5 ms·

People love food, but eating out at restaurants to the extent that happens in the modern world is a historical aberration. It’s not just other restos you’re com

People love food, but eating out at restaurants to the extent that happens in the modern world is a historical aberration. It’s not just other restos you’re competing with but a home-cooked meal too. I get the sense from the tone taken here that this owner is going to be in trouble down the line. It’s good to be passionate but their objectivity is clouded. The restaurant with the really expensive donair is indeed likely to find itself in trouble ...

nickff 6y ago
Home-cooked meals are actually the aberration. Back in the old days (before the 1950s), the poor didn't have kitchens, hence the proliferation of street foods such as pizza and their ancient Roman antecedents.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Although it should be noted that modern American regulations make it very challenging to run the kind of low-cost "random guy with a cart" stands that historically provided street food.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Very true, and I also read that income taxes were one reason for people doing things themselves, because income taxes discourage 'outsourcing' household tasks. The example used in that article (which I can't find right now) was that people paint their own houses more in places with higher income taxes.
- talentedcoin 6y ago
  Fair enough. Don’t think those poor ancient Romans were eating in restaurants either though, wasn’t it more of a communal kitchen setup? https://www.reference.com/world-view/did-romans-cook-prepare-food-ce5672a294406382 https://www.reference.com/world-view/did-romans-cook-prepare...
- empath75 6y ago
  Depends how far you want to go back and where they live. Most people throughout history have had the ability to make bread and soup on a fire or something similar to that.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  My family had kitchens. They were black southerners living in rural hog and tobacco land. But still, they had means to cook their food.
  - ardit33 6y ago
    We are talking about Roman era urban setting. A kitchen was a luxury for most common folks in urban eras. Most poor people would go to a local shop, and eat cooked millet/grains or rarely meat (usually chicken, as beef was a luxury), and lots of local fruit/veggies. In the country-side, yes, there were kitchens/places to cook home, or often outside the main home. (barn style of a place, dedicated to cooking).
8f2ab37a-ed6c 6y ago
That's a good point. On a more philosophical level, are restaurants an essential good for society, or more of a luxury along the lines of upscale purses, limited-run sneakers, Rolex watches and Teslas? I'm not going to argue that they shouldn't exist, but just like with fine mechanical watches, I don't imagine society will collapse without them as we switch to centralized food preparation with economies of scale and more home cooking.
- mtrower 6y ago
  I would consider some amount of restaurants (of one variety or another) to be of some cultural importance. They don't need to be as prevalent as today, perhaps. But it would be a very different place to be without them entirely, and I think it would feel... a bit colder; more barren. Luxury? To some degree, perhaps. Hardly to the same degree as Rolex watches, however.

nickff 6y ago

Home-cooked meals are actually the aberration. Back in the old days (before the 1950s), the poor didn't have kitchens, hence the proliferation of street foods such as pizza and their ancient Roman antecedents.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Although it should be noted that modern American regulations make it very challenging to run the kind of low-cost "random guy with a cart" stands that historically provided street food.
- nickff 6y ago
  Very true, and I also read that income taxes were one reason for people doing things themselves, because income taxes discourage 'outsourcing' household tasks. The example used in that article (which I can't find right now) was that people paint their own houses more in places with higher income taxes.
talentedcoin 6y ago
Fair enough. Don’t think those poor ancient Romans were eating in restaurants either though, wasn’t it more of a communal kitchen setup? https://www.reference.com/world-view/did-romans-cook-prepare-food-ce5672a294406382 https://www.reference.com/world-view/did-romans-cook-prepare...
empath75 6y ago
Depends how far you want to go back and where they live. Most people throughout history have had the ability to make bread and soup on a fire or something similar to that.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
My family had kitchens. They were black southerners living in rural hog and tobacco land. But still, they had means to cook their food.
- ardit33 6y ago
  We are talking about Roman era urban setting. A kitchen was a luxury for most common folks in urban eras. Most poor people would go to a local shop, and eat cooked millet/grains or rarely meat (usually chicken, as beef was a luxury), and lots of local fruit/veggies. In the country-side, yes, there were kitchens/places to cook home, or often outside the main home. (barn style of a place, dedicated to cooking).

8f2ab37a-ed6c 6y ago

That's a good point. On a more philosophical level, are restaurants an essential good for society, or more of a luxury along the lines of upscale purses, limited-run sneakers, Rolex watches and Teslas? I'm not going to argue that they shouldn't exist, but just like with fine mechanical watches, I don't imagine society will collapse without them as we switch to centralized food preparation with economies of scale and more home cooking.

mtrower 6y ago
I would consider some amount of restaurants (of one variety or another) to be of some cultural importance. They don't need to be as prevalent as today, perhaps. But it would be a very different place to be without them entirely, and I think it would feel... a bit colder; more barren. Luxury? To some degree, perhaps. Hardly to the same degree as Rolex watches, however.