To each according to his greed?

Wow, this is a slow weekend for news! Front page news in today's Inquirer involves the disappearance of an Alzheimer's patient (in February), and I am getting a little tired of the election.

So, I'll save a little steam and write about some personal stuff.

Twice in one week now, I have gone out to dinner with large groups of people and been annoyed by the same two things: Bush bashing and check splitting. While I doubt there's any connection between the two, I want to focus on check splitting, because there isn't much more to say about Bush bashing that hasn't been said repeatedly in the past three years. (Or, as Kerry would argue, four years.) It might be unfair that social niceties preclude Kerry bashing while promoting Bush bashing, but that's just the way it is around here....

Where it comes to check splitting, though, I'm a real victim. Doubly so, because I'm too nice to complain about it. I just pay my "share." But even there I'm wrong, for it's not my share!

What happens is a phenomenon documented in economic studies such as this: in any group of diners, there are always certain people who take advantage of the socialist, let's-split-this-evenly formula, and they'll order lots of expensive appetizers, upper-end entrees, desserts, coffee, etc. And if, like me, you're a light eater who can get by with a sandwich or a salad, you end up paying four times the price of what you had.

The most insufferable part of all is the drink tab! In most restaurants, this is an integral part of the total check, and so, naturally, the drinkers have the advantage over the non-drinkers. I don't drink, and not only that, I get impatient when I have to sit through long drunken celebrations, because I used to drink heavily and I had to quit (in 1996) for health reasons. It just galls me to see the prices restaurants charge for alcohol, and the cost of drinks often exceeds the food bill. To be asked to pay my "share" of a whole bunch of expensive drinks adds insult to injury. (And I'm in the process of quitting my blog-fueling tobacco, which makes things infinitely more agonizing.) Asking a non-drinker to pay for other people's drinks is about as fair as it would be to ask someone who merely sat at the table and had nothing while others ate dinner to pay his "share" of food eaten by others.

It has been argued that splitting the check in this manner gives people with less money a chance to order higher priced items they'd otherwise not be able to afford. Arnold Kling ridicules this idea by analogizing to socialized medicine:

Just as splitting the check at a restaurant tends to lead people to order more expensive meals than what they would order on their own, insulating individuals from the cost of health care decisions tends to make them less cost-conscious in their health care choices.
But hey, I'm liberal enough to split the food costs. Consensual socialized eating is occasionally acceptable. But socialized drinking? With non-drinkers forced to pay when they don't drink? Might as well make people chip in for the cost of after-dinner cigars even if they don't smoke and the smell makes them sick!

I suspect that some of this blog's readers have been in similar situations.

What is the etiquette?

Unfortunately, in a word, it's fuzzy:

it's hard to laugh when both your wallet and your sense of fairness have been offended. Especially with the ghastly new tradition of Birthday Parties Being Held at Pricey Restaurants. Based on the numerous interviews I conducted, I'd say these parties are responsible for at least 40% of check-splitting debacles. And at least two friendships grinding to a halt.

One friend described an event where the birthday person spontaneously ordered a few bottles of Champagne for the table. That was fine, until the check came and the host expected the guests not only to pay their share for dinner, but to foot the bill for the bubbly as well.

Another woman, who keeps a firm budget, told me she agreed to attend a friend's birthday dinner, under the impression that the friend was treating. She wasn't, and the tab came to $100 a person. "In one night I spent the equivalent of what I would normally spend in two weeks," she said. "I will never do that again."

The trouble is that it's hard to anticipate what events will unfold when the check arrives, even when it only involves a simple dinner with friends. How to handle a pal who has a penchant for picking places more pricey than you'd prefer? Can you chide friends who are chronically short of cash? Or always contribute less than they should?

If you've consumed significantly less than others at the table (a frequent problem for non-drinkers and vegetarians), should you be required to split the check? If you've consumed more, wouldn't good manners dictate that you should contribute accordingly -- and if you don't, are your friends allowed to beat you senseless?

The etiquette is so fuzzy, and everyone is so afraid to appear gauche, that these conflicts go unresolved and what should be a simple math problem becomes emotionally stressful and financially taxing.

The author (M.P. Dunleavey) does an excellent job of presenting the dilemma, but is a bit short of definitive conclusions, although she ends with advice from etiquette author Richard Sand (what to do if "someone had six drinks and you had none"):
....you should leave early and steal their umbrella.
Now why didn't I think of that?

posted by Eric on 08.01.04 at 12:16 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1240






Comments

Among my friends--all three of them--check-splitting means each person pays for what he ordered.

Alan Sullivan   ·  August 5, 2004 10:15 PM

Keep a general idea of what your bill (including tip & tax) should be, and round up by a couple of dollars. When the check arrives, throw down the proper amount in small bills, and start a loud conversation with someone at the other end of the table. If anyone asks for more, rummage but don't pony up. Then take back a single dollar from the pile. It never occurs to anyone that you'd have the nerve to take back money if you hadn't already put in too much.

Tina   ·  August 6, 2004 05:50 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits