While logically money is fungible, it is the illusion of not seeing the transaction happens that makes people feel welcome to enjoy hospitality in case of a friends beach house, dinner guest, catered party guest, etc. As soon as there is an explicit, incrementally attributable transaction triggered by their attendance, people often feel compelled to offer cash.
If you invite people over for dinner & cook, or its a catered party, they all feel comfortable.
As soon as you order takeout or ask what they want, they feel compelled to split the check. Even more so when dining out.
Even the difference between ordering an array of dishes in advance vs asking what they want / ordering once they've arrived totally changes how people respond.
It gets very awkward when you are trying to host & treat people, but they insist on compensating with cash.
For me, I don't get the point of having wealth/resources if I can't share them freely. Especially if you come from a more modest background and now make 5x what some of your friends/family do.
To some people sharing money is generous. To others it's a flex that they can't replicate and it makes them bitter. To others it's a sign you can be taken advantage of. To others it's a sign that you are not mature financially and are just making poor financial decisions.
Just like music, people have different tastes/expectations when it comes to money.
I've been paying for a lot of things for my friends recently as there is a very large imbalance in wealth between us which is more recent.
These are my best friends for the 20 years, same gang and they would never ask anything of me and always offered to contribute.
I still felt sort of akward about how I was approaching it. Even if we tell each other everything and are transparent about money.
I wanted to let them know that I don't care about the money at all, it's just the experiences that it will allow that matter to me and giving back to family and friends makes me feel good.
However I have started just acting more normally and not insisting on taking care of everything,I think people feel better this way.
So this article frames it nicely for the things I will be able to contribute still in a way that makes sense.
I imagine that for people with newer or less strong friendships it must be even harder to manage.
This can be a major cultural issue as well. My wife is asian and her whole family looses their mind if someone tries to pay for a meal at a family get together. It can be a major issue of pride in many asian cultures when people try to pay for things.
I only accepts tokens of friendship in most expensive currency: time. I do hate getting presents and vastly prefer to just go for a beer or barbecue or something
Also, some people try to somehow make you feel guilty because you have no money problems. Others who have not much to spend are very thankful for a small practical gift.
When you're a billionaire who has material interests in court cases and you just so happen to befriend a justice on said court who has nothing in common with you from either a wealth or personal background standpoint, then you're attempting to buy influence.
There's a zero percent chance that Harlan Crow, a generationally wealthy white guy from Dallas, would ever have anything to do with Clarence Thomas, a middle class black guy from rural Georgia, except that Thomas sits on the US Supreme Court.
None.
Crow sought Thomas out to peddle his influence. Thomas accepted because (a) he believes he deserves this sort of treatment, and (b) there's nothing particularly illegal about it because of how fucked the US Constitution is with regards to high court appointments.
Thomas isn't the only one, either. He's just the one currently in the news.
Your friends usually want to feel like they are your social peers; casually buying dinner for everyone reminds them that you're loaded and they aren't, but if they chip in they can maintain that feeling of being on your level. I got a tech job in 2014 when all my friends were waiters and bartenders and I found myself in situations like this quite a bit. To what degree am I obligated to pay more, since I have more, versus protecting my friends feelings and not rubbing it in?
> I got a tech job in 2014 when all my friends were waiters and bartenders
I sort of have this “problem” with my family. Since moving to USA about 8 years ago, I’ve been able to build as much wealth as took my mom her whole life. My sister makes in a month what I make in a week.
The balance I’ve found works best when we hang out is for me to take care of any flights or lodgings, the invisible expenses, and be on equal footing otherwise. You pay for some meals or drinks, I pay for others, it all about balances out.
And sometimes I buy them tech they can’t afford or donate my old devices. They seem to feel better about receiving a device I no longer need than being bought a new one.
What I've learned with my in-laws is to stop worrying about it. Some people are going to be jealous/angry anytime you spend money.
For example, whenever we go to visit them we get a hotel or rent a car. Perfectly normal right? Well to some of my in-laws that's "Throwing money around and in our faces" Even though the alternative is sleeping on the floor in their home and begging them for rides.
And, I get it. They can't afford to grab a hotel and car like we can so it does look like a crazy luxury.
I'll grab tabs and pay for things, I don't really care. I never have. But I was somewhat surprised to find people just generally upset when I do things for myself.
This is one of several standard reactions to people spending money. Jealousy, Envy, Disgust, Pity, Ambivalence. It's why people of the same social class tend to gravitate toward one another. While everyone is different regarding money, people of the same social class who have been in that position for a while seem to have similar reactions.
Wow this is exactly how it is for us that it's uncanny. We try to say we got a deep discount because we used a "website." But we haven't got the courage to try separate lodgings yet, it would cause so much trouble heh.
Money can replace dependency and attachment, and some people get very offended by it. Other people appreciate you not burdening them. People are hard to parse.
To me, the subtlety is specifically mentioning money. "I'll pick up the check" feel more tacky than "on me". Both explicitly imply I'm paying, but the first says I'm paying for you, and the other says that I'm doing this for you. I know that a hairline difference, but for me it makes is seem less explicitly transactional and more like reciprocity.
The second example doesn't seem as bad, becuase the cost of the cottage won't go down if you don't show up. But it would be softened further if the mention of money were out of the picture--"I have a cottage for the weekend" versus "I rented a cottage"
This to me goes back to a very old-fashioned prejudice that discussion of money is a bit vulgar.
That's a good point about the illusionary aspect to it all. It's part of why there are so many cultural/social traditions where the polite thing to do is to counter-offer. If someone wants to pay for a meal, you're supposed to offer to pay instead, this dance goes on several rounds until you give up allowing the original person to pay, which kind of demonstrates several things one of them being loyalty and commitment.
When this happens in cultures without this tradition, I find that both parties miss out: it doesn't feel as rewarding to pay, and it doesn't feel as rewarding to have your meal paid for because it seems low effort. People almost view that as bragging vs sharing because of that lack of dance. Which is part of the illusion! High effort v low effort.
A safe way to treat people is to allow them the ability to "counter-offer". Dance with them a little, alternatively encourage them for the next event if they want. You can avoid that crude transactional feeling, plus if they are up for it, next event is their choice.
I haven’t thought of it before, but here in Türkiye that dance is everywhere in life. Not only money related situations, if anyone is going to take/give anything more than the other party, or even if someone will be first to something and other party will be second, that dance is usually performed. I considered it an unnecessary form of kindness until now. But this is fading like any other tradition with great speed, as modernity spreads.
> It gets very awkward when you are trying to host & treat people, but they insist on compensating with cash.
My friends should feel comfortable with whatever. If they are more comfortable splitting then let’s do that. Under no circumstances will I make the assumption that more money is better and less money is bad.
If they are acting out of politeness, that’s on them. This is especially the case because I tell my friends to be who they want to be
I generally agree with your points, although in the takeout case, the host can probably communicate fairly clearly that they're going to order takeout (because they don't cook, don't want to bother with a caterer, etc.) and if anyone asks what they owe wave them off and that's that. Though, of course, if they did cook a meal no one would think of paying. (Though informal get-togethers with my friends tend to be pot luck to at least a degree.)
Of course, financial situations do matter. Some new grads scraping by in the expensive city are probably not going to operate the same way that generally well-off professionals where everyone knows that a group takeout order really isn't a big deal for the host.
In Europe a lot of the more "upscale" restaurants have menu's with and without prices. If you let them know you're taking the others out for dinner as a treat they will hand out menu's without prices on it to your guests. And typically present the bill to you in a more subtle way so the guests don't see it.
Never really thought about it before, but I think this is for the same reason. So you can take your guests to dinner and not make it feel like a financial transaction where you're paying for them.
Hilariously in NYC there's restaurants that only do that on their website, so you can go in blind, as the buyer, to how much you are going to spend :-)
> For me, I don't get the point of having wealth/resources if I can't share them freely. Especially if you come from a more modest background and now make 5x what some of your friends/family do.
In my experience the most adamant refusers are people who literally live paycheck to paycheck. It is a mix of pride and the (very real!) fear that you might think they are only friends with you because you got the funds.
If anything you should see it as a compliment if people who would need it refuse to let you pay.
When you're cooking a dinner, you already bought all the food as a pre-paid expense for the most part. Or it's ambiguous enough as things are finalized yet that there's some certainty in how many people will actually show up / be hungry / etc.
It's also not a lot of extra work to cook for 5 people compared to 3 or even 1, generally speaking. The initial investment of time is the big burden, and then it might be a little extra effort to add additional people. The food is also a lot less expensive in bulk when cooking at home.
Doing 0 planning or pre-effort and buying takeout during the event is like you specifically planned to share the cost because you didn't want to do any preplanning. You didn't even call ahead to have the things delivered at a specific time. The cost in money directly scales to the amount of order. More people is always directly scaled more money, and it's pretty expensive to boot. If you're eating, you're not consuming food that was otherwise wasted or leftovers. You're a new premium scaled cost.
The awkwardness here isn't the medium people are reaching the end goal of feeding their friends. It's really the planning and effort put in up front.
Think about it from the reverse situation. If it WOULD have really hurt you financially to order food, but you technically could have struggled through the cost, how would you have silently asked for help other than waiting until last minute to order during the event in hopes people may pitch in? There may be a social obligation to order food where asking for people to pitch in may cause tension. For example, hosting a party at a nice new house but you were just laid off after scheduling the party and don't want to derail the rare gathering's vibes.
If you find yourself in this situation and you are going to order food, I recommend pizza by the way. Just order a few different ones (including a vegetarian / vegan option or whatever if you have to guess people's preferences) but generally asking for preferences on pizza is not awkward. Pizza is an ambiguous delivery option where it's implied to be shared. It's similar to many general home cooked meals where the amount anybody has or doesn't have is ambiguous.
Compared to takeout style delivery where every has a dedicated packaged meal and you either ordered 3xMeal or 4xMeal where the multiplier is absolute and the amount per person is without ambiguity.
The article overlooks a fundamental side of the social contract that is at least equally, if not more, important: how much time and effort (not money) do personally invest to spend time with your friends.
In my view, it's only awkward when the money side of things is not aligned with the personal investment.
That dinner example from the article actually shows this: I buy you all Olive garden dinner, or: I take the time to invite you to my home, spend some time clean the house think on what to by and prepare, what music to play, maybe a movie to watch after etc. in order to have a good time together. This is a much more thoughtful and mutually beneficial form of investment in friendship than just throwing money at it.
Another example could be: Hey, I bought a new board game (or PS5 or something else), wanna come over and play? You might have spent quite some money, but the goal is to be able to invest in spending time with your friends.
The moment that is (or is perceived to be) your main intent, most folks would have a hard time looking at this as bribery.
> That dinner example from the article actually shows this: I buy you all Olive garden dinner, or: I take the time to invite you to my home, spend some time clean the house think on what to by and prepare, what music to play, maybe a movie to watch after etc. in order to have a good time together. This is a much more thoughtful and mutually beneficial form of investment in friendship than just throwing money at it.
Sooo the solution is to make a party at your house but hire a cleaner and catering :D
I struggled with the restaurant example for this reason.
I take an invite to a restaurant as an invite to hang out and socialize. My friend is telling me they want to spend time together and don't want to cook. I don't feel awkward about this at all.
I would much rather my friends invite me to spend time together while cooking rather than go to a restaurant. For one, the mean will be guaranteed to be delicious and more healthy than the restaurant. Two, it is cheaper. Three, we get to do an activity together as opposed to sit around. Four, at least one person does not have to travel.
I could go on, and restaurants are okay and all, but I prefer them for casual acquaintances. With the closest friends, I would hands down pick cooking (assuming eating together is all we are doing).
I highly recommend the book Debt: The First 5000 Years for anyone that finds these things interesting.
It is full of similar anecdotes from around the world and throughout history.
In some cultures, settling all debts with a friend is akin to declaring the friendship over. As owing or being owed something is a type of bond which is broken when nothing is owed. Breaking the bond implies that you want to break all ties with the person as both are free to walk away. They often manage this by taking turns borrowing small items while making sure that there is always an imbalance.
Regarding the OP, there are so many norms and expectations regarding money and they are so varied around the world. My way of dealing with uncertainties like this is just to talk about them in an impartial way.
I've had friends invite me in houses they rented. I invited friends in houses I rented.
I invented people at restaurants, I've been invited to restaurants. I cooked for friends, and friends cooked for me.
What's weird? I don't understand.
EDIT: I am not talking about reciprocation, I was invited to restaurants I couldn't really afford by people richer than me, I invited poorer people to restaurants and to vacations, etc.
Reciprocity differs culturally. My Japanese family get very uncomfortable if they receive gifts without having any prepared in return, and there's a sense of stress and urgency that doesn't let up until they've repaid. It's not negatively reciprocal, but it is immediately generalized.
Most of my American family uses delayed reciprocity. Gifts are gifts, totally unidirectional, and no one keeps a tally. Some people only receive kindness and rarely "pay out". The price of having family close is expecting that and making sure people are comfortable with being hosted. There's often a little pressure to offer to pay depending on the expense, whether by thanks, gifts, or cash. Some of them, however, only give things or do things for others so they can ask for something in return. They're not gifts as much as leashes.
Our Middle Eastern family are perpetual hosts. Not allowing them to host and treat you is akin to walking out on a tab in the US or trying to pay for something for a Japanese person. Even thinking about paying them back might actually be considered haram.
We have some older first-generation Filipino family friends who invited us to a home cooked dinner at their house... and then handed us a bill at the end of the meal. We were very confused until their children apologetically explained that it's customary to chip in for being hosted.
Weird is, of course, relative, but in places with extreme wealth inequality like the US, there can be tension between people who don't share either a mutual understanding of expectation or a way to reciprocate an expense. Nothing feels worse than accepting what you believed to be a gift and having the other person bring up how much it cost them or how much they've done for you for the rest of your life.
> there's a sense of stress and urgency that doesn't let up until they've repaid
Which then only causes the same thing to happen to whomever they’ve now ‘repaid’ to. There’s this weird network of gift giving between all the moms in our street that all feel obliged to each other for our kids playing together (they were in their house for 30 minutes? Oh no, better prepare a gift!).
> We have some older first-generation Filipino family friends who invited us to a home cooked dinner at their house... and then handed us a bill at the end of the meal
In my case it's an issue of relative income - I have a large group of friends that have been together for more than a decade and our income levels have dramatically diverged. We're very comfortable with each other but there's an undercurrent of social implication whenever we go out to somewhere on the nicer side, or somewhere that's a little out of their normal routine.
Like several other commenters in this thread, I have more than I need and really enjoy spending time with my friends, so I naturally pick up the bill whenever I can. My friends are appreciative, but they also feel awkward about going out with me sometimes because it feels like they're implicitly asking me to pay, which in their minds is unfair and uncouth. It also could be interpreted as me suggesting that they couldn't pay for themselves.
Another layer of this is that most of my friends were raised in Asian cultures, where fighting over the bill is normal and even expected. It's hard to fight for a $500 restaurant bill for 10 people on near minimum wage, so you can imagine some real mixed emotions when the server obviously doesn't want to split it. I'll pick it up every time, but it's naturally a hit to your pride when compounded over the years no matter how gracious you are about it.
Like the OP of the article, I spend a lot of time thinking about the dynamics at play here. I love and respect my friends, but frankly a weekend at an AirBnB the beach or even a modest ski vacation is just out of their price range most of the time. Sometimes it really is easier if you phrase it with a little white lie about how it came to be in order to preserve their pride, because the real important thing is getting to spend time together.
Yeah. Inviting people to a rented house you live in doesn't feel weird - it's where you live at after all. They're paying it no matter if you arrive or not.
But if it was a rented AirBnB just for the occasion I'd certainly feel the obligation to chip in on the bill.
I think it’s this idea that they’ve rented it to entertain you. If someone had rented a place regardless of whether or not I show up I feel much more comfortable not paying.
I don't understand either - and I get that it's probably a cultural thing.
But how you present it still matters - which I think the article doesn't quite address.
Every year I host an event at a restaurant in the city where I grew up. It's an opportunity to gather and see my old friends. I pay for it. Costs perhaps $2k. I don't ask for contributions but several friends give me cash afterwards, which I accept.
Next year I'm gonna spend a month in Italy. I rented a villa in Tuscany. Decided to get a three bedroom so friends can come and visit. Several said they would, and asked how much they should contribute. I said they don't have to contribute towards the rental but can pay for events when we're there.
I agree. When I finished the article, I thought: File this one under "Problems I'd love to have." I can't imagine agonizing over any of the examples in the article, and I don't see the difference. I have a tiny handful of friends with gobs of money and that doesn't make hanging out with them awkward, regardless of who pays. Honestly, if one of them were to rent a house in some exotic location and invited me, I'd be thrilled! The article feels like it is from some alternate universe.
When I was poor(ish, not "can't afford food" poor) that never really was a problem either. For parties we often just pooled the money and went shopping for food/alcohol, or sometimes host provided the food for BBQ with guests getting and paying for alcohol.
Events when host paid for food/alcohol were usually only birthdays, and, well, then you "paid" with gifts.
In some cultures, it could create a situation where you are showing you're better than me and the person would feel humiliated. It's about the socioeconomic status[0] and how each person values that. In some countries that's valued more than other things like, say, being a kind person.
The author of this article seems to have lived in US/Canada which are very capitalist societies where people are expected to work hard and gather a lot of monetary resources. In these societies, showing you're better off than your friend might be considered a bad thing. People often hide things they bought or don't talk about that new house because it would create an awkward situation where people are comparing their socioeconomic status to others.
I can't even imagine what the relationship needs to be like where bringing some takeout and a 6-pack of beer would be considered as 1 person showing themselves to be better than another.
I love picking up the check but I never tell my guests ahead of time. I don't want them compromising on their order, or feeling weird until they absolutely have to. I guess this does require friends who'd be willing/able to pick up their own tab, but it's only a few times a year.
I've got a lot more than I need and I'd rather spend it giving friends a night out than on more toys. I don't want or expect the same in return, just a "thanks" and a good time together.
Eh. Just so you know depending on the cost of the place and the situation of your guests then this can be really stressful for them.
I've been in a lot of situations in the past where I've been making okay money but had friend/coworkers who were making very good money. They pick expensive place. It's unclear if this is work or social. I cant really afford to buy a $75 dollar steak, an appetizer, and a bottle of wine but I take the backseat and follow their lead. Bill is expensive. They cover it but the entire dinner I was worried that I might be on the hook for half of a $250-$500 dinner bill.
I've been in that same situation and someone said clearly, "Hey this is on me, get whatever you'd like" and I feel comfortable and can actually enjoy it. If they are my friend I take them at their word that they are comfortable paying for it.
Honestly, if a place is way out of my price range (what I’m willing to pay, even if I could afford it), that’s something you say before you enter right (so your friend can potentially say they’ll pay for you)? If you do enter and stress out the whole meal I feel you have nobody but yourself to blame.
Point taken. I'd say I've never brought along anyone who was unclear about who was paying (i.e. these are friends and presume they're paying their own way because this isn't work), but I guess you can never be too sure.
I mean, it can definitely still look like bribery.
In business relationships we all know that inviting a potential client out to dinner, paid for by the vendor, creates at least the possible impression of impropriety unless the amount spent is relatively modest. Doing the same for, say, the government inspector from your industry’s regulatory body… looks even worse.
If the vendor has a sponsorship arrangement with a sports team that means they already have access to a corporate box, that doesn’t change the fact that the hospitality offer looks… dubious.
The nature of your ownership/rental of the assets involved has no bearing on this. The nature of how it affects your power relationship with the recipient is what matters.
The standard - especially when it comes to dealing with government employees - is ‘avoid even the appearance of impropriety’, right?
Or at least I certainly thought it was until reading about the Clarence Thomas situation. Apparently there are different rules for billionaires.
Right. What makes it look like bribery isn’t the transaction. It’s the nature of the relationship itself.
Is there a great earnings imbalance? Is there ever a way for the friend to treat you in kind?
Are you and this friend close friends?
I wouldn’t think twice about making the trip to a summer house one of my good friends rented. I might offer to kick some money over, but it wouldn’t feel awkward or obligated. Just want to show my appreciation.
If this is someone I don’t particularly like, it changes the whole exchange. Why am I going? Why do they want me to go? With the change of the type of relationship, none of it is kosher.
the real world standard is don't do anything that knowingly or intentionally violates the law or your employers policies.
anyone can falsely claim that what you are doing is wrong but as long as it doesn't break employer policy or law then they are wrong.
in the corporate world it would be suicidal to "avoid the appearance of impropriety" because your competitors will slaughter you while they are following the letter of the law.
Most (serious) employers’ code of conduct policies are ‘don’t do anything that risks the appearance of impropriety*
* without talking to legal first’
So I take your point. But the FCPA and rules around federal government gift-giving mean that in practice companies are generally cautious about this sort of thing.
In business relations I treat is basically as payment for your time to listen to them, assuming it is something reasonable.
Over that, well, I have no respect for the sales professional that does that so I will feel absolutely fine not giving them business regardless on how much they spend on bribery.
Which creates a conflict when you are already being paid for your time by the employer whose custom is being sought. So I’m not sure that is an ethical blank check on vendor gifts.
The vacation home example somehow actually feels less awkward to me, perhaps because my visit doesn’t change the cost incurred by the friend when they’re renting? (Whereas the restaurant bill feels very awkward and transactional, because the increase is directly related to what I order.)
I think the rented vacation home can cut the other way as well -- a friend may feel obligated to come because you spent the money already and expected a guest -- and if they can't come, they'll feel bad about it.
The way I navigated a similar situation was -- book the home for a week, and invite several friends to stay for a few nights when/if they're able. The cost isn't an issue then, it's clear that I was benefitting the most (being the only one there for the full week). And because several friends were invited, no one felt a specific obligation to come to make my rental "worth it".
> book the home for a week, and invite several friends to stay for a few nights when/if they're able.
I've done this before too and it was one of the best vacations I've ever taken. I got a house for a couple of weeks and told a handful of friends they're welcome to drop in whenever but to coordinate with the others so that there's always enough beds to go around.
It meant I got a nice long vacation. And just when I would be getting bored, a new friend or two would show up.
> I think the rented vacation home can cut the other way as well -- a friend may feel obligated to come because you spent the money already and expected a guest -- and if they can't come, they'll feel bad about it.
Yeah, that was my line of thinking. The invite itself isn’t awkward, sounds fun. But taking as it is without context, it suddenly becomes an obligation forced upon me.
> The vacation home example somehow actually feels less awkward to me, perhaps because my visit doesn’t change the cost incurred by the friend when they’re renting?
I assume the author is considering the example of someone spending substantially more than they otherwise would have to accommodate guests.
For a couple to rent a holiday home with 1 bedroom and invite friends to visit for the day, or sleep on the couch, would be different to the same couple renting a 6-bedroom luxury mansion.
Yeah, with the dinner the payment is influenced by whether you come and what you order. With the vacation home it's already paid for.
Friends of ours literally invited us to come visit them during their vacation and stay at the rented vacation home because it had a spare bedroom. It didn't feel as awkward as the author makes it out to be, though we did feel the need to ask for reassurance that we weren't inconveniencing them. We also didn't stay for the full term.
I've had friends pick up the meal for a group at the end (as I have as well)--certainly for one other person it's pretty natural so long as one person isn't the one habitually paying.
But I agree the restaurant thing feels a bit more transactional.
The vacation home thing seems pretty normal. Hey, I'm renting this place and would like some company. As an invitee, I'd probably ask to bring some food or whatever but seems pretty normal.
In a round-about way, this article is really talking about how to holistically enrich one's life: there's other forms of Capital beyond Financial Capital, and something out there makes us feel icky when there's too much focus on Financial Capital.
Depending on the specific guru you're reading, there's 3/5/8/whatever "Forms of Capital". A 5-framework is something like:
- Financial Capital
- Material Capital
- Social Capital
- Intellectual Capital
- Human Capital
An 8-framework might split something like "Human" into Experiential, Spiritual, Cultural, and Living.
Point is, when we adopt the everything-is-transactional lens, we tend to see everything as exchanges of Financial Capital. And we lose sight of our other deep monkey-brain needs, like a sense of community and social belonging.
So inviting someone to your personal beachhouse rather than vacation rental doesn't "feel" like bribery because it's closer to trading Social or Experiential Capital rather than Financial Capital. And, for better or worse, "bribes" is (colloquially) closely tied just to Financial Capital.
(It becomes nefarious when you exploit this feeling mismatch to, say, trade types of capital with your judicial buddy in ways that look awfully close to a supreme influence on a political case...)
Readit News
While logically money is fungible, it is the illusion of not seeing the transaction happens that makes people feel welcome to enjoy hospitality in case of a friends beach house, dinner guest, catered party guest, etc. As soon as there is an explicit, incrementally attributable transaction triggered by their attendance, people often feel compelled to offer cash.
If you invite people over for dinner & cook, or its a catered party, they all feel comfortable. As soon as you order takeout or ask what they want, they feel compelled to split the check. Even more so when dining out. Even the difference between ordering an array of dishes in advance vs asking what they want / ordering once they've arrived totally changes how people respond.
It gets very awkward when you are trying to host & treat people, but they insist on compensating with cash.
For me, I don't get the point of having wealth/resources if I can't share them freely. Especially if you come from a more modest background and now make 5x what some of your friends/family do.
Just like music, people have different tastes/expectations when it comes to money.
These are my best friends for the 20 years, same gang and they would never ask anything of me and always offered to contribute.
I still felt sort of akward about how I was approaching it. Even if we tell each other everything and are transparent about money.
I wanted to let them know that I don't care about the money at all, it's just the experiences that it will allow that matter to me and giving back to family and friends makes me feel good.
However I have started just acting more normally and not insisting on taking care of everything,I think people feel better this way.
So this article frames it nicely for the things I will be able to contribute still in a way that makes sense.
I imagine that for people with newer or less strong friendships it must be even harder to manage.
There's a zero percent chance that Harlan Crow, a generationally wealthy white guy from Dallas, would ever have anything to do with Clarence Thomas, a middle class black guy from rural Georgia, except that Thomas sits on the US Supreme Court.
None.
Crow sought Thomas out to peddle his influence. Thomas accepted because (a) he believes he deserves this sort of treatment, and (b) there's nothing particularly illegal about it because of how fucked the US Constitution is with regards to high court appointments.
Thomas isn't the only one, either. He's just the one currently in the news.
Humans are complicated creatures!
I sort of have this “problem” with my family. Since moving to USA about 8 years ago, I’ve been able to build as much wealth as took my mom her whole life. My sister makes in a month what I make in a week.
The balance I’ve found works best when we hang out is for me to take care of any flights or lodgings, the invisible expenses, and be on equal footing otherwise. You pay for some meals or drinks, I pay for others, it all about balances out.
And sometimes I buy them tech they can’t afford or donate my old devices. They seem to feel better about receiving a device I no longer need than being bought a new one.
Deleted Comment
For example, whenever we go to visit them we get a hotel or rent a car. Perfectly normal right? Well to some of my in-laws that's "Throwing money around and in our faces" Even though the alternative is sleeping on the floor in their home and begging them for rides.
And, I get it. They can't afford to grab a hotel and car like we can so it does look like a crazy luxury.
I'll grab tabs and pay for things, I don't really care. I never have. But I was somewhat surprised to find people just generally upset when I do things for myself.
Everything is a luxury. Everything is a waste of money. Nobody should have fun or enjoy something.
Sorry life didn't work out for you, but I didn't work hard to stare at walls and be bitter.
The second example doesn't seem as bad, becuase the cost of the cottage won't go down if you don't show up. But it would be softened further if the mention of money were out of the picture--"I have a cottage for the weekend" versus "I rented a cottage"
This to me goes back to a very old-fashioned prejudice that discussion of money is a bit vulgar.
When this happens in cultures without this tradition, I find that both parties miss out: it doesn't feel as rewarding to pay, and it doesn't feel as rewarding to have your meal paid for because it seems low effort. People almost view that as bragging vs sharing because of that lack of dance. Which is part of the illusion! High effort v low effort.
A safe way to treat people is to allow them the ability to "counter-offer". Dance with them a little, alternatively encourage them for the next event if they want. You can avoid that crude transactional feeling, plus if they are up for it, next event is their choice.
My friends should feel comfortable with whatever. If they are more comfortable splitting then let’s do that. Under no circumstances will I make the assumption that more money is better and less money is bad.
If they are acting out of politeness, that’s on them. This is especially the case because I tell my friends to be who they want to be
Of course, financial situations do matter. Some new grads scraping by in the expensive city are probably not going to operate the same way that generally well-off professionals where everyone knows that a group takeout order really isn't a big deal for the host.
I end up making sure to order modestly with the second half, as its not being generous if they are going to reimburse me later.
Never really thought about it before, but I think this is for the same reason. So you can take your guests to dinner and not make it feel like a financial transaction where you're paying for them.
In my experience the most adamant refusers are people who literally live paycheck to paycheck. It is a mix of pride and the (very real!) fear that you might think they are only friends with you because you got the funds.
If anything you should see it as a compliment if people who would need it refuse to let you pay.
It's also not a lot of extra work to cook for 5 people compared to 3 or even 1, generally speaking. The initial investment of time is the big burden, and then it might be a little extra effort to add additional people. The food is also a lot less expensive in bulk when cooking at home.
Doing 0 planning or pre-effort and buying takeout during the event is like you specifically planned to share the cost because you didn't want to do any preplanning. You didn't even call ahead to have the things delivered at a specific time. The cost in money directly scales to the amount of order. More people is always directly scaled more money, and it's pretty expensive to boot. If you're eating, you're not consuming food that was otherwise wasted or leftovers. You're a new premium scaled cost.
The awkwardness here isn't the medium people are reaching the end goal of feeding their friends. It's really the planning and effort put in up front.
Think about it from the reverse situation. If it WOULD have really hurt you financially to order food, but you technically could have struggled through the cost, how would you have silently asked for help other than waiting until last minute to order during the event in hopes people may pitch in? There may be a social obligation to order food where asking for people to pitch in may cause tension. For example, hosting a party at a nice new house but you were just laid off after scheduling the party and don't want to derail the rare gathering's vibes.
If you find yourself in this situation and you are going to order food, I recommend pizza by the way. Just order a few different ones (including a vegetarian / vegan option or whatever if you have to guess people's preferences) but generally asking for preferences on pizza is not awkward. Pizza is an ambiguous delivery option where it's implied to be shared. It's similar to many general home cooked meals where the amount anybody has or doesn't have is ambiguous.
Compared to takeout style delivery where every has a dedicated packaged meal and you either ordered 3xMeal or 4xMeal where the multiplier is absolute and the amount per person is without ambiguity.
Deleted Comment
In my view, it's only awkward when the money side of things is not aligned with the personal investment.
That dinner example from the article actually shows this: I buy you all Olive garden dinner, or: I take the time to invite you to my home, spend some time clean the house think on what to by and prepare, what music to play, maybe a movie to watch after etc. in order to have a good time together. This is a much more thoughtful and mutually beneficial form of investment in friendship than just throwing money at it.
Another example could be: Hey, I bought a new board game (or PS5 or something else), wanna come over and play? You might have spent quite some money, but the goal is to be able to invest in spending time with your friends.
The moment that is (or is perceived to be) your main intent, most folks would have a hard time looking at this as bribery.
Sooo the solution is to make a party at your house but hire a cleaner and catering :D
I take an invite to a restaurant as an invite to hang out and socialize. My friend is telling me they want to spend time together and don't want to cook. I don't feel awkward about this at all.
I could go on, and restaurants are okay and all, but I prefer them for casual acquaintances. With the closest friends, I would hands down pick cooking (assuming eating together is all we are doing).
Exactly. If you're worried about the money, then you're not friends, you're acquaintances.
In some cultures, settling all debts with a friend is akin to declaring the friendship over. As owing or being owed something is a type of bond which is broken when nothing is owed. Breaking the bond implies that you want to break all ties with the person as both are free to walk away. They often manage this by taking turns borrowing small items while making sure that there is always an imbalance.
Regarding the OP, there are so many norms and expectations regarding money and they are so varied around the world. My way of dealing with uncertainties like this is just to talk about them in an impartial way.
This is also how you terminate employment.
I invented people at restaurants, I've been invited to restaurants. I cooked for friends, and friends cooked for me.
What's weird? I don't understand.
EDIT: I am not talking about reciprocation, I was invited to restaurants I couldn't really afford by people richer than me, I invited poorer people to restaurants and to vacations, etc.
Most of my American family uses delayed reciprocity. Gifts are gifts, totally unidirectional, and no one keeps a tally. Some people only receive kindness and rarely "pay out". The price of having family close is expecting that and making sure people are comfortable with being hosted. There's often a little pressure to offer to pay depending on the expense, whether by thanks, gifts, or cash. Some of them, however, only give things or do things for others so they can ask for something in return. They're not gifts as much as leashes.
Our Middle Eastern family are perpetual hosts. Not allowing them to host and treat you is akin to walking out on a tab in the US or trying to pay for something for a Japanese person. Even thinking about paying them back might actually be considered haram.
We have some older first-generation Filipino family friends who invited us to a home cooked dinner at their house... and then handed us a bill at the end of the meal. We were very confused until their children apologetically explained that it's customary to chip in for being hosted.
Weird is, of course, relative, but in places with extreme wealth inequality like the US, there can be tension between people who don't share either a mutual understanding of expectation or a way to reciprocate an expense. Nothing feels worse than accepting what you believed to be a gift and having the other person bring up how much it cost them or how much they've done for you for the rest of your life.
Which then only causes the same thing to happen to whomever they’ve now ‘repaid’ to. There’s this weird network of gift giving between all the moms in our street that all feel obliged to each other for our kids playing together (they were in their house for 30 minutes? Oh no, better prepare a gift!).
That's crazy to me, TIL.
That makes them feel uncomfortable.
Like several other commenters in this thread, I have more than I need and really enjoy spending time with my friends, so I naturally pick up the bill whenever I can. My friends are appreciative, but they also feel awkward about going out with me sometimes because it feels like they're implicitly asking me to pay, which in their minds is unfair and uncouth. It also could be interpreted as me suggesting that they couldn't pay for themselves.
Another layer of this is that most of my friends were raised in Asian cultures, where fighting over the bill is normal and even expected. It's hard to fight for a $500 restaurant bill for 10 people on near minimum wage, so you can imagine some real mixed emotions when the server obviously doesn't want to split it. I'll pick it up every time, but it's naturally a hit to your pride when compounded over the years no matter how gracious you are about it.
Like the OP of the article, I spend a lot of time thinking about the dynamics at play here. I love and respect my friends, but frankly a weekend at an AirBnB the beach or even a modest ski vacation is just out of their price range most of the time. Sometimes it really is easier if you phrase it with a little white lie about how it came to be in order to preserve their pride, because the real important thing is getting to spend time together.
But if it was a rented AirBnB just for the occasion I'd certainly feel the obligation to chip in on the bill.
But how you present it still matters - which I think the article doesn't quite address.
Every year I host an event at a restaurant in the city where I grew up. It's an opportunity to gather and see my old friends. I pay for it. Costs perhaps $2k. I don't ask for contributions but several friends give me cash afterwards, which I accept.
Next year I'm gonna spend a month in Italy. I rented a villa in Tuscany. Decided to get a three bedroom so friends can come and visit. Several said they would, and asked how much they should contribute. I said they don't have to contribute towards the rental but can pay for events when we're there.
Events when host paid for food/alcohol were usually only birthdays, and, well, then you "paid" with gifts.
Deleted Comment
The author of this article seems to have lived in US/Canada which are very capitalist societies where people are expected to work hard and gather a lot of monetary resources. In these societies, showing you're better off than your friend might be considered a bad thing. People often hide things they bought or don't talk about that new house because it would create an awkward situation where people are comparing their socioeconomic status to others.
Is it stupid? Yes, but that's life.
0 - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of...
But it certainly wouldn't be called friendship.
I've got a lot more than I need and I'd rather spend it giving friends a night out than on more toys. I don't want or expect the same in return, just a "thanks" and a good time together.
I've been in a lot of situations in the past where I've been making okay money but had friend/coworkers who were making very good money. They pick expensive place. It's unclear if this is work or social. I cant really afford to buy a $75 dollar steak, an appetizer, and a bottle of wine but I take the backseat and follow their lead. Bill is expensive. They cover it but the entire dinner I was worried that I might be on the hook for half of a $250-$500 dinner bill.
I've been in that same situation and someone said clearly, "Hey this is on me, get whatever you'd like" and I feel comfortable and can actually enjoy it. If they are my friend I take them at their word that they are comfortable paying for it.
On the invitee side, I might casually say “oh, Steak 48 might be a little rich for my blood!”
On the inviter side, I might take that opportunity to discreetly tell them “don’t worry about it.”
Somehow an exchange like that feels a lot less awkward to me than either the invitation stating it up front or prolonged ambiguity.
In business relationships we all know that inviting a potential client out to dinner, paid for by the vendor, creates at least the possible impression of impropriety unless the amount spent is relatively modest. Doing the same for, say, the government inspector from your industry’s regulatory body… looks even worse.
If the vendor has a sponsorship arrangement with a sports team that means they already have access to a corporate box, that doesn’t change the fact that the hospitality offer looks… dubious.
The nature of your ownership/rental of the assets involved has no bearing on this. The nature of how it affects your power relationship with the recipient is what matters.
The standard - especially when it comes to dealing with government employees - is ‘avoid even the appearance of impropriety’, right?
Or at least I certainly thought it was until reading about the Clarence Thomas situation. Apparently there are different rules for billionaires.
Is there a great earnings imbalance? Is there ever a way for the friend to treat you in kind?
Are you and this friend close friends?
I wouldn’t think twice about making the trip to a summer house one of my good friends rented. I might offer to kick some money over, but it wouldn’t feel awkward or obligated. Just want to show my appreciation.
If this is someone I don’t particularly like, it changes the whole exchange. Why am I going? Why do they want me to go? With the change of the type of relationship, none of it is kosher.
the real world standard is don't do anything that knowingly or intentionally violates the law or your employers policies.
anyone can falsely claim that what you are doing is wrong but as long as it doesn't break employer policy or law then they are wrong.
in the corporate world it would be suicidal to "avoid the appearance of impropriety" because your competitors will slaughter you while they are following the letter of the law.
* without talking to legal first’
So I take your point. But the FCPA and rules around federal government gift-giving mean that in practice companies are generally cautious about this sort of thing.
Over that, well, I have no respect for the sales professional that does that so I will feel absolutely fine not giving them business regardless on how much they spend on bribery.
The way I navigated a similar situation was -- book the home for a week, and invite several friends to stay for a few nights when/if they're able. The cost isn't an issue then, it's clear that I was benefitting the most (being the only one there for the full week). And because several friends were invited, no one felt a specific obligation to come to make my rental "worth it".
I've done this before too and it was one of the best vacations I've ever taken. I got a house for a couple of weeks and told a handful of friends they're welcome to drop in whenever but to coordinate with the others so that there's always enough beds to go around.
It meant I got a nice long vacation. And just when I would be getting bored, a new friend or two would show up.
Yeah, that was my line of thinking. The invite itself isn’t awkward, sounds fun. But taking as it is without context, it suddenly becomes an obligation forced upon me.
I assume the author is considering the example of someone spending substantially more than they otherwise would have to accommodate guests.
For a couple to rent a holiday home with 1 bedroom and invite friends to visit for the day, or sleep on the couch, would be different to the same couple renting a 6-bedroom luxury mansion.
Friends of ours literally invited us to come visit them during their vacation and stay at the rented vacation home because it had a spare bedroom. It didn't feel as awkward as the author makes it out to be, though we did feel the need to ask for reassurance that we weren't inconveniencing them. We also didn't stay for the full term.
But I agree the restaurant thing feels a bit more transactional.
The vacation home thing seems pretty normal. Hey, I'm renting this place and would like some company. As an invitee, I'd probably ask to bring some food or whatever but seems pretty normal.
Depending on the specific guru you're reading, there's 3/5/8/whatever "Forms of Capital". A 5-framework is something like:
- Financial Capital
- Material Capital
- Social Capital
- Intellectual Capital
- Human Capital
An 8-framework might split something like "Human" into Experiential, Spiritual, Cultural, and Living.
Point is, when we adopt the everything-is-transactional lens, we tend to see everything as exchanges of Financial Capital. And we lose sight of our other deep monkey-brain needs, like a sense of community and social belonging.
So inviting someone to your personal beachhouse rather than vacation rental doesn't "feel" like bribery because it's closer to trading Social or Experiential Capital rather than Financial Capital. And, for better or worse, "bribes" is (colloquially) closely tied just to Financial Capital.
(It becomes nefarious when you exploit this feeling mismatch to, say, trade types of capital with your judicial buddy in ways that look awfully close to a supreme influence on a political case...)