‘Shall we split the bill then?’ The economist asked with a sly grin
Have you tried winning at yum cha? not? Good for you. I promise some of us do. You know who you are, you rational consumer you.
What does it take to win at yum cha? Simple. Eat the most.
In yum cha, the bill is usually divided equally between the people at the table. So there is a risk that you will be subsidizing other people’s food if you don’t eat enough. It is best to invite smaller friends.
The idea of trying to win at yum cha might be silly. That. Do not take this article literally. Yum cha is just a good metaphor for considering economic consumer theory and rationality.
Yum cha is not a game
How do you make a rational decision to approach yum cha, assuming the bill will be split and eating more is better?
At its simplest, the more you eat the better you get for your money. Eat less, and groups pay less. But you pay more for what you eat. Considering this, there are several strategies that can be considered to win in yum cha:
-
Eat a little earlier in anticipation of eating more later
-
Be the person who serves as the waiter who distributes the food so you choose what the group eats
-
Skip the drink to make the most out of the real food
-
Eat as much as possible 20 minutesapproximately the time it takes to feel full
-
I hear some people go to yum cha to socialize instead of just eating lunch – these guys are good to bring.
Of course, thinking in these terms is not useful in everyday life and can lead to bad results. Besides the stomach ache from eating too much – chances are you won’t be invited back next time.
The potential for repeated events is important – the actions of individuals affect the future actions of others. We cannot ignore the future. If the event repeats itself, it is better to cooperate with the people around you to create a socially optimal situation – i.e. to be invited back to yum cha.
Order a pork bun now, pay later
After studying microeconomics 101 you could be forgiven for thinking that people are selfish, but miraculously, through our selfishness, we create a better world. This idea is fundamental to economics, as explained at the beginning Adam Smith:
“It is not from the kindness of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we look forward to dinner, but from our own interests.”
Rational consumer theory suggests people make choices that benefit themselves. So eat heaps on yum cha to get the best value. The problem with the rational consumer theory is that people often do not do what is best because of short-term thinking, lack of knowledge, or because they are only human.
Besides the fact that eating too much can taste terrible, many of the dishes in yum cha are bad for you. Sure, one pork loin isn’t going to make a difference, but eating the type of food you eat often can be bad for your health – obesity and heart disease, for example.
This is the problem with short-termism again – we ignore the future. Making short-term ‘feel good’ decisions over and over again can have dire consequences for your future.
The notion of a rational consumer is flawed in this respect because people should not prepare for what they do not know or understand. People are bad with numbers and underestimate the risk to themselves of bad things happening. In this case, the consequences of an unhealthy diet. Can it still be called rational if people don’t understand the risks?
Chicken foot diplomacy
Preferences influence consumer choice and are one of the key elements of consumer theory. We maximize it utilityor satisfaction, by buying what you like.
In yum cha, this means choosing a dish that we like. However, if we split the bill, how do we deal with when people choose foods they don’t like?
Chicken feet is one of the more divisive yum cha options. Some people love it, others don’t. Ordering one serving is enough. Order five servings because you won’t eat anything, and people might ask questions like who is going to pay?
People pay for other people’s preferences. This issue is difficult to manage for the extreme, or the choice of the edge that is open to the majority. If someone likes chicken feet enough to order five servings, what justifies their request?
Governments must contend with competing options all the time. How do you address the concerns of those who want a lockdown to squash COVID-19 compared to those who want to keep businesses open? Preferences may be incompatible, with very different costs for different groups. The loudest voice is not always the right one.
Just because we can win, doesn’t mean we have to try
The idea of winning at yum cha is clearly not to be taken seriously. It’s just an interesting example to illustrate that in economic reality, winning is not always what it’s cracked up to be.
The brinkmanship that can occur between parties competing to ‘win’ economically can be dangerous.
For example, it is possible to ‘win’ during the COVID-19 pandemic, at least in the short term, by avoiding the key to maintaining economic interests. Countries that chose not to lock down early suffers from the economy, and has a higher number of cases. Now we know, that is not an option.
Countries can also ‘win’ on climate change by free-riding on other countries’ efforts to reduce emissions. Just because we might ‘win’, doesn’t mean we should try. Sometimes there is too much at stake.
Enjoy your next yum cha.
▼▼ Thanks for reading. Share using the link below. ▼▼