"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."<p>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.
Tongue in cheek, but this a good analogy for transaction costs and signaling theory.<p>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 <i>Splash</i>.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
<p><pre><code> you may well prefer “the first bite of sole meuniere” to “the 20th bite of ribeye,”
</code></pre>
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 <i>ever</i> gotten bored of something while I was eating it.
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.<p>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.<p>My wife and I fall in the "weird diet" and "allergies" bins (which more determines the restaurant), but we share bites occasionally.
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.<p>Over 50% of the time she asks to switch plates.<p>Works for us.
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.
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.
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.
This is of course missing the "developmental aid" approach: One partner orders all dishes, and the other smiles and likes whatever leftovers they get.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.<p>Shortcut: type <i>DINE</i> and hit <GO><p>Preview: <a href="https://www.bloombergbriefs.com/reserve/" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloombergbriefs.com/reserve/</a>