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.
I think if it's long standing friendships there's certainly more wiggle room. Even to the point that you ought to just be able to tell them to let you know if they feel you're being obnoxious about it.
But often it's also not even amounts, as long as it's reasonably discreet and you create a plausible excuse for why you're paying, and there's a sense of back and forth. With friends or girlfriends I know earn less, I've usually made a point of saying that when I choose or suggest where to invite someone, I prefer to pay and I'd appreciate if they let me, and if they insist on paying for something they can pay for things when they choose the venue. There's a tacit "because that lets each of us pick somewhere that fits our cost level" in it that remains unstated, and the give and take helps make it feel more even as long as it's not too blatant and in your face and you never make a point of how expensive anything you pick is. It also works best if you also pick cheap places sometimes.
> 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... I still felt sort of akward about how I was approaching it... I wanted to let them know that I don't care about the money at all,
What kinds of things are you paying for, though? Consider there's a subtle, unintentional message if you insist on paying for their $20 burger and drink: "This $20 is a big deal to you, but not to me." Unless they are dirt poor, they can probably pay for themselves for most things.
Myself, I have friends with 10x less money (self-employed), and 10x more money (huge stock options and the company popped) -- in both cases, we round-robin the check at dinner. Now mind you, we're not going to French Laundry...
> Unless they are dirt poor, they can probably pay for themselves for most things.
Are you saying $20 for a burger and drink is trivial unless one is "dirt poor"? That doesn't match my estimates of the distribution of wealth in the US, and certainly not the world.
No, it wasn’t about the price of a burger. My point was that just because you made a million dollars and your buddy didn’t, don’t start treating him like every simple, common social expense must be a financial burden for him.
Isn't the price the point? The question is whether the poorer of the two is comfortable with the expense. At many times in my life, I was the one "not hungry" when invited to a restaurant.
Fine, xapata! Yes, if you suddenly find yourself with a shitload of money, and you have friends who can't pay their bills every month, they have $0.00 in the bank, literally can't afford to ever eat out, and a $20 meal would be a grand expense and a momentous occasion for them... yes, go ahead and offer to pay for those friends every time.
It is, but a $20 lunch should be considered an occasion or treat and not a daily driver. Just because it's not a daily driver doesn't make it trivial.
If most people eat lunch out once a week for $20 - that's about $1000/yr. That's trivial for most people if it's part of their social/entertainment expenses (eg even making $30-40k), but it's okay that it might not be trivial for all people.
Non-trivial spending includes expensive mandatory expenses, like rent/mortage, insurance, maintenance, etc.) Spending $20 on a lunch once a week (if that's what I wanted to do) is trivial, both in cost and importance.
Obviously trivial expenses are the first to be optimized away when a budget crunch occurs, because they are also trivial to remove/stop. It's hard to delay rent or a car payment withour real consequences, but there's no real consequence to not eating out lunch anymore.
I interpreted "trivial" as negligible, too small to cut from the budget, even in a crunch. I see you're using a different definition. However, I also think that $40k per year is a perpetual budget crunch, so not really a crunch at all.
> What kinds of things are you paying for, though? Consider there's a subtle, unintentional message if you insist on paying for their $20 burger and drink: "This $20 is a big deal to you, but not to me." Unless they are dirt poor, they can probably pay for themselves for most things.
I mean if you are stubborn enough you'd find anything innocent to be malicious but I'd wager most people would think nothing of it unless you do it every single time and also refuse reciprocal offers
The context was if someone suddenly has much more money than their friends, and then decides it’s their responsibility to pick up the check every time. It’s not, and probably wouldn’t be appreciated.
I went through the same thing with a much newer friend. It makes sense to you and me logically, but I agree that there was a feeling of disconnect that ultimately made me back off. I'd rather help financially facilitate more opportunities to have a good time, but it just always seems to come off as an insult or uncomfortable, no matter how it's handled.
I feel like im grossly overpaid for what I do in comparison to the much more impactful work that they did, making roughly half what I do, so in my eyes it's only fair to view it as more of a group thing where we can contribute relatively equivalent amounts rather than strictly split amounts? You know?
> I feel like im grossly overpaid for what I do in comparison to the much more impactful work that they did, making roughly half what I do
This this this. I'm a former blue collar who managed to break into tech. After a decade I still feel weird about the amount that I make. My partner and I now have our long-term finances completely squared away and still have money "left over" every month. I feel super lucky, and I basically just want to spend it on my friends and family. They are not destitute but mostly not in tech and just don't have the surplus that we have. Finding ways to share with them without it being overt and weird is an ongoing challenge. (Dinner parties are definitely a favorite, since we like cooking anyways.)
"I imagine that for people with newer or less strong friendships it must be even harder to manage. "
This is me. I'm at a point where through a series of good luck and risk adverse decisions I have a free flow of cash. I really enjoy getting the opportunity to spend it on others, ill buy coffee, ill buy lunch. I ask for nothing in return as it's my honor to do this for them and I want to set the example of being generous with nothing desired in return. If pressed I say, today I can so allow me to do so. In the future when you can, I'll return the honor and let you buy then.
I also have a friend who again through a series of good decisions is at a good place financially and it's fun for us to try and buy things or meals for each other because we both know each others finances and the joy it brings being able to do this for one another.
When you sit to dine with a ruler, note well what is before you,
and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.
Do not crave his delicacies, for that food is deceptive. - The Book of Proverbs
In my experience rich people are very 'outcomes focused'. They almost always expect something in return. I always ask myself why are they giving food to me specifically and not just some random person?
> In my experience rich people are very 'outcomes focused'. They almost always expect something in return.
That's a pretty sad way to live. I mean, I guess when I'm back home and the "rich" person in the room (I went from rural america to FAANG salary), I just want people to enjoy themselves and not think about price when we're at a nice restaurant. That's the "outcome" I want.
Back in the bay area, the rich people in the room never seem to want anything in return for their hospitality. At most they want to hire me, but there's no expectation there.
Your experience (or maybe incorrect thought) is not what I've seen.
>In my experience rich people are very 'outcomes focused'. They almost always expect something in return. I always ask myself why are they giving food to me specifically and not just some random person?
How often do rich people randomly feed you and what is it they want in return?
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.
Thats actually a great compromise and happy that it is working for your family.
I've found a lot of parents have trouble switching from being providers to being provided for, especially if some of your siblings are still "takers".
Personally my parents insist on us joining them on vacations I extremely don't want to go on (Orlando theme parks in peak 100F+ summer heat as 40ish couple w/o kids), and that they'll cover the expense.. when the expense isn't the issue, and 1/10th of what I'd spend on holiday.
Why do you think I pay for flights and lodgings? ;)
But really in my family’s case flights are expensive and quickly add up to a month of their income. It’s not that they don’t want to go somewhere fun, it’s that they can’t. And I’m tired of burning all my vacations on going back home. Flying them out somewhere fun is the obvious solution.
Yeah that's pretty great. It really depends on the people. People just have different tastes, and it's not just a cost thing.
Of my parents & in-laws, really only my father in law would probably genuinely be able to enjoy going somewhere we chose. My mother in law and parents would probably actively dislike going..
About 10 years ago I stopped trying with certain things..
My parents anniversary one year we treated them to brunch at a place that's like.. not fancy, but wear a polo shirt & not sneakers.. but also its NYC so if you don't they aren't gonna kick you out anyway. Nothing adventurous food wise - chicken, steak, burger, pancakes, fries, eggs, whatever you imagine standard fare but done very well.
It was clear they weren't enjoying it, and in a subsequent anniversary dinner they insisted we all go out to the place they chose - fried fish & laminated menus at a marina type thing.
Flights and hotels are "perfect" for that kind of thing because the prices are so extremely variable as well. Much easier to "quietly upgrade" the whole experience without it getting weird that for a lot of other things.
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.
At the extreme-
Few people are personally envious of Jeff Bezos having a nicer house/car/boat/vacation.
But the way some people in my small middle class hometown react to someone who lives in the same town/hood, kids going to same school driving a $40k car when they drive a $25k car is kind of comically deranged.
This makes sense to me. I came from the service industry to tech. I tripled my income in a couple years and was very satisfied. Then a coworker got a promotion that I felt I deserved, and started making more than me. This coworker came from a different background and had always been "ahead" of me financially. But suddenly, there was a very tangible gap between us. It could have been me, I thought. I could have that so easily. And I was not satisfied with my pay. I found a new job. (I no longer care that much. I know that wages are essentially more unfair than fair.)
Going from $25k to $40k for a car seems within reach and they don't see how that person that they see does anything different that makes the difference justified, and they might even have personal knowledge of the person to make them think that person definitely isn't as smart/working as hard/being as deserving as them. But with Bezos they don't have a yardstick to go by.
Cars are wholly other kind of funny. Get 15 years old sports car, especially "looking" sporty, and people will look at you like you're trying to show off your wealth when they are driving SUV 3x as more expensive as your car...
In the grand scheme of things past a certain income level as a lump sum cost, they are not a large expense compared to housing. Nor is their monthly cost if financed particularly expensive next to the ongoing forever cost of insuring, fueling/charging, maintaining and garaging them.
Nor is driving around in a relatively decent & recent model vs trying to keep an old model in working order with all the maintenance costs.
If you make 6 figures / live in a HCOL area, then the difference in a $25k or $40k or $50k car over the course of a 10 year life is kind of whatever. The insurance, maintenance and gas/charge over that 10 years probably adds up to $30k at a bare minimum. Your house probably cost $1M.
Even if you trade-in every 4~5 years at the end of the warranty period to minimize random maintenance costs, then maybe you eat like $3-4k/year of depreciation during ownership.. again not a huge number to have a reliable, safe, modern car at all times.
The real outsized car costs are incurred with car nerds who max out on having more cars than drivers, and/or "upgrading" every year, constantly eating max depreciation.
I’ve heard this from so many people, and I just do not see how it matters in practical terms. A car has four wheels and an engine. Other than that, as long as it’s safe and functional, why care what it costs?
I never really thought of this seriously (or why) until reading that "Some Things I Think" post[0] was on here yesterday and a few were along the lines of that. Three that resonated with me about money:
“People like you more when you are working towards something, not when you have it.” - Drake
Net worth goes from $0 to $1 million: Ecstasy. Net worth goes from $10 million to $1 million: Despondency. Can we agree that all wealth is relative?
A lot of people like making money more than they enjoy having money. The change, not the accumulated amount, is the thrill.
The last one is the biggest mindfuck to me because I can relate to it so much. Every single online MMO I play I'm happy making tiny amounts of money and watching the balance go up. I don't care much for upgrading to bigger and better things or end-game content. I played this game called Tibia pretty seriously for a period of time and then got bored and was going to stop. There were a few months where the only thing I would do is log in, do about 6 daily quests I enjoyed doing that were dead easy, collect my 1000gp or however much it was and walk around town for a bit debating if I want to level up before quitting.
> Net worth goes from $0 to $1 million: Ecstasy. Net worth goes from $10 million to $1 million: Despondency. Can we agree that all wealth is relative?
I think that's more because when going down on income (regardless of the starting amount and difference), that usually comes with having to resign from some luxuries on that way. While earning more means experiencing luxuries you couldn't afford before.
Like, moving from public transport to nice car vs the other way around. Or living in cramped apartment vs nice house.
> A lot of people like making money more than they enjoy having money. The change, not the accumulated amount, is the thrill.
I would not say a lot; I think there might be some self-selection when people focus on making money that might just become their hobby and so have higher motivation to earn more and more vs focusing on other areas in life.
The few well-off people I know don't exactly feel like ones making money for money sake
> The last one is the biggest mindfuck to me because I can relate to it so much. Every single online MMO I play I'm happy making tiny amounts of money and watching the balance go up. I don't care much for upgrading to bigger and better things or end-game content. I played this game called Tibia pretty seriously for a period of time and then got bored and was going to stop. There were a few months where the only thing I would do is log in, do about 6 daily quests I enjoyed doing that were dead easy, collect my 1000gp or however much it was and walk around town for a bit debating if I want to level up before quitting.
I am complete opposite. When I was seriously raiding in WoW (we were usually somewhere in top 5 guilds on our server) I still did just enough to have money for any gear/consumables I needed.
Same in other areas, I need to have some end goal, else I don't have all that much motivation for work or getting better pay. Else I'd just burn money on random crap (I got better with that over the years)
> Net worth goes from $0 to $1 million: Ecstasy. Net worth goes from $10 million to $1 million: Despondency. Can we agree that all wealth is relative?
> A lot of people like making money more than they enjoy having money. The change, not the accumulated amount, is the thrill.
Dunno, to me it looks more like people just want to have enough to not need to work 40 hours/week anymore. "Thrill" is probably about billionaires like Musk, not people getting towards a million in saving.
> Loss aversion in behavioral economics refers to a phenomenon where a real or potential loss is perceived by individuals as psychologically or emotionally more severe than an equivalent gain.
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.
One trick that works with some is "oh I have lots of hotel points from work travel and they were going to expire" kind of games. It may even have a shred of truth to it.
For the frugal family members offended by he spending flex, they may be happy to see this instead.
I do this- I just tell my parents I have a lot of frequent flyer points (which I do), but then depending on the cost and availability of flights I book whatever is most convenient for me.
don't forget airline points! Also don't forget credit card points. I'm not treating you to dinner, I got his gift card through my discover card and now I got to use it
That's besides the point. This is in the context of spending money on people when they get all weird about it. Saying that I got these points that are expiring so we have to go to dinner at a moderately upscale restaurant turns the table on "I'm buying you dinner because I want to spend time with you, I don't want to cook, and I know dinner at this restaurant is half your whole food budget for the month." into them doing you the favor of not leaving points/money on the table.
Still though, $200 for (half) of dinner, on a card giving 5% Cashback is $4,000, and that doesn't have to be spent in one month.
Well now it’s like if I spend my money it’s almost necessarily creating carbon and fucking the world more. So it’s like I don’t even feel like I can spend my money if that makes any sense. What is the point of all this money when you can’t use it ethically?
My usual response to these types of concerns is "touch grass", but if one has the means & concern, theres many organizations to fund, green improvements one can make to their home (solar, energy storage, heat pumps, efficient appliances, insulation, better windows, etc), transport (switch to an EV, take trains, stop flying places), plant a tree, etc.
I do find in my circles though that the loudest voices are also the ones who scoffed at my switch to an EV, but fly on vacations 3x/year, so some of it is clearly fashion & posturing.
And some of it is counterintuitive as we see Germany shut down nuclear plants for "green" reasons, only to have to spin back up some coal.
> counterintuitive as we see Germany shut down nuclear plants for "green" reasons, only to have to spin back up some coal
I've read that Poland is having issues where the grid will only support so much, so they need to disable or dial back the renewable energy sources because it's impossible to turn down or off a coal firing plant.
Yeah, you have to exactly match electric output to demand or things get very bad. Until we have a few more breakthroughs in battery technology, we're going to be stuck with fossil fuels to make up the gap for variable demand. Nuclear can't be ramped up and down quickly, and solar and wind just do whatever they want.
As I understand it, a typical strategy for a power company is:
- nuclear or similar for the base load that's always required
- solar and wind as available
- weather forecasting to determine how much solar and wind will be available
- demand forecasting to determine how much power will be required at any given time
- natural gas to meet predicted solar and wind shortfalls
- RICE engines and battery storage to handle unexpected fluctuations
- contracts to buy and sell power with other nearby power companies
> Until we have a few more breakthroughs in battery technology, we're going to be stuck with fossil fuels to make up the gap for variable demand.
I think we are there. We don't need new breakthroughs we need more manufacturing capacity.
LFPs are both cheap and work great for a grid storage and now CATL is announcing new sodium batteries which are pretty ideal for grid storage (cheap and long life).
It does sound like that, honestly, just needs more investment and maybe engineering into mode distributed storage for the whole renewable stuff.
I'm guessing sweet spot would be something like "big, economically efficient battery per street of houses + solar on every house", but as it would be shared it needs investment and power company have very little incentive for it
In the states a lot of left-coded "environmental review" stuff gets used by NIMBYs to block grid improvements / new transmission lines.. which ends up being a bigger blocker of renewables than the permits for the generation itself.
So you end up with multi-year backlogs just to get grid connected with new clean energy generation.
Your existence, and mine, is intrinsically harmful to the world. But you have the opportunity to also do good, to heal systems. What you can do with your time, money, and energy is to shift the balance more toward healing than harm. So don't waste your money on plastic or flights, but try to purchase more ethical/sustainable goods (which quickly becomes very expensive). Donate to well regarded charities. Etc.
We are a part of the world, not a foreign entity. From the point of view of evolution, if our existence eliminates a bunch of other species, that's how natural selection works.
This misanthropic view of us as intruders in nature is just a throwback to weird ancient cults, it is just basically religion, not reason.
What is the point of saying that? Are you trying to get people to give up and accept ecological collapse?
Nowhere did I say humans are a foreign entity. I said our existence does harm to ecosystems all over the globe. That is a fact. We also, uniquely, have the ability to choose* whether or not we do that harm, which oxygenating bacteria did not. So here I am, advising someone to do less harm because doing harm causes them pain, and you're saying... what? That choosing to counteract the harm we've done is foolish and illogical? That makes no sense.
Buying better, more durable things that won't break after a year or two is one way to spend more money for less environmental impact. Tho the maths on that is kinda iffy, as it is hard to tell how much of the "more expensive" is "longer, harder production process that generates more emissions" and how much is "we put actual good engineering into it".
More & more I find that with money theres growth mindset & scarcity mindset and few who have both. Some people are great at making more money, some people are great at spending as little of their money as possible. Few thread the needle on a little bit of both.
So if you come from a scarcity mindset family, it's incredibly hard to do anything with them with money if you yourself ended up in more of a growth mindset.
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's just so much less mental effort to be direct.
I've also noticed an opposite is a problem, when you don't want something that someone else made (say cookies) many people feel personally attacked that I don't want their cooking. Bitch I'm fat, I don't need more.
> 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.
yep, these kinds of discussions are frustrating for me, because it seems so clear that open honest communication proves them a non-issue. If you can't afford something, say so. If you'd like compensation or reciprocation for something, say so. If you want to cover everything, say so.
Letting fear of the conversation prevent you from having it makes the issue worse, not better.
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...)
I am in love with travelling, and one of my dreams is travelling with friends.
But my friends, not being from a 1st world country or having a high paying job, can't afford that.
I have tried on several occasions offering to pay for the trip, but unfortunately, like the article says, most people don't feel comfortable if you do that.
> Subscribe to my private email list to read articles that were too sensitive to share online.
In an article discussing the nuance of language, and leveraging power imbalances for fun and profit, that's a nice way to sign off.
Anyway, my first proper introduction to really deeply considered word selection was during the 90's BBS era when someone organising a social event -- that was necessarily targeted at a bunch of (probably) socially inept people, myself included -- explained to me that they avoided any conventional phrasing like 'come and join us' as it instantly implied there's an 'us' that they weren't already a part of.
Such a small observation at the time, but had a big impact.
As far as I can tell in the latin part of Europe I think it's well understood that if you invite people to a restaurant for dinner it means that you will be paying (especially if the word invite is used).
In the UK it depends on the background of people, and language would also make a difference.
"Do you all want to grab some dinner" is different to "I'd like to invite you all out to dinner"
>But that's still no expected from the host unless explicitly verbalized with the invitation.
In Europe there would definitely be an expectation that alcohol would be provided (although perhaps not all of the alcohol depending on various factors). It would also be expected that guests bring a bottle of wine or flowers or something to that effect. That small gift should be separate to any alcohol brought for the purposes of consumption on the evening.
I dunno if I'd generalize it to "Europe". Here (Poland), at least with my parents generation there is really no such expectation, the "giving back" is just inviting them on a different occasion. Bringing anything extra of course happens but it was strictly optional and often just "look at what tasty stuff I made', like a bottle of home-made alcohol or some smoked ham.
On some occasion like christmas it was often coordinated beforeand, like we all go to christmas to a certain relative but everyone was bringing some specific christmas dish, as to avoid any duplicates.
> In Europe there would definitely be an expectation that alcohol would be provided [...] It would also be expected that guests bring a bottle of wine or flowers or something to that effect.
Nope. I was born and grew up in Germany.
My parents have friends in France and Italy whose kids and whos families I grew up with.
I am regularly in Italy and France still but also other parts of Europe, particularly the south and Scandinavia and I have friends everywhere on this continent so dinner invitations when traveling are frequent.
My experience over 40 years of this contradicts what you say.
I've had to accept that I cannot spend as much money on my friends/family as I'm willing or able to.
It's really made me reconsider the value of money. If I can buy a house in the city or in a desirable neighborhood, but none of my friends/family can then having money/using it in that way is isolating.
And I've arrived at identical solutions - cooking instead of picking up the tab, sharing apartment rentals that I was going to rent anyway.
Additionally: When someone gets married or has a child it's acceptable to give a larger gift.
I also guess one has to take cultural differences into account. In some cultures one will get offended if you pick up a tab, in others it is expected to split the bill. Am I right?
You are correct. I have personally offended a guest from Italy when I recently sprung to pay the bill before he got his card out. I thought it would be like a funny “ha ha - I got it” sort of moment, but instead it turned just a bit sour. Turned out he had his mind set on it as a way to express his gratitude, and me interrupting was kind of like taking that away from him. Well, I had my mind set on something similar, so we sort of had our wires crossed.
Yes, and even the way you split bills may be different, depending on the country you may foot the entire bill with the understanding that the other person will do the same the next time, or literally just pay your half (Or just what you ordered, but that may be considered skimpy in some circles)
Yeah. Appreciate the hypothesis, but I'm not buying those examples. "Hey I rented a house for the weekend, wanna come party with me on the beach" isn't awkward at all. Asking how much you paid for it would be super weird though.
>"Hey I rented a house for the weekend, wanna come party with me on the beach" isn't awkward at all
Agreed. I feel like the proper thing (read: what I personally would do) is to find a way to contribute to the excursion (food? booze? party games?), but there's no obligation, and I wouldn't expect it if the tables were turned.
What's most awkward about this for me is the framing. Surely you have to ask if people are free or if they want to come to a beach house BEFORE you book.
But maybe the point is you'd use it anyway if they didn't want to come?
But then if they said "oh we'd rather just go down to the local" I'd rather than do that and it would be weird cos they'd say, didn't you book a beach house?
I have a friend that could buy everyone in the room a ferrari and still have enough money left to over to buy everyone of their friends a ferrari. He has never paid for food or drinks once. This guide is not for everyone.
I'm in the process of selling my company and these weird dynamics are things that make me nervous.
Edit: in response to the negative comments and downvotes, of course I want to share the wealth. The problem is a lot of people (or at least a lot of my friends) don't like to feel like they can't stand on their own. Offering to pay for everything all the time is a turn off for a lot of people (on the receiving end).
There's a balance between showing your friends you appreciate them, and flaunting wealth / buying friendship.
The general rule I think is: don't gift something a friend can't repay with equal social value in their own way.
Or if you're going to anyway, make it explicit you're doing it for the experience, and don't make it a regular thing. (E.g. dinner at a very expensive restaurant you want to experience and you don't want to eat alone.) People know that rich people do rich people things, and "fun experience" is something that can be repaid without spending lots of money.
I don't think there should be a social pressure but I'd hope there would be some internal moral pressure. If I knew I had 10x the wealth of someone else I would feel bad not paying for things when we're together, like bringing a a younger sibling out to get food when they're in school and you have a job - they might have some savings but each dollar is worth so much more to them.
When there's a need I think in general whoever is best able to handle the situation should be expected to do so. This example is a bit extreme though because it's talking about nice gifts. If someone in the friend group had a car break down and couldn't afford a new one I would definitely think less of this person for not offering to help when they so easily could.
Not completely related - but this reminds me about things like parking tickets which disproportionately impact people with less money. If they're meant to be a deterrent then the fine should be some proportion of income, the $50 fine for one person needs to be a $50k fine for someone else to have the same level of impact.
Generosity is an aspect of success and wealth, as it increases the likelihood of building a strong network of people willing to help you achieve your ambitions.
People tend to nurture plants that give something back, enriching their own lives in one way or another. Generosity shows others that you are such a plant.
Understanding the importance of having a good network may be key to know whether a wealthy individual is generous or not. I believe that a wealthy entrepreneur is more likely to be generous than a wealthy engineer.
I think it's worth understanding that this "genorisity" is strategic, not universal. People don't get rich by hiring employees and paying them most of the money they bring in, or by tipping every cleaning lady or splurging on their friends, or ... .
I think the important phrase in what you said is "network". You want to be generous to those in the network and those you want to bring into it. You want to be frugal when it comes to everyone else. It's worth it to pay for a fancy business dinner with someone you think might have strategic value for you (either directly or as a gateway), not so much with your friend from highschool who's in a dead end job, has no useful qualifications and has no meaningful connections that would even hypothetically be useful.
Of cours some might say this is less generosity than sociopathy. Some might say they're right.
If you are generous with your friend from highschool who has a dead-end job and no useful qualifications, he may still be able to help you in one way or another. For example, he may have a very inspiring mindset and encourage you in your endeavors. He may even be more helpful than the not so generous rich guy who doesn't share anything with you or the guy who always calculates if his investments are worth it.
Be careful with expectations though. "If I help my friend, he'll help me in turn" is magical thinking. There is no such deal in place. Ungratefulness is very common.
The resteraunt one maybe has some weight behind it, but I fail to see how this is awkward:
"I rented a vacation home on the cape for the weekend, wanna come hang out on the beach?"
In fact, a friend of mine invited me to do the same thing at Christmas time this year, and it didn't feel awkward at all!
- Ownership is also a negative, you pay for upkeep, maintenance, admin and inventory of a house. You keep the wealth AND the costs.
- When you go to someone's house for dinner, you're not being bribed, you're relating to the owner of the house. The way you relate to the owner and their friends, influences your future friendship.
- The home owner is not temporarily letting friends access his house. His friends can't rifle through his drawers and live at his house. He is inviting them in for dinner. At most, you are sharing a portion of his house and his hospitality for an evening.
- If you buy stuff for me, I'll say thank you, but honestly I don't always want what you intend to buy for me. If you're not going to relate to my meaning and values, even when you're being "generous", then what's the point of being a friend?
Money and physical goods among non-poor adults, are not a "default win" in friendships. The real generousity in buying a gift is relating to what the other person cares about and giving a small token of that.
Wealthy people have many friends. It's always true, unless the wealthy person rejects it. People elect themselves to be friends with the wealthy.
Money, gifts and generosity can't buy friendship from people who don't relate the way you do.
I get this site is mostly about programming, startups and money, but jeepers. Did we lose the middle way and common sense so quickly?
This is pet issue of mine, as I am often a guest and have rarely had the means to reciprocate the hospitality I have been offered. Even times when I did have something that was mine to share, the percieved power imbalance in sharing it was sometimes odd in the relationship.
However, I almost always accept hospitality because I know what a pleasure it is to give it, and I never feel like I owe someone anything as a result, as it would be a huge insult to them to interpret their generosity as having strings. As I have become older, I've also learned to be a bit suspicious of people who don't accept hospitality or insist weirdly on splitting down to the cent because it is a good indicator they are reserving some moral license to betray or otherwise screw you later. I've heard them say it's a matter of being equal, yet they haven't considered that in rejecting my goodwill they have admitted that they have wasted my time.
Picking up a tab is not settling debts either, that's taking an opportunity to add some value to the time you spend together. I know the feeling of the chips being down all too well, and interpeting someones generosity as pity, but that's the sting of pride, and it deprives people who actually like you of the enjoyment of being able to be some relief.
The best way I have seen money spent on others is, "this thing is happening, it's already settled and done and everything is taken care of, we just need good company to be able to enjoy it, if you are able, you should really join us, there are no costs except getting there and maybe some drinks." I think that approach works all the way from concerts to holidays.
>As I have become older, I've also learned to be a bit suspicious of people who don't accept hospitality or insist weirdly on splitting down to the cent because it is a good indicator they are reserving some moral license to betray or otherwise screw you later.
This is a matter of background. In typical cliche style, I "grew up poor". Liverpool has some extremely poor areas. People try to have some dignity and don't like to accept what they feel is charity, and any generosity is usually seen as a gesture of trust and warmth by the person giving it.
E.g., someone "buys a round" of drinks for everyone in your group, then someone else buys the next round, then the next etc, but if you don't buy a round then you're considered rude. My problem is that I never liked to drink quickly, thus it could sometimes be misinterpreted as rude or negative.
Is it logical? No, not really, it's a cultural thing. Growing up poor, my family and friends had the sentiment that your own problems are your own problems and not anybody else's burden to carry.
I also hate getting birthday presents because I feel like someone felt obligated to give in to societal expectation, probably over-spent on something I probably won't like and spent too much time on picking it out.
Equally, I'm the guy that'd give you the shirt off his own back if it'd make you happy, and like to spoil others, but again, a lot of people grew up poor, I have made family and friends feel very uncomfortable at times by singling them out for special treatment.
That sentiment about people giving your their last penny or the shirt off their own back rings true for a lot of folks around here. Nobody wants to accept it though!
Social etiquette is a fucking complex tapdance, and with autism, I find it even harder lol.
Isn't the article ignoring marginal vs fixed cost? Adding extra plate to dinner table or having extra guest in a cottage has small marginal cost vs having additional guest in restaurant or renting one room larger vacation home.
Honestly, it looks like the whole court is crooked at this point. It's up to Congress to keep them in line, and it's up to them to keep Congress in line, but big money runs politics and they're all on the take.
I wouldn't necessarily say they're all equally crooked, but the unanimous decision in McDonnell vs United States is particularly malodorous. Even my hero RBG accepted gifts that should have been declined.
Same, the thoughts seems at least inspired by those events. The same insight could be labeled "How to bribe someone by making it seem like friendship."
I think the author might be making the assumption that ‘if you don’t feel awkward receiving the gift, it can’t be bribery’ - which I don’t think is what the law says, and hardly seems like a sound moral standard either.
I suppose the idea is ‘if you don’t feel awkward, then there can’t be any sense of obligation, so no quid pro the quo’.
But of course that’s not true.
Although I suppose the author only said this makes it look like it’s not a bribe. Presumably it might still actually be one.
> when you consider the value of your friend’s time, plus the amortized cost of cookware, appliances, furniture, and housing—the home meal could be more expensive than the restaurant meal.
> To me this feels… tacky? Like I feel obligated to at least offer to cover part of the check right?
What's tacky about that? Why feel the obligation? These are your friends, right?
Although perhaps different sets of friends have different social mores.
In my group, doing things like that isn't rare, although more commonly the offer to pick up the check isn't part of the invite, but is just done when the check comes. Nobody feels strange about it because (like "lending" money to each other), everyone does things like this occasionally and averaged over the years, we pretty much all break even anyway.
This is definitely the preferable, and normal, approach, but it raises issues when your friend group is of varying socioeconomic situations. Less affluent members may deprive themselves at dinner, or worse, politely decline the invitation all together, because of concern about their ability to pay, despite the more affluent members being more than happy to cover their meal because they enjoy their company.
My group of friends definitely aren't all of the same economic status. I can see how that might be an issue for some. In our case, it's really not. Perhaps because we've been friends for decades, and at various times we've all been flat broke or flush, so no single person is considered the "rich" one or the "poor" one. We just don't think in that way.
However, friends who don't have as much disposable income still "chip in" in different ways. Holding the occasional dinner party, providing things in their specialty (carpentry, home repair, etc.)
This is why nobody cares or keeps track. Everyone participates in one way or another. It all evens out in the wash.
It might not be a popular opinion but all the comments about cultural differences, or needing to be careful with communication seem wrong to me.
Someone offering you a gift to pay shouldn’t come off as rude or a power play of wealth. It shouldn’t be a surprise to you that some people are more well off. If a kind gesture makes you feel awkward, guilty or lesser that’s insecurity on you, not them.
Maybe, just maybe, you are bad at receiving gifts.
Let’s be charitable and stop assuming people are doing something weird. Yes we can communicate better but we don’t need to walk on eggshells just to be kind to friends.
I absolutely love treating friends. I intentionally invite people to dinner, don’t tell them ahead of time that I’m paying so they order exactly what they would have normally. I excuse myself to the restroom and ask the waiter to use my card at the end.
The few times I’ve had people had an issue or feel bad, I was extremely clear with them that
1. I want to, it brings me joy to give my friends gifts
2. I do not expect anything in return, I just wanted to spend time and enjoy a dinner with them
3. I purposely budget to do this, it’s the same as me inviting them over for cooked dinner
4. If they are deeply hurt or bothered by it I have no problem with them paying the portion and won’t do it again if it wasn’t something that made them feel cared for or enjoyed
To me, it’s respectful to offer the intended recipients of your gift the choice to accept or not rather than forcing something on them they didn’t consent to.
So is it disrespectful to want to gift someone a meal? I don’t understand why it has to be so black and white.
Also the consent thing really sounds weird. Do you honestly go around making value judgements about when people did or did not seek your consent to this level of granularity? Why?
Again I think if the first place you go to when offered a free, meaningful and well intended gift is consent, you internally have an issue that you need to handle.
The good thing about consent in this case is they can just "return" the gift by paying you their portion of the bill, and if they don't consent isn't really violated. You went from owing the restaurant to owing them.
But why take the joys of life and make them difficult? Let your friend enjoy himself by being generous.
While this behavior is joyous and enjoyablefor you, not everyone may share your point of view. Some find joy in paying their own way. Let others choose for themselves instead of deciding for them.
Paying a bill isn't forcing anything on anyone. It literally doesn't involve them, it's between the payer (the gift giver) and the payee (the restaurant).
Dating can be complicated like this. Last time I was single, I had quite a bit more money than the people I was dating, and if we went for dinner, I wanted to eat at much nicer places than they did. The magic solution here was to say simply "I'm going to choose the place, but give me $20/$50 towards dinner" and then to pay for everything else ... it made stuff so much less weird, even if dinner ended up being an order of magnitude more expensive.
I was expecting an article about how to spend money on your friends so they don't feel like you're going to ask them favours in return.
Turns out the article is not about this at all. But.
Dammit, I can likely afford to take some friends to a (local) restaurant and pay the whole bill, no questions asked about contents of those fancy drinks. I'm very unlikely to have time or skill to cook for 14 myself. I would go to a restaurant with someone after making sure that them volunteering to pay the bill is not a "yes, but actually no". If someone invited me to a home party I would certainly feel more than obligated to participate in bringing in produce, booze, and sharing the labour of preparing the food and cleaning up after.
I can afford to rent some place to escape, but owning a whole cottage on the cape? Are you saying it's better to own a cottage just so that invitation is not awkward for you? I can't wrap my head around the concept. I would surely be curious about the costs of having such a thing.
The whole feel of the piece is incredibly first world to me. The author (and their friends) seem like people who would smirk at you if you only had one yacht, or if your golf course was too small. Book a hotel, and it's awkward. Just buy a cottage instead.
Some ways to make recipients feel more comfortable:
- You can suggest some other contribution. "Would you mind bringing snacks? / Would you mind handling music on the drive? / Would you mind giving X a ride?"
- You can allow them to reciprocate in less expensive situations, like taking the check when you are at a cheaper place.
It's really easy. If you directly spend more than your friend could ever afford to take from their disposable income if you switched places and while being overly emotional/drunk/etc., you're taking on the risk of hurting their dignity.
Taking your friend for a ride in your expensive car should be fine, giving them the keys for a week is absolutely not.
If you really want to lash out, like @ilyt said, make it invisible: spend on preparations or takedown, maybe arrange a little happy accident, or just spend normally and donate the rest to your friend's cause of choice.
First world problem, if I ever saw one.
Now, talking about power dynamics, meaning of work and success for interpersonal relationship, it's a whole another level of complexity that's important, but it's not just about the money.
To me, if you compare an interaction with friends as feeling like bribery, I question the friendship a bit. Maybe its just me, but spending money/time/whatever in any way with/for friends shouldn't feel that way..
Having the ability to shower friends and family with gifts - and doing so - is a fundamental requirement for social status in every human society. The king who invites all the nobles to a great feast, the Hollywood socialite who hosts the most splendid post-Oscar party, the Pacific Northwest tribal chieftan who has the largest potlatch celebration, are all acting out this tradition. The latter may be less familiar:
> "A potlatch involves giving away or destroying wealth or valuable items in order to demonstrate a leader's wealth and power. Potlatches are also focused on the reaffirmation of family, clan, and international connections, and the human connection with the supernatural world. Potlatch also serves as a strict resource management regime, where coastal peoples discuss, negotiate, and affirm rights to and uses of specific territories and resources. (wiki)"
Distribution of resources within societies has historically varied quite a bit, so in the more egalitarian societies, the situation is more reciprocal, with people giving as many gifts as they receieve on average. Highly unequal societies end up with 'noblesse oblige' behavior as gifts tend to flow from the wealthy to the poor, which has been used as a justification for the aristocrat/serf system of feudalism.
These patterns of behavior are a kind of societal glue, and when they break down it tends to lead to revolutions and overthrow of the social order, as in late 18th century France, early 20th century Russia, etc. This probably also accounts for some of the failures of authoritarian state communism, as all resources end up controlled by state authorities (e.g. it's probably hard to throw a private party for friends in North Korea).
In terms of day-to-day living in democratic capitalist societies, people instinctively understand this dynamic and much of the awkwardness this article discusses relates to the fact that people are always keeping account of who gives what to who, even if it's just unconscious behavior. It also explains why inter-class friendships can be much more difficult to maintain than any other type, i.e. inter-faith, inter-race, etc.
I had a friend who was the son of a billionaire who threw elaborate dinner parties at his house and he very generously asked for $20 for each attendee. The food obviously cost more than $20 but paying the $20 made us feel like we weren't freeloading.
It's not the bribery but the reciprocity and equality. When does it create an obligation?
Another example is bringing food or drink. Generally when we bring comestibles to share, no one expects to have to reciprocate, because we're all sharing. But if you offer the host a gift, it creates entanglements.
Generally I try to shift the frame to the shared activity - eating, brainstorming, gaming, etc. so people feel that if they are participating, they are contributing.
For dinners out, I don't think rich people should presume they have the right to pay before anyone gets a chance to contribute. It takes away the agency of others.
These situations are logically equivalent and the differences are fairly subtle. It would be interesting to know whether most people would be able to pick the difference between the two approaches.
I suppose it is a higher-status play to have spare resources available instead of having to deplete your finances to do favours for friends. Maybe one approach suggests a deeper understanding of other people's needs which is good signalling. But at the end of the day if you give someone something with no strings attached, that is what happened. The method isn't so important.
I love everything Bill writes. One of the things that I very much miss about working at Stripe is getting to read the very thoughtful notes that he would send out.
> It’s not merely a matter of expense; when you consider the value of your friend’s time, plus the amortized cost of cookware, appliances, furniture, and housing—the home meal could be more expensive than the restaurant meal.
No it couldn't, this is complete bullshit. The amortization from a one time on something that you use every day for many years use is nothing.
This person sounds like he never actually cooks. That's all I'm saying.
I agree it's inconceivable that the incremental cost of cooking a meal couldn't possibly exceed the price of a restaurant meal.
Presumably the author is thinking of the kind of people who buy a bigger home to have space for entertaining, and/or upgrade their home to impress their guests.
If you brought a bigger house to have a dining room for guests? Or brought a house with a bigger kitchen and more storage space, to store your vast collection of glasses and chairs that usually go unused? If you don't have guests often, that might not be very cost-effective.
It does feel more comfortable to not be expected to be paying for anything
But its also common to chip in, amongst my loosely affiliated friends. Or its a potluck to begin with.
When its the host cooking, yeah you’re just there and partaking.
On the other far extreme, its my friends have private chefs, and I know thats even more expensive than the host cooking, but yeah that also has no charge expected.
Hmm, I kinda feel like me directly paying for friends (or telling them I’ll pay) sets up an unhealthy expectation.
On one hand I want to do things with people (even if they can’t pay themselves), on the other hand, I don’t want them to come to me and expect me to pay.
This must be a specific cultural thing. In my group of friends and family, generous offers like those used in the examples aren't seen as 'tacky'. They're just generous and speak to a spirit of wanting to share.
Just have some kids! My adult children are always happy to let us spend money on them. Come to think of it, my wife and I still let our parents pay for stuff as well, even though they really don't need to anymore.
Now, I made a little money, good
But I still want to live in the hood
But buying new fly shit
Is just like inviting ants to a picnic
There's just too many sets
And now I'm getting those kidnap threats
Makes sense. If you are spending money, people want to split the cost. If you are sharing something you already have and would have regardless, even if it costed money originally, no need to split costs.
interesting observations, my guess is ownership implies the sense of regularity and therefore less pressure on the individual to attend. Backing out last minute means less if theyre heading out to the cottage as usual anyway, youre just a tagalong after all.
In Capitalism, you are always encouraged to own instead of rent. The benefits of private ownership are extolled. Capitalists are shocked by “in 2030, you’ll own nothing and be happy.”
Ownership is an idea that allows companies that build things to sell excess capacity and luxury stuff. Like real estate in growing economies (China, or the American Dream in past decades of USA). Or like carmakers in the USA until recently.
Own that car! Then look how much unused metal is parked on the street most of the day, so carmakers can create more. When self-driving cars come along, our cities will become more beautiful again, with less parking lots and lanes. It’s also inefficient in more ways than one — a study in San Francisco found that 30% of all traffic is just circling looking for parking: https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/10/is-30-of-traffic-...
Ownership is right to exclude all others from using a resource, even if you are not using it. So if I own a bike, no one else who needs it can use it, it just sits in the closet, thus more bikes are required to be sold to society. With CitiBike, or other bike sharing programs, bikes are rented on demand.
So one of the benefits is that you can project wealth and excess, and invite your friends to use the thing that no one could be using anyway.
The millennials and later generations are fine to rent on demand, even including clothes (“rent the runway”). They join clubs like SoHo club that let them use facilities on demand when they travel. It’s a different approach. And there, since it’s on-demand, there is less waste but also it becomes clear when someone is subsidizing someone else.
That said … now that there is so much capacity built (eg commercial and residential real estate) that SOMEONE has to own it, we may as well own it collectively (housing cooperatives) and schedule use of it (eg cooperative time shares) than the exploitative landlord model and airbnb model that raises rents sky-high.
Housing cooperatives. Taxi cooperatives. Credit unions. Eliminate the shareholder class, and let everyone own the network. Socialism online, without violence of the State. Someone should build that ;-)
PS: It just requires software to self-organize. And it is far better for the environment. Producing one electric car takes a lot of fossil fuels, and if they were shared we’d cut down on production and have more efficient consumption to recoup the costs after 70,000 miles.
PPS: Cooking at home is different from the above, because people typically buy food and consume food before it spoils. In fact, the post is wrong — going out to a restaurant is far more expensive than the supermarket food. Most societies until the 1990s did not afford to eat out all the time but they certainly invited people over quite often! House parties also gives a great reason to visit each other.
You're spot-on about the cost of the restaurant vs the dinner but I think it's also worth pointing out that being invited to be wined and dined at home still feels awkward because it's usually expected that you bring in something (a gift if it's a special occasion or food if it's a potluck).
Additionally staying with them at their vacation home might feel less awkard than staying at their home because at their home you know they'll have to clean up after you whereas at the vacation home there's usually a cleaning fee included in what they already paid for.
I guess having a maid might cancel that out but at least where I live "I have a maid on call" money is more than "I can afford sometimes renting a vacation home with a spare bedroom for a trip".
Renting things is fine depending upon the circumstances. It depends if you can rent the thing you want, how inconvenient the rental transactions are, how frequently you'll use thing or for how long, how the economics pencil out, etc.
There are a ton of things I have to or prefer to own. And other things I prefer to rent when I need them and/or can't economically own.
You're basically describing the exact opposite of my paradigm. To me, individual ownership of assets is required for power to remain distributed throughout society. Specifically, individuals retaining a surplus that can be used on a whim, without coordination, is required for personal freedom.
The backlash to "you'll own nothing and be happy" is not because people are lamenting that (distributed) capitalism is fading away across the board. Rather it's because the quip describes the dynamic that is being pushed onto the masses, as ownership/control of assets is concentrated into fewer hands (late stage centralized capitalism).
> Ownership is right to exclude all others from using a resource, even if you are not using it. So if I own a bike, no one else who needs it can use it, it just sits in the closet, thus more bikes are required to be sold to society. With CitiBike, or other bike sharing programs, bikes are rented on demand.
This exclusivity is exactly what allows one to take the availability of the bike for granted without wondering if it will be available. To use the bike for frivolous reasons for a tiny incremental cost. To have the bike customized for your own needs, comfort, and performance. To buy in at a lower price (a solid used non-electric bike) and then upgrade capabilities (ebike) down the line. To be able to continue using it (while even reducing its carrying costs by say doing maintenance yourself) if you lose your source of income and need to save money. To loan to a friend ride while you ride your other bike, encouraging them to try biking without the hurdle of them needing to spend money (per the article). To know that the price of using the bike isn't going to gradually creep up because someone else wants higher margins, or that you might be outright banned due to an unaccountable fickle "algorithm".
Financially - lets say an ebike is $1500 and lasts two years. If I'm reading the Citibike prices correctly, a yearly membership is $205 and then it's still $0.17/minute to ride? So breakeven is around 54 hours a year, which is only one to three trips per week?! And in actuality, at the end of two years the maintenance on the self owned bike will likely cost less than another yearly membership fee.
I'm certainly not disputing that there are advantages to the rental model for many types of use (which is why they're popular in cities to begin with). But you are ignoring all of the benefits of asset ownership.
> The millennials and later generations are fine to rent on demand, even including clothes (“rent the runway”).
Is this state of affairs preferred, or is it due to them being much poorer while making poor long-term financial decisions that have been advertised to them (lucrative for the counterparty) ?
> They join clubs like SoHo club that let them use facilities on demand when they travel.
Routine travel is the domain of the young and rich, spending extra resources. The longstanding name for shared temporary housing is "hotels". Most everyone still aims to have a primary residence - being short on housing a terrible long-term idea as government policy has guaranteed it inflates.
> Eliminate the shareholder class, and let everyone own the network. Socialism online, without violence of the State
You're ignoring that there is still necessarily a controlling class - eliminating management/agency is impossible. In any social structure, regardless of how you try to mitigate it, some people will be more powerful than others. For the most part people want to extract themselves from dealing with bureaucracy, not sign up for more.
So sure, advocate for replacing shareholders with cooperatives! But stop thinking it's a good idea to introduce the centralized ownership dynamic where it's not needed in the first place.
One option is to say something like "When (you get a 6 figure job, your options vest, ...), you can return the favor or pay it forward". Two birds with one stone: express confidence in the person and make it feel less awkward.
Maybe it's the way that's worded, but that feels even more awkward / borderline cringey to me.
A lot of people (arguably wrongly) tie their self worth to their wealth. This can come off as "when you're worth as much as a human as I am!"
Or, for someone in a career where 6 figures do not happen, this is equivalent to telling them that nope, they can never repay this favor!
The only time I could see this working is if you had some celebration-worthy achievement which also had money associated with it. Then, throw a party to celebrate your achievement (say, the company you started went public) -- friends like to support those! -- and then it's socially acceptable that you're using the money from said achievement to fund the party.
> this is equivalent to telling them that nope, they can never repay this favor!
But that's exactly what you want. You're trying to spend money on friends without making them feel obligated to spend money on you.
Perhaps there's better wording (and I'd like to hear it), but I think the best approach is rather than telling them that they have no obligation to return the favor, shift the obligation to something much less onerous for them by shifting it in time or in kind.
A good friend will believe you when you tell them there is no obligation to return the favor, but a more casual friend is less likely to believe you and more likely to think you're shifting the social obligation balance in your favor and might call on it in the future. Better to make it explicit to head that off.
They will feel obligated to repay you, at least socially. Framing it explicitly in terms of monetary success -- or moreso, something you have that they don't -- I feel adds unnecessary value judgement.
Instead, suggest something they could do today which is of equal social cost to them and equal social benefit to you. Say -- if you paid for an expensive weekend vacation home, maybe next year they can host you at their Uncle Whoosit's place up in rural Maine.
And now you're obligated to visit Uncle Whoosit or be shown up as a hypocrite.
When people say that they want to spend money on friends & family with no obligation in return, they're network building. That they'd expect the favor to be returned if the situation were reversed. Even if nobody really expects the situation to be reversed. I guess we could lean into that:
"When the zombie apocalypse happens, I expect you to have my back".
If I don't value the means by which someone could reciprocate a gift, I don't give the gift. And I would not feel that a gift was genuine or meaningful if someone gifted me something expressly for the purpose of "network building", which I am unable to reciprocate in a way they find acceptable. It creates an awkward power imbalance that I don't think belongs in a healthy friendship.
It seems to me like you hang around with a lot of people with similar opportunities and skills than you. Some of my friends work at Starbucks. Some of my family is retired after 50 years in a factory making $40k/yr while raising 3 kids. They aren't just about to have a big break that puts us on even footing.
I moved from Romania to Switzerland after college. When I'd meet up with old friends in Romania, some of them would joke "I'll get the bill now, you can get it when I visit you in Switzerland" (costs in Switzerland are much higher than in Romania)
Yeah I'll tell my parent/brother/friend who works at a grocery store that they can pay me back when their options vest, or their deli job hits 6 figures...
Do they want to be in the deli job forever? If no, you're probably already helping / encouraging them on their journey to get a better job, and that shouldn't be awkward.
If they do want to be in the deli job forever, then yah, my phrasing is awkward. There aren't too many people who want to work the deli forever, but there are some.
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.