$350 a Head for Sushi in NY

[kamome]

The tactic is to sue for a large number so that you have room to negotiate in settlement discussions. If you initially sue for the true value of the case, you're not giving yourself any bargaining leverage.

[Mulboyne]

Reuters: NY Japanese eatery earns Michelin three-star rank

A Japanese restaurant joins three French eateries in New York City awarded a coveted three-star Michelin rating as the respected guide warned chefs to focus on value for money amid a deepening financial crisis. Masa, dubbed "arguably the most expensive restaurant" by The New York Times, received three stars, joining Jean-Georges, Le Bernardin and Per Se, who retained the top rank they were first given four years ago when Michelin launched in New York...more...

[Mulboyne]

[omae mona]

Bloomberg: Masa, Priciest U.S. Sushi Joint, Discounts Meals, Citing Fuel

I call bullshit. At 27 seats let's be conservative and assume he only cycles through 2 seatings and gets 54 customers total per day. He's making the claim, then, that his freight costs were $5400 daily before and now have gone down to $2700. I am sure refrigerated freight is not dirt-cheap, but I doubt the 1-way trip was costing anything close to $5400. (somebody correct me if I'm wrong)

He lowered prices because nobody is going to his restaurant anymore. It was all expense account business, and now if you pay $450 for a dinner you end up with a U.S. Senator asking you why you spent TARP money on sushi.

[TennoChinko]

I call bullshit. At 27 seats let's be conservative and assume he only cycles through 2 seatings and gets 54 customers total per day. He's making the claim, then, that his freight costs were $5400 daily before and now have gone down to $2700. I am sure refrigerated freight is not dirt-cheap, but I doubt the 1-way trip was costing anything close to $5400. (somebody correct me if I'm wrong)

He lowered prices because nobody is going to his restaurant anymore. It was all expense account business, and now if you pay $450 for a dinner you end up with a U.S. Senator asking you why you spent TARP money on sushi.

+100

And, it's not like Masatoshi Takayama is known for his generosity...

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20081123a6.html

Sunday, Nov. 23, 2008
[SIZE="5"]
Ex-waiters sue Manhattan sushi joint Masa over tips[/SIZE]

NEW YORK (Kyodo) Ex-waiting staff of the Japanese sushi restaurant Masa have filed a lawsuit against the world-class Manhattan eatery, claiming they were cheated out of tips, the Daily News reported Friday.

In the suit, lodged with the Manhattan Supreme Court, more than 100 former servers at Masa are claiming damages of more than $1 million.

The plaintiffs in the case said Masa owner Masayoshi Takayama did not distribute to his staff the 20 percent gratuity he requires of all customers, the newspaper said.

They also said Takayama required the waiting staff to pool additional tips received from customers and split the money with nonservice employees, according to the paper.

[Mulboyne]

The NYT has just stripped a star from Masa.

[matsuki]

+100

And, it's not like Masatoshi Takayama is known for his generosity...

They also said Takayama required the waiting staff to pool additional tips received from customers and split the money with nonservice employees, according to the paper.

All the lemurs I knew in LA that worked under the table at Japanese restaurants would bitch about this. Some even claimed the restaurant took 50% of the total and left the other 50% to be divided among all the employees equally.

[Jack]

Some even claimed the restaurant took 50% of the total and left the other 50% to be divided among all the employees equally.

This is very common and in my view deserves the death penalty. Fuck all those greedy restaurant owners.

[Typhoon]

Forgetabout the overpriced sushi.

$350 for head is far too much.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Forgetabout the overpriced sushi.

$350 for head is far too much.

Yeah, I expect full service for 350.

[matsuki]

This is very common and in my view deserves the death penalty. Fuck all those greedy restaurant owners.

Unless they are paying them a reasonable salary but I doubt that's the case...

[Samurai_Jerk]

All the lemurs I knew in LA that worked under the table at Japanese restaurants would bitch about this. Some even claimed the restaurant took 50% of the total and left the other 50% to be divided among all the employees equally.

The restaurant keeping any of the tips is fucking scummy as hell. I know of a Korean place in Seattle that kept 100%. It's also misleading the customers. Does anyone know what the legality of that is in the US?

I don't necessarily disagree with dividing the tips among the other employees though. When I bussed tables in college I got a percentage of the wait staff's tips. The qaulity of the food, how quickly the bar puts out the drinks and even how well the other servers are handling their customers can all negatively or positively impact your overall experience so I think it can be a good way to encourage teamwork.

Of course, if you have a superstar server who's always getting the biggest tips it might be unfair to him or her. That's why I think it makes the most sense to let waiters and bartenders keep X ammount for themselves and put the rest in a pool.

[matsuki]

The restaurant keeping any of the tips is fucking scummy as hell. I know of a Korean place in Seattle that kept 100%. It's also misleading the customers. Does anyone know what the legality of that is in the US?

Not likely legal but most of the lemurs working at sushi places or "Japanese" restaurants were working under the table so it was just like being back in Japan, working for shit wages with no voice.

[Samurai_Jerk]

it was just like being back in Japan, working for shit wages with no voice.

How's that different from the US?

[matsuki]

How's that different from the US?

Guess it depends on where you live...California employment law and the selective enforcement of Japaneses "law" along with "cultural" norms here is night and day.

[kino]

If I had to actually *pay* for the $200 steak I wouldn't be able to enjoy it as much. But when the company pays......

Over the past couple of years I have been lucky enough to eat quite a few $150 to $200 steak dinners. As someone who enjoys a good steak and has eaten my share of steaks I guarantee you there is no comparison between a $40 steak and a $200 one.

I tend to agree with both perspectives. Objectively speaking, I doubt that there is very much difference in taste between a 30 dollar steak and a 150 dollar steak provided both are prepared by competent chefs. When people spend an excessive amount of money on food, they are buying more than just a day's meal: they are buying an experience. The experience of sitting in a fancy restaurant wearing your best, while being catered to by a professional staff and treated like royalty, if only for a moment, goes a long way to convincing us that clearly we've had a better meal.

This subject is discussed at length in Dan Ariely's book, Predictably Irrational, when he talks about how people were unable to recognize a world class violinist dressed as a vagrant and performing in a busy New York subway. Of course, there was nothing different about the quality of the music that day except for the setting and people's expectations about the experience they were receiving.

The same is true for a host of other products including bottled water (Pen and Teller's Bullshit! eviscerated the bottled water industry), clothes, art, etc.

At the end of the day, if you have subjectively had a better experience, then the knowledge that the steaks very well may have been nearly identical in taste and quality is unlikely to change the value of that fact.

Now, as to whether it is morally objectionable or obscene to spend $350 on a meal when other people are starving, I think that is a more difficult and interesting question.

[Samurai_Jerk]

This subject is discussed at length in Dan Ariely's book, Predictably Irrational, when he talks about how people were unable to recognize a world class violinist dressed as a vagrant and performing in a busy New York subway. Of course, there was nothing different about the quality of the music that day except for the setting and people's expectations about the experience they were receiving.

This experiment doesn't mean that the music wasn't any better. It just means that the average person can't tell the difference. I'm sure another world-class violinist would be able to tell.

[kino]

This experiment doesn't mean that the music wasn't any better. It just means that the average person can't tell the difference. I'm sure another world-class violinist would be able to tell.

Indeed, but that is kind of the point. To the average person, the music didn't stand out as being of superior quality. However, if you put the same poeple in the setting of a concert hall and have the same violinist perform the same set, they'd swear up and down that it was a masterful performance and well worth the price of admission.

[Yokohammer]

Indeed, but that is kind of the point. To the average person, the music didn't stand out as being of superior quality. However, if you put the same poeple in the setting of a concert hall and have the same violinist perform the same set, they'd swear up and down that it was a masterful performance and well worth the price of admission.

As I remember quite a few people were impressed by the player's virtuosity and stopped to listen.

But that experiment was seriously flawed. They put the violinist in the entranceway of a busy subway station where loads of busy people were scurrying to get to and/or from work. Obviously people in a hurry aren't going to stop and listen even if they love what they're hearing.

To conclude that this proves that "average" people are incapable of recognizing quality in a setting in which they're not expecting it is just wrong.

[kino]

As I remember quite a few people were impressed by the player's virtuosity and stopped to listen.

But that experiment was seriously flawed. They put the violinist in the entranceway of a busy subway station where loads of busy people were scurrying to get to and/or from work. Obviously people in a hurry aren't going to stop and listen even if they love what they're hearing.

To conclude that this proves that "average" people are incapable of recognizing quality in a setting in which they're not expecting it is just wrong.

All valid points. However, memory is a fickle thing. I'll up the ante with a source (granted, the WP is not my favorite source of news). From the article:

On that Friday in January, those private questions would be answered in an unusually public way. No one knew it, but the fiddler standing against a bare wall outside the Metro in an indoor arcade at the top of the escalators was one of the finest classical musicians in the world, playing some of the most elegant music ever written on one of the most valuable violins ever made. His performance was arranged by The Washington Post as an experiment in context, perception and priorities -- as well as an unblinking assessment of public taste: In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html

Post-edited to fix my drunkeness.

[Yokohammer]

All valid points. However, memory is a fickle thing. I'll up the ante with a source (granted, the WP is not my favorite source of news). From the article:

Looks like my memory is pretty good.

The experiment only proved that people who are too busy to stop and listen will not stop and listen. Not really a surprise.

To reiteriate, it does not prove that people are incapable of recognizing quality in the wrong setting. It does, however, prove that even a superlative musical performance is not going to deter busy people from getting to work.

Duh.

[kino]

For those interested, video of the subway world-class violinist and child prodigy being utterly ignored:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMyXfdk_Fp8&feature=player_embedded

Skip to the 50 second mark if you want to avoid the lead in and improper use of "begged the question".

[kino]

Looks like my memory is pretty good.

The experiment only proved that people who are too busy to stop and listen will not stop and listen. Not really a surprise.

To reiteriate, it does not prove that people are incapable of recognizing quality in the wrong setting. It does, however, prove that even a superlative musical performance is not going to deter busy people from getting to work.

Duh.

Wow, for someone so intent on not jumping to conclusions, you certainly jumped to your own. 40 people were interviewed after passing the world-class violinist, and when asked, "was there anything special that happened on your commute today?", only one responded, "the violinist".

Only 6 or so even bothered to stop. Now, if I knew that a world class violinist was playing a few feet away from me in a public and free performance, would I spend 5 minutes to listen even at the risk of being late? Yes, and absolutely fucking yes. My boss can go blow goats if he is going to be upset at that. The majority of these people had no clue what they were listening too, and this was confirmed in subsequent interviews.

[ChargerCarl]

Only 6 or so even bothered to stop. Now, if I knew that a world class violinist was playing a few feet away from me in a public and free performance, would I spend 5 minutes to listen even at the risk of being late? Yes, and absolutely fucking yes. My boss can go blow goats if he is going to be upset at that. The majority of these people had no clue what they were listening too, and this was confirmed in subsequent interviews.

That'll be a great story to tell your wife and kids when you get fired and lose your house.

[kino]

That'll be a great story to tell your wife and kids when you get fired and lose your house.

If that is the kind of tyranny you work under, I suggest you quit now and try to experience life.

Forty interviews, only one person even noted the violinist. That is more than, "I was just too busy to listen". Where are the people who respond, "Oh, actually there was this amazing (or perhaps just good) violinist in the subway, and I so wanted to listen, but alas, my asshole of a boss wouldn't have permitted that". I'm only going on the data that is presented in the article, so I don't know. It is only one rather informal study, albeit an interesting one in my opinion. Yokohammer raises valid points, but I think the fact that a crowd never developed and that no one even really noticed other than the person who studied the violin and the woman who just happened to recognize the violinist, is pretty damming evidence.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

What happens if you turn the experiment on its head?

How many people at a concert hall, there with the intention of listening to a virtuoso violinst, would pay attention to the player if a subway came screaming through the hall?

Hammer's points are valid. It's a loaded experiment predisposed to producing results the researcher wants (something like Michael Moore would do). It's charlatan science.

[kino]

The problem with your premise is that people who attend a concert already know what to expect. Many of them bought the ticket knowing exactly who would be playing, and putting a different face in front of them would certainly tip them off to the deception.

Returning to the original experiment, if you want to believe that the fact that only 1 in 40 people even noticed that one of the best violinists in the world was performing before their very eyes is insignificant and "charlatan science", then have at it. I'm not invested in the experiment; I don't care. I do believe that you are being deliberately obtuse, though. To believe that is insignificant, you have to accept that of the 40 people interviewed, all were so busy that they didn't even notice the violinists' presence. Now, I don't know about you, but I note when there is a street performer. I may not remember them, but I at least hear them and note their existence. The test was, would people be able to distinguish between the average street performer, and a master of the profession? The answer, at least from that test, is a resounding no.

You call it a "loaded" experiment. In fact, the results run counter to our intuition. Our intuition would suggest that exceptional talent would be noticed regardless of the setting. The results didn't back that up.

As for the "subway came screaming through the hall", the article does talk about the quality of acoustics in the chosen location and says that it was good given the location. I don't think you can rely just on that to discount the study, especially given the video. The guy wasn't on the subway platform. He was at the entrance to the subway, and since you live in Japan (I presume), you probably understand how much of a difference that would make.

[Yokohammer]

You call it a "loaded" experiment. In fact, the results run counter to our intuition. Our intuition would suggest that exceptional talent would be noticed regardless of the setting. The results didn't back that up.

This is not "our" intuition. It may be yours, but it certainly isn't mine. I suspect you may be in the minority here.

If I'm on the run, in a crowd, and have things on my mind, I'm not likely to notice anything that will disrupt my train of thought unless I physically run into it.

This is just bad science. But even if it was a valid experiment it doesn't support your assertion that average people can't recognize quality unless they're in a situation in which they're predisposed to do so. This is nonsense.

Try a modified experiment on a more even playing field and then tell me what you find: put an amateur (not "bad," just amateur) and "world-class" instrumentalist side by side and ask people which they think is better. I think you'll find that most people can tell the difference.

[kino]

This is not "our" intuition. It may be yours, but it certainly isn't mine. I suspect you may be in the minority here.

If I'm on the run, in a crowd, and have things on my mind, I'm not likely to notice anything that will disrupt my train of thought unless I physically run into it.

This is just bad science. But even if it was a valid experiment it doesn't support your assertion that average people can't recognize quality unless they're in a situation in which they're predisposed to do so. This is nonsense.

Try a modified experiment on a more even playing field and then tell me what you find: put an amateur (not "bad," just amateur) and "world-class" instrumentalist side by side and ask people which they think is better. I think you'll find that most people can tell the difference.

Again, I don't think you are being unreasonable in your questions. However, around 1000 people walked by without even giving a second glance. Is that not remarkable?

I understand that it is possible to be so wrapped up in your own thoughts that is possible to ignore even the fact that one of the world's greatest violinist is performing right before your eyes. I think that is what is remarkable about this experiment. If you asked me beforehand whether I would notice such a thing, I would have said absolutely yes. However, the results of this experiment suggest that, despite my objections, the chances are I wouldn't notice no matter how highly I thought of my own abilities to assess such matters. How many people do you think should have noticed? 50 percent? 25 percent? Keep in mind that only approximately 1 or 2 in 1000 even noticed.

As to whether the average person could tell the difference between a master violinist and a proficient violinist, I think you are overestimating the average person.

[omae mona]

The average person has never heard a violin performance in their life. Not surprising that they can't judge good from bad; they have no reference point. Not surprising that they're not interested, either.

If I let my kid sample a great glass of wine and a terrible glass of wine, the feedback is going to be "they both taste like shit. Where's my milk?".

If you changed the sample to include only people who actually have listened to classical music before and have an interest, I think the vast majority would quickly know the difference.