8 ms·

I'll be off topic I'm afraid but I did want to share my perspective on this. I've lived in two cultures - one where people split the bill and one where one pers

I'll be off topic I'm afraid but I did want to share my perspective on this. I've lived in two cultures - one where people split the bill and one where one person just pays for it and someone else does the next time and so on. I much prefer the latter approach and among well meaning people, it is hassle free. I believe this is so because on the long run, the differences don't add up to much. I think, in some way, for me, it "shows more acceptance". I noticed that in the "split accurately" way, the greater resistance was not to pay for it but to have someone else pay for it - which in a way is disallowing someone from doing something small for you at that point of time. I dealt with this by proposing that the other person(s) could do it the next time etc. Some would find the proposal acceptable, some wouldn't. I found that when I "converted" people this way, it led to a more relaxed setting. Perhaps it was a problem with me - finding it difficult to accept money from friends for just a cup of coffee or a meal. For me that meant the relationship was not important and the 'book had to be closed and made to add up'... Of course, ultimately, these are only anecdotes - make of it what you will. (Ninja EDIT: Minor clarification)

rco8786 9y ago
I’m gonna guess that the non-splitting country has a much flatter distribution of wealth?
- bloodorange 9y ago
  Interesting. You are right indeed but might I ask how you made this connection? I never thought of it this way. One reason for it is probably that between my friends and me, there wasn't much disparity in income/wealth at the time when I was fortunate enough to be able to spend time with them regularly.
  - rco8786 9y ago
    When people generally have less income disparity, their lifestyles will be more or less the same, and over time a culture of "well we spend about the same amount so let's just split it" can arise. In other places (like the US), some people can be very conscious about how much they're spending because it's a significant portion of their income. You wouldn't want to split the check when you had a $10 salad to save money and a tablemate had the $50 filet and 2 $10 glasses of wine.
icebraining 9y ago
In the subculture I come from, splitting is the typical method, because many can't afford to just pay for everyone without risking going out of money before the next paycheck.
- bloodorange 9y ago
  Agreed. I have experienced this when I had cashflow problems. I do not dare claim that either of the approaches has its own issues. I just stated how I felt about both ways of doing things and why I preferred one over the other.
alkonaut 9y ago
If you split and the next person pays the next time there is an assumption that it will likely happen again. If it’s a group of people that aren’t close friends it’s very convenient to not have to worry about that. I wouldn’t swish my friend for getting a beer or coffee but if we were 4 and had a dinner bill for €300 I probably would.
- woobar 9y ago
  I am still confused, can't the restaurant personnel take care of this? In my life wait stuff is capable of parsing following requests: - bring me my check, pls - bring me the check, pls. And I pay for these two bozos (out of a bigger group) - I'll cover everyone today. - split it x-ways, pls. Why do I need to add an extra step to consolidate the bill afterwards?
  - ghaff 9y ago
    In my experience in the US, many restaurants don't want to deal with complicated splitting up of the bill. Most will allow for two-way splits but beyond that, many will be reluctant or outright refuse.
    - woobar 9y ago
      It's all anekdata, but I never had this problem in US restaurants. Even at bigger gatherings when kids will sit together with other kids at the other end of a table, it is never a problem to pay for your spouse and that kid in a red shirt. After all, that's why they charge mandatory tips on bigger parties.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    They will do that, but it's cumbersome I think, especially if you had a large group ordering a lot of different things. And even more so if there was drinking involved. Now I just charge it to my card, snap a pic with my phone of the receipt and send to everyone at the table, and they can just swish the money over the next day or on the train home when they have time to deal with it. Keeps the accounting out of a fun night out. Also it's easy to join a group that already have a table/tab in a bar for example, and leave before the tab is to be settled. You just say "I'm leaving, who do I swish money for 2 pints?" (Where you'd normally leave some cash on the table).

rco8786 9y ago

I’m gonna guess that the non-splitting country has a much flatter distribution of wealth?

bloodorange 9y ago
Interesting. You are right indeed but might I ask how you made this connection? I never thought of it this way. One reason for it is probably that between my friends and me, there wasn't much disparity in income/wealth at the time when I was fortunate enough to be able to spend time with them regularly.
- rco8786 9y ago
  When people generally have less income disparity, their lifestyles will be more or less the same, and over time a culture of "well we spend about the same amount so let's just split it" can arise. In other places (like the US), some people can be very conscious about how much they're spending because it's a significant portion of their income. You wouldn't want to split the check when you had a $10 salad to save money and a tablemate had the $50 filet and 2 $10 glasses of wine.

icebraining 9y ago

In the subculture I come from, splitting is the typical method, because many can't afford to just pay for everyone without risking going out of money before the next paycheck.

bloodorange 9y ago
Agreed. I have experienced this when I had cashflow problems. I do not dare claim that either of the approaches has its own issues. I just stated how I felt about both ways of doing things and why I preferred one over the other.

alkonaut 9y ago

If you split and the next person pays the next time there is an assumption that it will likely happen again. If it’s a group of people that aren’t close friends it’s very convenient to not have to worry about that. I wouldn’t swish my friend for getting a beer or coffee but if we were 4 and had a dinner bill for €300 I probably would.

woobar 9y ago
I am still confused, can't the restaurant personnel take care of this? In my life wait stuff is capable of parsing following requests: - bring me my check, pls - bring me the check, pls. And I pay for these two bozos (out of a bigger group) - I'll cover everyone today. - split it x-ways, pls. Why do I need to add an extra step to consolidate the bill afterwards?
- ghaff 9y ago
  In my experience in the US, many restaurants don't want to deal with complicated splitting up of the bill. Most will allow for two-way splits but beyond that, many will be reluctant or outright refuse.
  - woobar 9y ago
    It's all anekdata, but I never had this problem in US restaurants. Even at bigger gatherings when kids will sit together with other kids at the other end of a table, it is never a problem to pay for your spouse and that kid in a red shirt. After all, that's why they charge mandatory tips on bigger parties.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  They will do that, but it's cumbersome I think, especially if you had a large group ordering a lot of different things. And even more so if there was drinking involved. Now I just charge it to my card, snap a pic with my phone of the receipt and send to everyone at the table, and they can just swish the money over the next day or on the train home when they have time to deal with it. Keeps the accounting out of a fun night out. Also it's easy to join a group that already have a table/tab in a bar for example, and leave before the tab is to be settled. You just say "I'm leaving, who do I swish money for 2 pints?" (Where you'd normally leave some cash on the table).