14 ms·

The Economics of Dining as a Couple

182 points by Turukawa 10y ago

forinti 10y ago
"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 10y ago
  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.
  - matthewowen 10y ago
    Do you have more information about that statistic (people who live together before marriage being more likely to divorce). It sounds so counterintuitive, and I'd be really interested to learn more about how they controlled for (eg) arranged marriages, or generally the covariance between stigma of divorce and stigma against living together before marriage. I think it's probable that they did control for these things... but it seems interesting.
    - chris_st 10y ago
      Here's an article with a couple of references to research: http://psych-your-mind.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-cohabitation-effect-consequences-of.html http://psych-your-mind.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-cohabitation... And a more recent one, with a lot more references: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/close-encounters/201504/should-you-think-twice-moving-in-partner https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/close-encounters/201504...
  - rayiner 10y ago
    The difference disappears when adjusting for age: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/should-couples-live-together-before-marriage http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/should-couples-l....
    - dmoy 10y ago
      Ah thanks, that is a very reasonable explanation which explains the (what I previously thought was weird) shift via age. Always interesting to see how easy it is to make faulty statistical inferences.
    - shoo 10y ago
      > 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 10y ago
        > 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.
  - grkvlt 10y ago
    So, you disagree with the more likely to divorce statement, then? Because your 'Look at it this way' points seem to be in favour of living together before marriage, suggesting it doesn't make divorce more likely. Or; have I misunderstood?
  - ryhamz 10y ago
    The kinds of people that don't co-habitate before marriage could easily have different qualities. i.e. There's one or more confounding variables. Unless it could somehow control for all these variables, I wouldn't be too convinced.
  - nilkn 10y ago
    > In fact, people who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce, not less. In addition to what others have said, using divorce rate as a metric of relationship success is itself a flawed method of looking at the problem. As an example, many folks consider divorce to be an immoral act. They would rather sit in an unhappy marriage for decades than get divorced. Thus, it could easily be that those willing to cohabit prior to marriage also tend to be those who do not think divorce is an immoral act, so that the statistical observation you're making here (assuming it's even true) is really just a reflection of the underlying beliefs of two different groups of people regarding the act of divorce.
- Perceval 10y ago
  Living together is no guarantee that a couple will discuss those things. The solution to the problem of not discussing things isn't to live together, it's to discuss those things.
  - Diederich 10y ago
    It's not a binary question. Living together produces all kinds of 'mundane' contact that dating doesn't, which can facilitate those possibly uncomfortable discussions. Those discussions are certainly possible without living together, but they are far more likely to happen if people do live together.
    - hueving 10y ago
      So the answer is still to discuss those things.
  - prawn 10y ago
    Instead of living together, travel together. Few things more than travel force you to make decisions together involving money, schedules, priorities and more. It's also easier to extricate yourself during or after a holiday than from a joint living arrangement.
    - ansible 10y ago
      Taking some trips together is good. I'd also recommend doing some projects together. Are you there type that likes to wing it, and your partner is the type to careful read the all the directions? You want to find out these sort of temperament issues before getting married.
      - icantdrive55 10y ago
        Bill Murry (actor) suggested taking a trip around the world before marriage. Yes, only the wealthy can think like this, but I will never forget what he said, and how he said it.
    - 10y ago
- ars 10y ago
  > If it doesn't work out, it's a whole lot easier to undo than a divorce. Are you sure? It seems to me the paperwork involved is a whole lot easier than the emotions involved. You aren't really saving much head/heart ache by living together first as a trial. It takes a lot less time, effort, and emotions to simply discuss the things first. Plus you can meet a lot more people in that time, vs living with each one as a trial.
  - superuser2 10y ago
    Spousal support isn't so much paperwork as a long-term standard of living cut.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    I'd suggest that discussions of finances, children, religion are not really "casual relationship" topics of conversations. If you're talking about having kids you're fairly involved at that point, and a subsequent breakup is going to have some level of pain. You might say "so is living together" but I know people who started living together just because they are already having sex so might as well combine finances on the rent and groceries and they don't really view it as a huge step.
  - ansible 10y ago
    Are you sure? It seems to me the paperwork involved is a whole lot easier than the emotions involved. You aren't really saving much head/heart ache by living together first as a trial. Not heart ache, but you'd be saving a lot of headaches by living together before marriage. Finances these days... retirement accounts, who paid what into the house... It can be a huge mess.
  - 35bge57dtjku 10y ago
    > Are you sure? Yes, probably by at least one trip to a lawyer and at least one trip to court, regardless of relative difficulty of dealing with the paperwork and the emotions.
- soperj 10y ago
  Kind of, until you consider common law marriage, which in this country at least(canada) can be just as messy. WHere I live, if you live with someone for 6 months, you're considered common law. I've had friends lose half their apartment over a break up.
  - aianus 10y ago
    Is it possible to sign a contract that you don't want to be common law married?
- bbayles 10y ago
  I'll advocate for: see a marriage counselor regularly! Before getting married if possible, and at least every couple of years after. Many people take more seriously the maintenance of their car than the maintenance of their marriage. There's nothing magic about what you'll learn, and a lot seems pretty elementary. But go before you have a problem! This is one of the best things my partner and I have done. We know that if we have an issue there's someone we can talk to for help, and because we go regularly there's no stigma with going.
- michaelsbradley 10y ago
  Or: work at having those discussions, even if it's difficult at first and less enjoyable than other activities together. Pray together, go to church together (yes, I realize not everyone prays and/or goes to church). Discover points of contention and find the time and will to discuss them in a manner that's constructive, even (or especially) if it takes several attempts. Make friends and spend time with married couples in various stages of their married lives: recently married, with infants and young children, mature couples with teenagers or whose kids have flown the nest. Be open to life, and encourage one another in the lifelong struggle to be less self-centered and more self-giving.
  - stbtrax 10y ago
    why not both? I know a few couples where one person often has their own place, but is never there. They keep it so they can technically say that they aren't living together with their SO. They're usually from a religious family and afraid of being judged by their relatives for 'living in sin'.
    - michaelsbradley 10y ago
      Some persons may have a sense that the faith tradition in which they were raised discourages cohabitation (e.g. considering it to be morally problematic), but: they're not sure why that's the case, they want to be with their SO, they wonder what's the best way to prepare for life together as a married couple (per the comment to which I replied originally). So, on the one hand, I encourage such persons to learn more about why their religion (and/or the religion of their parents) teaches what it teaches[+]. And on the other, to recognize that there are good ways to prepare for life together that don't involve cohabitation. [+] Catholic POV: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/marriage-preparation/cohabiting.cfm http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/m... [&] https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=397 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?rec... see also: Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related? https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6642 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?rec...
- digi_owl 10y ago
  The whole marriage/divorce thing is a artifact of history. It comes out of a time when keeping the paperwork to figure out inheritance was difficult to put it mildly. So instead one put on a formal event before witnesses. And because back then the line between government and religion was downright non-existing, the formal event was given a religious meaning. And so we have the mess we are still dealing with today...
  - gakada 10y ago
    Marriage and religion are both prehistoric. They are cultural universals, present wherever you look. The ubiquity of marriage across vastly disparate cultures means either that there's a strong force compelling all societies to develop it, or it's so old that we took it out of Africa with us.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > 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. In some ways, its harder, since one of the things legal marriage and divorce provides is default and orderly ways of assigning property rights and disentangling those things that have become entangled. Informal cohabitation and shared use of property without clear identification of ownership, gift status, etc., can only seem "easier" to resolve because its so difficult that its often not worth the effort to challenge whoever first effects a division of possession as the relationship collapses.
qwrusz 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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?
_nalply 10y ago
For Asians it's natural to share.
- keithpeter 10y ago
  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.
  - jwdunne 10y ago
    Part of the fun. Hell, I asked "wanna try some o' me steak for some o' yer pasta?" on the first date with my fiancée!
  - ghaff 10y ago
    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.
    - jghn 10y ago
      I feel like every new restaurant in Boston is of the small plates format. I figure it can't be a unique trend.
    - bradleyjg 10y ago
      I like to joke that tapas is Spanish for expensive.
    - Mikeb85 10y ago
      > 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.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Well that's 60 seconds I'm never getting back. Save yourself the read and split the bill - you're there to relax, chat, and eat, not conduct a financial game theory exercise. Or pay it all yourself and don't use a treat as a future argument weapon. How is this hard for people?
- s_kilk 10y ago
  Because people are nuts. I'll never understand this adversarial and combatative attitude towards relationships
  - thatsso1999 10y ago
    Adversarial? I don't believe you read the article. The article talked at length about why having an adversarial approach to dinner was a poor choice, and concluded with the idea that couples should practice 'full communism' at dinner, i.e., full cooperation when choosing the food and sharing it freely when it arrives.
- x0x0 10y ago
  The article wasn't about the bill at all. It was about sharing the food, and who chooses what items are ordered, and how to coordinate that so everyone ends up happier.
- sowbug 10y ago
  The article had nothing to do with money. Perhaps you read too fast.
- nlh 10y ago
  You're being downvoted because you clearly didn't read the article, despite your claim that you did. It's a funny post about how people order and share, not about bill-splitting.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    I didn't read the article? Sorry, I didn't notice you standing over my shoulder as I scrolled through a waste of time.
aristus 10y ago
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.
- swimfar 10y ago
  FOMO=fear of missing out, for anyone else who is wondering.
  - ourmandave 10y ago
    I thought it was F*-Other-Menu-Options.
    - hossbeast 10y ago
      I thought it was For Our Meal Only
  - tome 10y ago
    Thanks. I would have needed that explanation last week, but I'm currently experiencing the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon regarding "FOMO".
    - zeristor 10y ago
      Is this becoming the Inception of explanations? I had to look up Baader_Meinhof Phenomenon. "The illusion in which a word, a name, or other thing that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards (not to be confused with the recency illusion or selection bias). Colloquially, this illusion is known as the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Frequency_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Frequ...
hexane360 10y ago
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.
Normal_gaussian 10y ago
Who has a 20th bite of steak?
- R_haterade 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        A 10 ounce steak (~300 grams) will be one of the larger steaks on an awful lot of menus in the US.
        ksenzee 10y ago
        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.
siliconc0w 10y ago
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.
cesarbs 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    >just that trading is more likely to be beneficial than not. Only if you like to mix up your order.
frisco 10y ago
It seems like non-Matt Levine Bloomberg writers are trying a little too hard to be more like Matt Levine.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Megan McArdle has a long history of being Megan McArdle.
lpolovets 10y ago
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.
mnarayan01 10y ago
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 10y ago
  how dare you challenge the law of diminishing marginal utility?
- int_19h 10y ago
  You don't necessarily have to get outright bored of it, to have a desire to try something else when given a choice.
- vacri 10y ago
  You haven't tried my cooking yet :)
mark_l_watson 10y ago
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.
- hackuser 10y ago
  -1 TMI But I'm genuinely glad you guys are so happy in your private world that you didn't realize it.
  - sctb 10y ago
    Please don't comment like this here.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Sorry. I know we don't want even harmless jokes, but it is harmless and is one of very many on HN (I'm surprised this one got a moderator response, but whatever.) I'll try to control my urge next time.
chris_st 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    > 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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        >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.
        10y ago
gumby 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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.
ajnin 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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?
groby_b 10y ago
This is of course missing the "developmental aid" approach: One partner orders all dishes, and the other smiles and likes whatever leftovers they get.
fma 10y ago
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.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  It's a good way to dine. In western dining culture you'd call that 'family style' service, or tapas style (colloquial usage, not the original meaning of tapas). My wife and I always preferred this style of ordering because we can get a large variety of items, as well as have whatever portion we desire (some things I prefer so eat most of, and vice-versa). Heck, even when I go out with coworkers or friends, we usually dine like this. Good way to be social and sample variety.
- contingencies 10y ago
  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.).
mikelward 10y ago
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.
Mikeb85 10y ago
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.

182 points by Turukawa 10y ago

"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 10y ago
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.
- matthewowen 10y ago
  Do you have more information about that statistic (people who live together before marriage being more likely to divorce). It sounds so counterintuitive, and I'd be really interested to learn more about how they controlled for (eg) arranged marriages, or generally the covariance between stigma of divorce and stigma against living together before marriage. I think it's probable that they did control for these things... but it seems interesting.
  - chris_st 10y ago
    Here's an article with a couple of references to research: http://psych-your-mind.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-cohabitation-effect-consequences-of.html http://psych-your-mind.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-cohabitation... And a more recent one, with a lot more references: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/close-encounters/201504/should-you-think-twice-moving-in-partner https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/close-encounters/201504...
- rayiner 10y ago
  The difference disappears when adjusting for age: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/should-couples-live-together-before-marriage http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/should-couples-l....
  - dmoy 10y ago
    Ah thanks, that is a very reasonable explanation which explains the (what I previously thought was weird) shift via age. Always interesting to see how easy it is to make faulty statistical inferences.
  - shoo 10y ago
    > 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 10y ago
      > 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.
- grkvlt 10y ago
  So, you disagree with the more likely to divorce statement, then? Because your 'Look at it this way' points seem to be in favour of living together before marriage, suggesting it doesn't make divorce more likely. Or; have I misunderstood?
- ryhamz 10y ago
  The kinds of people that don't co-habitate before marriage could easily have different qualities. i.e. There's one or more confounding variables. Unless it could somehow control for all these variables, I wouldn't be too convinced.
- nilkn 10y ago
  > In fact, people who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce, not less. In addition to what others have said, using divorce rate as a metric of relationship success is itself a flawed method of looking at the problem. As an example, many folks consider divorce to be an immoral act. They would rather sit in an unhappy marriage for decades than get divorced. Thus, it could easily be that those willing to cohabit prior to marriage also tend to be those who do not think divorce is an immoral act, so that the statistical observation you're making here (assuming it's even true) is really just a reflection of the underlying beliefs of two different groups of people regarding the act of divorce.
Perceval 10y ago
Living together is no guarantee that a couple will discuss those things. The solution to the problem of not discussing things isn't to live together, it's to discuss those things.
- Diederich 10y ago
  It's not a binary question. Living together produces all kinds of 'mundane' contact that dating doesn't, which can facilitate those possibly uncomfortable discussions. Those discussions are certainly possible without living together, but they are far more likely to happen if people do live together.
  - hueving 10y ago
    So the answer is still to discuss those things.
- prawn 10y ago
  Instead of living together, travel together. Few things more than travel force you to make decisions together involving money, schedules, priorities and more. It's also easier to extricate yourself during or after a holiday than from a joint living arrangement.
  - ansible 10y ago
    Taking some trips together is good. I'd also recommend doing some projects together. Are you there type that likes to wing it, and your partner is the type to careful read the all the directions? You want to find out these sort of temperament issues before getting married.
    - icantdrive55 10y ago
      Bill Murry (actor) suggested taking a trip around the world before marriage. Yes, only the wealthy can think like this, but I will never forget what he said, and how he said it.
  - 10y ago
ars 10y ago
> If it doesn't work out, it's a whole lot easier to undo than a divorce. Are you sure? It seems to me the paperwork involved is a whole lot easier than the emotions involved. You aren't really saving much head/heart ache by living together first as a trial. It takes a lot less time, effort, and emotions to simply discuss the things first. Plus you can meet a lot more people in that time, vs living with each one as a trial.
- superuser2 10y ago
  Spousal support isn't so much paperwork as a long-term standard of living cut.
- ams6110 10y ago
  I'd suggest that discussions of finances, children, religion are not really "casual relationship" topics of conversations. If you're talking about having kids you're fairly involved at that point, and a subsequent breakup is going to have some level of pain. You might say "so is living together" but I know people who started living together just because they are already having sex so might as well combine finances on the rent and groceries and they don't really view it as a huge step.
- ansible 10y ago
  Are you sure? It seems to me the paperwork involved is a whole lot easier than the emotions involved. You aren't really saving much head/heart ache by living together first as a trial. Not heart ache, but you'd be saving a lot of headaches by living together before marriage. Finances these days... retirement accounts, who paid what into the house... It can be a huge mess.
- 35bge57dtjku 10y ago
  > Are you sure? Yes, probably by at least one trip to a lawyer and at least one trip to court, regardless of relative difficulty of dealing with the paperwork and the emotions.
soperj 10y ago
Kind of, until you consider common law marriage, which in this country at least(canada) can be just as messy. WHere I live, if you live with someone for 6 months, you're considered common law. I've had friends lose half their apartment over a break up.
- aianus 10y ago
  Is it possible to sign a contract that you don't want to be common law married?
bbayles 10y ago
I'll advocate for: see a marriage counselor regularly! Before getting married if possible, and at least every couple of years after. Many people take more seriously the maintenance of their car than the maintenance of their marriage. There's nothing magic about what you'll learn, and a lot seems pretty elementary. But go before you have a problem! This is one of the best things my partner and I have done. We know that if we have an issue there's someone we can talk to for help, and because we go regularly there's no stigma with going.
michaelsbradley 10y ago
Or: work at having those discussions, even if it's difficult at first and less enjoyable than other activities together. Pray together, go to church together (yes, I realize not everyone prays and/or goes to church). Discover points of contention and find the time and will to discuss them in a manner that's constructive, even (or especially) if it takes several attempts. Make friends and spend time with married couples in various stages of their married lives: recently married, with infants and young children, mature couples with teenagers or whose kids have flown the nest. Be open to life, and encourage one another in the lifelong struggle to be less self-centered and more self-giving.
- stbtrax 10y ago
  why not both? I know a few couples where one person often has their own place, but is never there. They keep it so they can technically say that they aren't living together with their SO. They're usually from a religious family and afraid of being judged by their relatives for 'living in sin'.
  - michaelsbradley 10y ago
    Some persons may have a sense that the faith tradition in which they were raised discourages cohabitation (e.g. considering it to be morally problematic), but: they're not sure why that's the case, they want to be with their SO, they wonder what's the best way to prepare for life together as a married couple (per the comment to which I replied originally). So, on the one hand, I encourage such persons to learn more about why their religion (and/or the religion of their parents) teaches what it teaches[+]. And on the other, to recognize that there are good ways to prepare for life together that don't involve cohabitation. [+] Catholic POV: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/marriage-preparation/cohabiting.cfm http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/m... [&] https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=397 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?rec... see also: Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related? https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6642 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?rec...
digi_owl 10y ago
The whole marriage/divorce thing is a artifact of history. It comes out of a time when keeping the paperwork to figure out inheritance was difficult to put it mildly. So instead one put on a formal event before witnesses. And because back then the line between government and religion was downright non-existing, the formal event was given a religious meaning. And so we have the mess we are still dealing with today...
- gakada 10y ago
  Marriage and religion are both prehistoric. They are cultural universals, present wherever you look. The ubiquity of marriage across vastly disparate cultures means either that there's a strong force compelling all societies to develop it, or it's so old that we took it out of Africa with us.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> 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. In some ways, its harder, since one of the things legal marriage and divorce provides is default and orderly ways of assigning property rights and disentangling those things that have become entangled. Informal cohabitation and shared use of property without clear identification of ownership, gift status, etc., can only seem "easier" to resolve because its so difficult that its often not worth the effort to challenge whoever first effects a division of possession as the relationship collapses.

qwrusz 10y ago

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 10y ago
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?

_nalply 10y ago

For Asians it's natural to share.

keithpeter 10y ago
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.
- jwdunne 10y ago
  Part of the fun. Hell, I asked "wanna try some o' me steak for some o' yer pasta?" on the first date with my fiancée!
- ghaff 10y ago
  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.
  - jghn 10y ago
    I feel like every new restaurant in Boston is of the small plates format. I figure it can't be a unique trend.
  - bradleyjg 10y ago
    I like to joke that tapas is Spanish for expensive.
  - Mikeb85 10y ago
    > 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.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Well that's 60 seconds I'm never getting back. Save yourself the read and split the bill - you're there to relax, chat, and eat, not conduct a financial game theory exercise. Or pay it all yourself and don't use a treat as a future argument weapon. How is this hard for people?

s_kilk 10y ago
Because people are nuts. I'll never understand this adversarial and combatative attitude towards relationships
- thatsso1999 10y ago
  Adversarial? I don't believe you read the article. The article talked at length about why having an adversarial approach to dinner was a poor choice, and concluded with the idea that couples should practice 'full communism' at dinner, i.e., full cooperation when choosing the food and sharing it freely when it arrives.
x0x0 10y ago
The article wasn't about the bill at all. It was about sharing the food, and who chooses what items are ordered, and how to coordinate that so everyone ends up happier.
sowbug 10y ago
The article had nothing to do with money. Perhaps you read too fast.
nlh 10y ago
You're being downvoted because you clearly didn't read the article, despite your claim that you did. It's a funny post about how people order and share, not about bill-splitting.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I didn't read the article? Sorry, I didn't notice you standing over my shoulder as I scrolled through a waste of time.

aristus 10y ago

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.

swimfar 10y ago
FOMO=fear of missing out, for anyone else who is wondering.
- ourmandave 10y ago
  I thought it was F*-Other-Menu-Options.
  - hossbeast 10y ago
    I thought it was For Our Meal Only
- tome 10y ago
  Thanks. I would have needed that explanation last week, but I'm currently experiencing the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon regarding "FOMO".
  - zeristor 10y ago
    Is this becoming the Inception of explanations? I had to look up Baader_Meinhof Phenomenon. "The illusion in which a word, a name, or other thing that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards (not to be confused with the recency illusion or selection bias). Colloquially, this illusion is known as the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Frequency_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Frequ...

hexane360 10y ago

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.

Normal_gaussian 10y ago

Who has a 20th bite of steak?

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

siliconc0w 10y ago

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.

cesarbs 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  >just that trading is more likely to be beneficial than not. Only if you like to mix up your order.

frisco 10y ago

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

maxerickson 10y ago
Megan McArdle has a long history of being Megan McArdle.

lpolovets 10y ago

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.

mnarayan01 10y ago

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 10y ago
how dare you challenge the law of diminishing marginal utility?
int_19h 10y ago
You don't necessarily have to get outright bored of it, to have a desire to try something else when given a choice.
vacri 10y ago
You haven't tried my cooking yet :)

mark_l_watson 10y ago

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.

hackuser 10y ago
-1 TMI But I'm genuinely glad you guys are so happy in your private world that you didn't realize it.
- sctb 10y ago
  Please don't comment like this here.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Sorry. I know we don't want even harmless jokes, but it is harmless and is one of very many on HN (I'm surprised this one got a moderator response, but whatever.) I'll try to control my urge next time.

chris_st 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  > 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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      >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.
      - 10y ago

gumby 10y ago

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 10y ago
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.

ajnin 10y ago

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 10y ago
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?

groby_b 10y ago

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

fma 10y ago

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.

Mikeb85 10y ago
It's a good way to dine. In western dining culture you'd call that 'family style' service, or tapas style (colloquial usage, not the original meaning of tapas). My wife and I always preferred this style of ordering because we can get a large variety of items, as well as have whatever portion we desire (some things I prefer so eat most of, and vice-versa). Heck, even when I go out with coworkers or friends, we usually dine like this. Good way to be social and sample variety.
contingencies 10y ago
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.).

mikelward 10y ago

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.

Mikeb85 10y ago

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.