4 ms·

> But instead of spending the money on a house big enough to host those dinner parties, you could host them at a fancy restaurant, with better food and the abil

> But instead of spending the money on a house big enough to host those dinner parties, you could host them at a fancy restaurant, with better food and the ability to spend the entire evening with the guests instead of in the kitchen. Ultimately people do things they enjoy. People enjoy different things. I love hosting groups of people at home. Yes, it's hard work, but it's satisfying. The meal planning, excitement of preparing the house, cooking, having a big party at home - I enjoy almost all of it. Having a party at a restaurant is a totally different set of activities - it needs longer term organisation to book a date, work out exact numbers, maybe pay a deposit. When the meal's over, everyone goes home. Doing it with kids is much harder. There's a different set of societal expectations over payment (people are much less comfortable being paid for in a restaurant than eating food you've provided). These are different sets of activities. Some people enjoy doing one set more. That's OK. From my point of view - I'm finally in the position in the last few years where I can host large parties at home, and I'm really happy about it. To me it's worth the cost.

kolinko 3y ago
This. Also, in restaurants there is usually less to do - you either sit and eat/drink, or stand. Home parties have more activities - people can cook their own food, browse books, play with other things. They also last longer, and in the end it can be just a few last people chilling on a couch discussing life and stuff in general - can't have that in a restaurant. (also, nice to find another party organiser!)
- smacky 3y ago
  But not really this. Many other parts of the world have much rarer house parties and much more done in restaurants with private rooms, etc being easy. Cultural norms and etiquette largely determines what we can enjoy and what is available, we aren't really following our own personal preferences most of the time. In the case of many of these things there's an early outlay of a lot of money to then pretend the incremental costs is negligible where something with less actual costs might be a lot more enjoyable but is harder to disguise.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    Nobody said that house parties should be mandatory :)
- mc32 3y ago
  And if they drink too much they can stay longer or stay over. No rush to get home. It’s also cozier and you don’t feel pressure of having to get going after a couple of hours —any kids can find things to do around the house, be it gaming, TV, running, going off to a corner, whatever. Adults can group into convos of interest, etc. If people are worried about food quality (rarely is food the focus, but if it were that can be catered).
  - bluGill 3y ago
    In my experience if you care about food quality you must cook for yourself. Catered food is always cheap, mass produced, and lacks taste and nutrition.
    - mc32 3y ago
      It depends. Local caterers can be good. This is a good option for people who are not great cooks. But yes, if you order catering from a run of the mill place it can be average. Another option is to hire a chef.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Dylan16807 3y ago
You could probably host just fine without the dining room. And most people in your position aren't getting enough enjoyment that they would actually miss much if they didn't have the room. The earlier comment isn't a critique on what people enjoy. It's a critique on people's inability to estimate how changes affect their enjoyment, instead making things into an inflexible checklist.
- chris-orgmenta 3y ago
  Ok, but the poster had clearly explained a reasonable thing that they want to do. And keeps getting pushed and gatekeeped/kept on that stance for some reason.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The point is that for every one person with a good reason, there can be several people with a bad reason. People keep taking everything personally when it comes to personal anecdotes when this is about mere majorities. Gatekeeping is not the intent. It's to speak of a broader group that has an impulse to want a thing, but many in that group will be served fine with alternatives. And wanting something doesn't mean you thought it through. Especially for gardening supplies, delivery has no real downsides, it's a straight money calculation.
    - chris-orgmenta 3y ago
      > People keep taking everything personally when it comes to personal anecdotes when this is about mere majorities. Gatekeeping is not the intent. It's to speak of a broader group that has an impulse to want a thing, but many in that group will be served fine with alternatives. And wanting something doesn't mean you thought it through. No, no. They are simply saying 'cater for the edge cases'. No more, no less. We know what you are saying. They're just saying that you're ignoring nuance to their detriment (true), and therefore you are not trustworthy in decision making (true). No, we are not prepared to let you make decisions for us ("But many in that group will be served fine with alternatives"). No, that's precisely the problem - Centralised planning thinks that the alternatives are fine, and they are often not. Similar to Google not having a phone number to unblock locked accounts. >And wanting something doesn't mean you thought it through. Sure. We will assume that this is charitable / general statement (if it weren't: It is this attitude that makes one unqualified to make decisions. They think they know better, and assume that the other person does not.)
makingstuffs 3y ago
Exactly this and the rhetoric of ‘spending on a house’ isn’t really a fair comparison. When you buy a house there is an implied level of investment/saving as a by product of the fact that bricks and mortar in many countries are seen as a good store of value. When you spend money in a restaurant it’s just gone, there is no chance of your annual meal/get together being counted towards your savings if/when you need to rustle up some extra cash. There’s also the fact that it is almost always cheaper to host a meal at home opposed to paying for an entire group of friends/family to dine out.
- konschubert 3y ago
  Yea, but we should really get away from seeing houses as investments. it means that all old people end up living with too much space, and young families with too little space.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    In theory, it means that young families should buy the absolute maximum house they can afford. Stretch and limit spending in every other area as much as possible, then hold it as long as possible. Then "old people" can sell and downsize to trade space for cash. Looking back, it seems like a lot of places looked a lot like this for a long time. It is fairly recent that we see people swapping every 4-7 years, at surprisingly high cost.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    95% of the country is completely undeveloped. The problem isn't a lack of space, but too many people wanting to live in the most desirable eras. Many people don't seem to realize that the housing boom in the 50s and 60s wasn't people just building these buildings in ultra-premium areas, but building them in cheap, relatively undesirable areas. But the mass of people moving to these areas ended up making them desirable, and ultimately also not very cheap. This effect was so substantial that from 1950 to 1960 the population of most major cities actually declined [1], in spite of a rapidly booming population! [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_the_United_States_by_decade#1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_i...
tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
The "totally different set of activities" and much higher effort also means that it often just doesn't happen. The same problem happens with car sharing: If you have the car in your driveway, using it is trivial. If you add booking a rental/shared car, going to the station, checking it for damage, ... a quick trip turns into a major chore. And even if it may be overall cheaper to rent as needed than owning the "overkill" solution the whole time, it won't be much cheaper, because renting is ridiculously expensive. Short time rentals and car sharing around here are typically $50-100 per day and/or not that expensive per time but $0.50 per km which makes it prohibitive for longer trips. You can get an OK used car for a couple thousand and it will cost you way less than that in maintenance. Self-delivering self-driving cars could alleviate at least the hassle (since you'd be able to reserve a fungible car from a citywide pool, for pickup and return at your door), although the cost aspect will likely remain.
- potatolicious 3y ago
  Exactly this! It's a bit frustrating that there seems to be no acknowledgment of friction being an issue, even though the vast majority of our industry is practically defined by it. Everyone who's ever worked on a website knows the value of being above the fold, the value of reducing a single click in a checkout, etc. I lived car-free for many years, and while I had carshares easily available to me and went through the high-friction bits already (had the apps downloaded, accounts signed up, license verified, everything ready to actually rent) - I rarely did it (in fact I did it exactly twice in about 10 years!) I sympathize with the argument here - having 4,000 lb steel boxes rolling around with a single person in them and no cargo is terribly wasteful, but a lot of the alternatives suggested assume a physics-experiment-like smooth frictionless surface that doesn't actually exist IRL.
  - rizzom5000 3y ago
    Aren't you completely discounting the friction inherent in ownership of a vehicle? Humans tend to find clever ways to justify their irrational decisions, but there is absolutely more friction involved in owning a large truck that is used to haul cargo once a year versus having the same cargo delivered once a year.

kolinko 3y ago

This. Also, in restaurants there is usually less to do - you either sit and eat/drink, or stand. Home parties have more activities - people can cook their own food, browse books, play with other things. They also last longer, and in the end it can be just a few last people chilling on a couch discussing life and stuff in general - can't have that in a restaurant. (also, nice to find another party organiser!)

smacky 3y ago
But not really this. Many other parts of the world have much rarer house parties and much more done in restaurants with private rooms, etc being easy. Cultural norms and etiquette largely determines what we can enjoy and what is available, we aren't really following our own personal preferences most of the time. In the case of many of these things there's an early outlay of a lot of money to then pretend the incremental costs is negligible where something with less actual costs might be a lot more enjoyable but is harder to disguise.
- konschubert 3y ago
  Nobody said that house parties should be mandatory :)
mc32 3y ago
And if they drink too much they can stay longer or stay over. No rush to get home. It’s also cozier and you don’t feel pressure of having to get going after a couple of hours —any kids can find things to do around the house, be it gaming, TV, running, going off to a corner, whatever. Adults can group into convos of interest, etc. If people are worried about food quality (rarely is food the focus, but if it were that can be catered).
- bluGill 3y ago
  In my experience if you care about food quality you must cook for yourself. Catered food is always cheap, mass produced, and lacks taste and nutrition.
  - mc32 3y ago
    It depends. Local caterers can be good. This is a good option for people who are not great cooks. But yes, if you order catering from a run of the mill place it can be average. Another option is to hire a chef.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Dylan16807 3y ago

You could probably host just fine without the dining room. And most people in your position aren't getting enough enjoyment that they would actually miss much if they didn't have the room. The earlier comment isn't a critique on what people enjoy. It's a critique on people's inability to estimate how changes affect their enjoyment, instead making things into an inflexible checklist.

chris-orgmenta 3y ago
Ok, but the poster had clearly explained a reasonable thing that they want to do. And keeps getting pushed and gatekeeped/kept on that stance for some reason.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  The point is that for every one person with a good reason, there can be several people with a bad reason. People keep taking everything personally when it comes to personal anecdotes when this is about mere majorities. Gatekeeping is not the intent. It's to speak of a broader group that has an impulse to want a thing, but many in that group will be served fine with alternatives. And wanting something doesn't mean you thought it through. Especially for gardening supplies, delivery has no real downsides, it's a straight money calculation.
  - chris-orgmenta 3y ago
    > People keep taking everything personally when it comes to personal anecdotes when this is about mere majorities. Gatekeeping is not the intent. It's to speak of a broader group that has an impulse to want a thing, but many in that group will be served fine with alternatives. And wanting something doesn't mean you thought it through. No, no. They are simply saying 'cater for the edge cases'. No more, no less. We know what you are saying. They're just saying that you're ignoring nuance to their detriment (true), and therefore you are not trustworthy in decision making (true). No, we are not prepared to let you make decisions for us ("But many in that group will be served fine with alternatives"). No, that's precisely the problem - Centralised planning thinks that the alternatives are fine, and they are often not. Similar to Google not having a phone number to unblock locked accounts. >And wanting something doesn't mean you thought it through. Sure. We will assume that this is charitable / general statement (if it weren't: It is this attitude that makes one unqualified to make decisions. They think they know better, and assume that the other person does not.)

makingstuffs 3y ago

Exactly this and the rhetoric of ‘spending on a house’ isn’t really a fair comparison. When you buy a house there is an implied level of investment/saving as a by product of the fact that bricks and mortar in many countries are seen as a good store of value. When you spend money in a restaurant it’s just gone, there is no chance of your annual meal/get together being counted towards your savings if/when you need to rustle up some extra cash. There’s also the fact that it is almost always cheaper to host a meal at home opposed to paying for an entire group of friends/family to dine out.

konschubert 3y ago
Yea, but we should really get away from seeing houses as investments. it means that all old people end up living with too much space, and young families with too little space.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  In theory, it means that young families should buy the absolute maximum house they can afford. Stretch and limit spending in every other area as much as possible, then hold it as long as possible. Then "old people" can sell and downsize to trade space for cash. Looking back, it seems like a lot of places looked a lot like this for a long time. It is fairly recent that we see people swapping every 4-7 years, at surprisingly high cost.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  95% of the country is completely undeveloped. The problem isn't a lack of space, but too many people wanting to live in the most desirable eras. Many people don't seem to realize that the housing boom in the 50s and 60s wasn't people just building these buildings in ultra-premium areas, but building them in cheap, relatively undesirable areas. But the mass of people moving to these areas ended up making them desirable, and ultimately also not very cheap. This effect was so substantial that from 1950 to 1960 the population of most major cities actually declined [1], in spite of a rapidly booming population! [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_the_United_States_by_decade#1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_i...

tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago

The "totally different set of activities" and much higher effort also means that it often just doesn't happen. The same problem happens with car sharing: If you have the car in your driveway, using it is trivial. If you add booking a rental/shared car, going to the station, checking it for damage, ... a quick trip turns into a major chore. And even if it may be overall cheaper to rent as needed than owning the "overkill" solution the whole time, it won't be much cheaper, because renting is ridiculously expensive. Short time rentals and car sharing around here are typically $50-100 per day and/or not that expensive per time but $0.50 per km which makes it prohibitive for longer trips. You can get an OK used car for a couple thousand and it will cost you way less than that in maintenance. Self-delivering self-driving cars could alleviate at least the hassle (since you'd be able to reserve a fungible car from a citywide pool, for pickup and return at your door), although the cost aspect will likely remain.

potatolicious 3y ago
Exactly this! It's a bit frustrating that there seems to be no acknowledgment of friction being an issue, even though the vast majority of our industry is practically defined by it. Everyone who's ever worked on a website knows the value of being above the fold, the value of reducing a single click in a checkout, etc. I lived car-free for many years, and while I had carshares easily available to me and went through the high-friction bits already (had the apps downloaded, accounts signed up, license verified, everything ready to actually rent) - I rarely did it (in fact I did it exactly twice in about 10 years!) I sympathize with the argument here - having 4,000 lb steel boxes rolling around with a single person in them and no cargo is terribly wasteful, but a lot of the alternatives suggested assume a physics-experiment-like smooth frictionless surface that doesn't actually exist IRL.
- rizzom5000 3y ago
  Aren't you completely discounting the friction inherent in ownership of a vehicle? Humans tend to find clever ways to justify their irrational decisions, but there is absolutely more friction involved in owning a large truck that is used to haul cargo once a year versus having the same cargo delivered once a year.