after day I'll get bored of it,
but I'm not sure that I've _ever_ gotten bored of something while I was eating
it.

~~~
gabrielgoh
how dare you challenge the law of diminishing marginal utility?

------
chris_st
Another useful economic choice, at least in the USA right now, is to only eat
half your order and save the rest for the next day's lunch or dinner.

I'd guess that the cost of food has not risen as much as the cost of labor,
and so in the last twenty years or so (again, in the USA) restaurants have
been giving out larger and larger meals, perhaps in hopes that you'll see them
as a better deal and eat there.

My wife and I fall in the "weird diet" and "allergies" bins (which more
determines the restaurant), but we share bites occasionally.

~~~
killbrad
Depends on the restaurant, but I'd agree - portion sizes in the US are huge
and usually enough for two meals.

The problem is that people tend to just eat it all because, well, it's there
(and I'll include myself in this bucket most of the time).

~~~
kalleboo
> The problem is that people tend to just eat it all because, well, it's there

And if you were raised with parents who always made you eat everything on your
plate, it's also physiologically embedded that you should eat everything.

~~~
maccard
Well you should; it's wasteful not to. But if you find yourself regularly not
eating portions you are makin for yourself, try makin smaller portions!

~~~
hueving
>Well you should; it's wasteful not to.

Not if it's putting you over your daily caloric limit. The damage being
overweight does to you (and society from healthcare burden) in the long term
is much worse than just throwing the food away.

~~~
maccard
If you're regularly throwing food away you should be buying less food.

~~~
hueving
The context of this thread was portion sizes at restaurants. US restaurants
tend to serve well north of a thousand calories for a single meal.

------
gumby
My experience of 25+ years (YMMV): I really don't care much what I eat at any
given meal so I just order what I think my wife really wants. If she orders
that, I order the next most likely dish.

Over 50% of the time she asks to switch plates.

Works for us.

~~~
honkhonkpants
21 years for me and this drives me crazy because 99% of the time I don't want
whatever thing she actually ordered. I want the thing I ordered that she
wants.

------
_nalply
For Asians it's natural to share.

~~~
keithpeter
Brits are getting used to tapas menus, and have been ordering a variety
'curries' to share in Indian restaurants for ages. We'll get there.

~~~
ghaff
I'm not sure tapas are becoming more common in the US but one does see a fair
number of them in large cities these days. I really do like the small plates
and, especially when I'm travelling, my eating schedule is often messed up
enough that I want something lighter.

My only objection to tapas is that they often seem like an excuse to charge
1/2 as much for 1/4-1/3 as much food. That's probably not completely fair as
there's probably less "filler" than a typical main has. In any case though I
find tapas meals tend to be on the pricey side.

~~~
Mikeb85
> My only objection to tapas is that they often seem like an excuse to charge
> 1/2 as much for 1/4-1/3 as much food.

It absolutely is. Also keep in mind that profit margins in restaurants are
razor-thin, and prices really should be higher (and they are getting higher in
reality).

On the plus side, tapas restaurants are usually 'gastronomic' restaurants, so
more effort is put into every dish than a typical meat + 3 veg main course.

~~~
hueving
>and prices really should be higher

What does that mean? I don't see how a price 'should' be anything.

------
lpolovets
Fun article. For my wife and me, she is picky about dishes and I am picky
about cuisines, so usually I pick the restaurant and then she picks two dishes
and we share. We can veto restaurants and dishes respectively, but vetoes are
relatively rare. And all of this is informal, of course.

------
hexane360
The article is pretty correct, and I like the comparison to trade and
countries. But I can't help but think that this is something that happens
naturally to a couple. I don't know many married couples that are stuck in
Stage 1, and I don't think it's a huge revolution to get to sharing two
entrees freely.

------
fma
How fitting that the author calls the 4th option Communism. In Chinese
culture, food is shared. Maybe not when you go out on a date - but if you are
dining out as an entire family, giant plates of food are ordered through
consensus of the table, placed on a lazy susan and everyone gets what they
desire.

~~~
contingencies
The lazy susan is more south-east Chinese; you can find it everywhere but it's
less common outside of the Fujian-Cantonese zone. It's also more common at big
banquets in private rooms rather than normal restaurants, where perhaps one or
two tables may feature it but others would have different fixtures or designs
(smaller, square, rectangle, hotpot or grill-style with a hole in the middle,
etc.).

------
groby_b
This is of course missing the "developmental aid" approach: One partner orders
all dishes, and the other smiles and likes whatever leftovers they get.

------
ajnin
I find it amusing that each dining strategy is associated with an economic
one, implying that they have similar advantages and inconvenients, except for
communism. Was suggesting that communism is a viable economic strategy a bit
too much for Bloomberg, even tongue-in-cheek ?

~~~
inimino
The progression of the article was from worst to best methods, and "full food
communism" was the last and best. What more were you looking for?

------
mikelward
Not presented as an option: ordering only one main/entrée to share. Hopefully
just because it was a humorous article, but with portion sizes in the US,
there's no need to each order an entrée.

------
cesarbs
Wife and I dine out as autarkies and have had no trouble with it so far. The
author seems to imply that the only reasonable thing there is is sharing
everything. I strongly disagree with that.

~~~
smallnamespace
The article is tongue in cheek, but the point isn't that autarkies are wrong,
just that trading is more likely to be beneficial than not.

~~~
hueving
>just that trading is more likely to be beneficial than not.

Only if you like to mix up your order.

------
Mikeb85
I love the humorous tone of the article. And I do like their final conclusion.
And yes, family-style dining really is a great way to eat out.

------
qwrusz
No comment on this "blog post" or whatever this is. But related fun fact: If
you/your company has a Bloomberg terminal, there's a relatively obscure
proprietary Bloomberg restaurant guide with reviews and ratings.

Shortcut: type _DINE_ and hit <GO>

Preview:
[https://www.bloombergbriefs.com/reserve/](https://www.bloombergbriefs.com/reserve/)

~~~
twic
Any idea if the data is theirs, or sourced from an existing restaurant guide?

Would anyone care to share an example of a review? For example, do they have
anything to say about Pétrus, in London?

------
Normal_gaussian
Who has a 20th bite of steak?

~~~
R_haterade
Someone who really wants to savor the steak.

Smaller bites and more chewing is so underrated. And you won't eat as much,
either, which is great if you're trying to control your weight.

It's hard to remember to do when you're hungry, though.

~~~
Normal_gaussian
I just looked up the sizes of steak...

It turns out that the steaks that my flatmates eat in a well balanced diet are
much smaller than most pictures I can find online.

I'll be honest, if my meal was so large that a 20th bite of something that was
a third of the plate was coming up I would be much more inclined to share my
plate than I am now.

~~~
Symbiote
Steak sold in supermarkets in Britain seems to be around 150-200g, though the
NHS recommends portions of under 100g of red meat.

Restaurants in the UK typically serve 225-400g.

American restaurants seem to serve between 300-600g (!).

~~~
maxerickson
A 10 ounce steak (~300 grams) will be one of the larger steaks on an awful lot
of menus in the US.

~~~
ksenzee
It depends on the restaurant. At a steakhouse, for example, you'll commonly
see quite large portions. There was a 24 oz prime rib on the menu at the
steakhouse I visited last week.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
My favorite: "Beef House" on the Illinois-Indiana border, Hwy 74. Its this
enormous rambling place, parking lot like a basketball arena. Menu is the size
of a newspaper page, with ribeyes of different sizes splashed across the
center of the page. From 8 to 20 oz. Tables have captain's chairs with wheels,
presumably so they can roll you out to your car after the meal.

~~~
unwind
This sounds like the place:
[http://beefhouserolls.com/](http://beefhouserolls.com/), menu online. :) The
20 oz ribeye is $42.35.

------
frisco
It seems like non-Matt Levine Bloomberg writers are trying a little too hard
to be more like Matt Levine.

~~~
maxerickson
Megan McArdle has a long history of being Megan McArdle.

