I have an even better idea. How about anyone who thinks this is even marginally interesting just leaves me out of their dinner plans.
There are only two ways to take care of the check. Either one person pays, or n people pay equally like the opening scene in American Psycho. Any sort of bookkeeping at the dinner table is really bad manners.
EDIT, more etiquette hints:
when looking at the check, make at most a quick glance. Ideally don't look at the check at all. If you can't trust them to prepare a check you probably shouldn't trust their cooking either.
How do you figure out who picks up the check?
- if you are dining with the boss, you're the one who pays
- if you're dining with customers, you're the one who pays
- if you're dining with your girlfriend and her female friends, you're the one who pays
- if you're the host in any sense, you're the one who pays
- if you're dining with students and you're the only one who has a job, you're the one who pays
- if you're the one who went deep on the wine list, you're the one who pays
There aren't many times that a check gets split, or any sort of turn-taking applies. For the most part, you're the one who pays.
- if you are dining with the boss, you're the one who pays ------ No unless you invited them.
- if you're dining with customers, you're the one who pays ----- Yes but hopefully your company reimburses you for that.
- if you're dining with your girlfriend and her female friends, you're the one who pays ----- Maybe in 1980's, in my experience most people want to go dutch nowadays.
- if you're the host in any sense, you're the one who pays ----- Yes but thats not the kind of situation that this would be used in.
- if you're dining with students and you're the only one who has a job, you're the one who pays ---- Only if you invited them. If you made plans for dinner and they couldn't afford it, they should have made it clear before going out.
- if you're the one who went deep on the wine list, you're the one who pays ----- If your the only one drinking wine, your doing it wrong.
Judging from the style of your writing, you seem oblivious to the fact that your list assumes very specific cultural context (hint: you are even assuming the gender and relationship status of the reader, how they call their partner, and very specific gender roles), and may be very debateable even within that context.
It's not so much that I'm oblivious, but rather that I think we're better off taking on responsibility than we are obsessively complicating things that can be simple.
When I was in college we had a sink full of dirty dishes until we had a rule to always wash one more dish than you dirtied. It worked even though the math major refused
to participate. The problem wasn't an individual free rider, the problem was that humans were involved, humans make mistakes, and the errors accumulated in the sink.
Paying more than your share is a good habit that has good effects elsewhere in your life. Can you fairly split all the little schleps among the founding team of a startup? Best results are obtained when each person does (what feels like) more than their share. Both members of a married couple should make (what feels like) more than their fair share of compromises.
As parents we'll make nothing but compromises and be repaid in resentment. But it's one of the most rewarding things we do in life.
Make a game out of finding ways to pay more than your share, sneak it past the anal retentives and militant obsessives. Extra points if they never notice. It's harder than you might think. But it's good practice for the rest of life.
Comments
I have an even better idea. How about anyone who thinks this is even marginally interesting just leaves me out of their dinner plans.
There are only two ways to take care of the check. Either one person pays, or n people pay equally like the opening scene in American Psycho. Any sort of bookkeeping at the dinner table is really bad manners.
EDIT, more etiquette hints:
when looking at the check, make at most a quick glance. Ideally don't look at the check at all. If you can't trust them to prepare a check you probably shouldn't trust their cooking either.
How do you figure out who picks up the check?
- if you are dining with the boss, you're the one who pays
- if you're dining with customers, you're the one who pays
- if you're dining with your girlfriend and her female friends, you're the one who pays
- if you're the host in any sense, you're the one who pays
- if you're dining with students and you're the only one who has a job, you're the one who pays
- if you're the one who went deep on the wine list, you're the one who pays
There aren't many times that a check gets split, or any sort of turn-taking applies. For the most part, you're the one who pays.
Going down the list:
- if you are dining with the boss, you're the one who pays ------ No unless you invited them. - if you're dining with customers, you're the one who pays ----- Yes but hopefully your company reimburses you for that. - if you're dining with your girlfriend and her female friends, you're the one who pays ----- Maybe in 1980's, in my experience most people want to go dutch nowadays. - if you're the host in any sense, you're the one who pays ----- Yes but thats not the kind of situation that this would be used in. - if you're dining with students and you're the only one who has a job, you're the one who pays ---- Only if you invited them. If you made plans for dinner and they couldn't afford it, they should have made it clear before going out. - if you're the one who went deep on the wine list, you're the one who pays ----- If your the only one drinking wine, your doing it wrong.
Such a debbie downer! Note that in this system one person does pay. Just that you play a little gambling game to determine who it is.
Do you think credit card roulette is bad manners? This is basically a fairer version of that.
The proposed method isn't bookkeeping. It sounds like it's closer to bookmaking!
Judging from the style of your writing, you seem oblivious to the fact that your list assumes very specific cultural context (hint: you are even assuming the gender and relationship status of the reader, how they call their partner, and very specific gender roles), and may be very debateable even within that context.
It's not so much that I'm oblivious, but rather that I think we're better off taking on responsibility than we are obsessively complicating things that can be simple.
When I was in college we had a sink full of dirty dishes until we had a rule to always wash one more dish than you dirtied. It worked even though the math major refused to participate. The problem wasn't an individual free rider, the problem was that humans were involved, humans make mistakes, and the errors accumulated in the sink.
Paying more than your share is a good habit that has good effects elsewhere in your life. Can you fairly split all the little schleps among the founding team of a startup? Best results are obtained when each person does (what feels like) more than their share. Both members of a married couple should make (what feels like) more than their fair share of compromises. As parents we'll make nothing but compromises and be repaid in resentment. But it's one of the most rewarding things we do in life.
Make a game out of finding ways to pay more than your share, sneak it past the anal retentives and militant obsessives. Extra points if they never notice. It's harder than you might think. But it's good practice for the rest of life.
if you're dining with your girlfriend and her female friends, you're the one who pays
"Hmm, why do my date nights get bigger and bigger? Last time we had ten of her friends show up!"
God damn, I wish my friends/acquaintances were more like you. I would be eating out all the time!!