Busboy

Yeah -- I probably should have said "favorite" instead of "best." But, either way, thanks for the response (thanks, georgesimian, too). If I was only having one Chinese meal in Manhattan, I'm not sure I'd go to a congee place, but, given the location and my wife's recent congee addiction, this seem like a pretty sure bet for a drop-by. Thanks.

The Busboy family is planning to hit the Big Apple early next month. Sadly, a series of bizarre recent fiscal setbacks may force us to cancel our reservations at Per Se, but a good Chinatown outing will likely take away much of the sting. I searched the site but was unable to find a thread on this -- though it seems inevitable that one exists -- so I'm asking the people who know New York the best to help us plan our voyage south of Canal. We like all styles of Chinese, though there seems to be a dearth of decent Sichuan and Hunan in DC these days, so suggestions along those lines will receive extra consideration. I know that there is excellent Chinese outside of Chinatown, but that neighborhood is a "must" for the kids so we'll likely get our chinese fix there. Finally, a restaurant that has a liquor license is always appreciated. Thanks.

Thanks for all of the suggestions. Had we known that the "no glass of any kind" prohibition would be as laxly enforced as those aginst illegal drugs and public nudity, we would not have worried. We would, however, have arranged to stay for all three days. In the spirit of restless experimentation we tried several approaches which might be used for future adventures during which normal wine bottles are discouraged; each of them yielded fine results. My wife drained one of those huge refridgerator water containers -- the (5 gallon?)rectangular solids with the pull-tap made for setting on a refridgerator shelf -- filled it with cheap white (but better than wine-in-a-box) swill and froze it. In an RV cooler it melted gradually, yielding white wine slushies for three days. It was hitting for distance, rather than average, but it worked. I bought the wine-in-a-box, thinking that maybe it wouldn't suck, as it was a "premium" Aussie Shiraz. But it did suck, so I worked the stopper out a la Ms. Tillie's friend, rinsed, and refilled with a Cote du Nimes rose. By day four, the wine had crapped out, but it kept us in good pink lunch/afternoon heat wine for a couple of days, and the hippie sweetheart, who helped me drink it out of airport coffee shop cups as we waited for the shuttle from the Nashville airport to the site, was impressed. I also drank a couple of 1.5 L bottles of Evian -- chosen for the air-tightness of their seal -- in advance, and filled them to the very top before resealing. This, too, kept the wine fresh for a couple of days, particularly the 14.5% Aussie Syrah, though the stuff went downhill once the seal was broken again. My other friend just smuggled in some Brunello de Montalcio in the bottle. It didn't necessarily hold its taste better than the other techniques, but it was a damn site easier to do. In other bonnaroo news, the local venders seem to have taken a cue from the Spaniards and DC's own Cafe Atlantico Mini-bar: in addition to veggie burritos, the chief treat for sale was a daring combination of chocolate and hand-gathered, organic mushroooms (chanterelles? they didn't say) called "nuggets" and variously described as "tasty" or "dank." I didn't have the opportunity to try them, but we did have the best corn dogs of our lives, and the lady behind the counter said that rock festival crowds are definitely easier to handle than those at county fairs, which made me feel good about my tribe. Finally, the Dead are playing better than have since the mid-80's; people who regret not having caught The Alllman Brothers Live At Fillmore East should check out the North Mississippi All-Stars; and I missed Camper van Beethoven, dammit.

I want to sit out of this a bit until I have had more time to read those links you posted above, but I did want to clear this up first. I in no way intended that as a dig against you, and re-reading it, I can see how it might be taken that way. That was more of a personal philosphy statement than anything I intended to give as advice, sorry if it was taken that way. I simply put that I see no great conspiracy, and no ethical or moral fault in the system as it is now, and my personal goals include getting up to that top of the heap through the means availible. No problem.. and your post was a chance to, hopefully, draw a straight line from the economic argument back to the original article, for which I am grateful.

Ahem. Let me restate my case, as it stands now, with the benefit of significant input from eGullet posters. Many of the numbers can be found on .links in my post above. The United States economy has bifurcated in such a way that incomes for very well off people, are rising dramatically faster, both in real and relative terms, than incomes of middle class families. There may be many arguments as to why this phenomenon exists; I believe that it exists, in large part, as the result of conscious economic decisions made and supported by the media, economic and political elite of this nation that make it more difficult for the middle class and those below to prosper. The game is rigged. The fact that this growing disparity exists is not arguable. At the same time that trade and economic policies which will probably exacerbate this divide -- and tax policies which will certainly do so -- are becomeing law in the United States, we are in the middle of an "extravagent dining boom," which appears to me, to be unprecedented in its size and extravagence. The extravagent dining boom is the result of a vast increase in wealth that is flowing almost entirely to those who are already wealthy (that's why income disparity is growing: the rich are getting richer at a rapid clip, while the middle class limps along). When the people who make and support these economic policies sit around over (figuratively) over plus fours and cognac and glibly dismiss those who have a problem with the reality (others) or the symbolism (me) of this situation, -- as Grimes did -- I find it self-serving and intellectually dishonest. That's what got me into this thing. There is, to my mind, a problem with what is happening economically in this country. Extravagent dining is not the cause of it, it is a symptom of it. Those who have correctly identified the symptom deserve a hearing. Dismissing them as cranks is the cheap way out. The correct way to address the problem would not be to run Ducasse out of town on a rail, but to create economic policies that allow more people to enjoy something that we all agree is good, civilizing, and important. Finally, as to your implication that I am a resentful underachieving wretch trying to pull others down -- "there is no reason to be upset, be proud of other's acievements, try to match them yourself"-- I, well, resent it. I am doing fine, thank you and delight in the success of others. Notes: Middle class = middle quintile of families by income, mean household income of $51,538 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Rich = top 5% of families by income, mean household income of $280,312, same source.

Have I mentioned brined poultry?

i didn't say that. you make it very difficult to have a discussion. It appeared to be in response to my original statement about busboys et al, hence my "correction." Changing my premise and then refuting also interferes with the free flow of ideas, etc. If that is not what happened, I apologize for doing to you what it appeared you had done to me.

Busboy, if you're interested in it, there's lots of non-Catholic good academic social science data on this topic, particularly out of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Sociologists have been studying status attainment and social mobility--in other words, the probability that a son or daughter will achieve a higher social class (earnings, education, occupation) than their father--since the late 1960s. They've also studied mobility for the same people over time, using 30 yr+ longitudinal data (such as the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey, which followed men from high school on, see work by Robert Hauser). It looks like there's been far less mobility over time-- income is no longer stable at all, it doesn't move you up. And the returns to education are somewhat less influential, now that many people now get higher degrees. So the chances of moving from poor to rich over your lifetime--putting our IT revolution aside for a moment, although it's a nice case study in how things are reversible--yes, they are very slim. The shot at the Catholics was actually a joke. I don't think they were crunching their own data, just posting other studies, and I just didn't have time to read closely and see if the numbers were valid enough to work into my argument (I do have to do some work). But the studies you reference are interesting and support a premise of my argument -- that there is a growing economic disparity in the U.S. that appears to be the result of forces not related to the shiftlessness of the poor and middle class. Now, back to the original argument...

Another way to see it...If this is just Philly, then I'd put the salaries of top servers at top NY restaurants around $80K, or higher. Do remember we're only talking individual, not family/household earnings here (the chart is household earnings)-- and we don't know what % of servers are single parent, or otherwise. That would put those servers around the 80th percentile, sure, certainly making them wealthier than me, and the entirety of my Egullet friends (at least I think so!), but then again, maybe that's not much money for the NY Egulleteers! Jason--have stats on this demographic for us? What was it Reagan said? "Don't confuse me with the facts!" But, as we're all envying the life of those ADNY servers and regressing incomes, please remember the original statement: "the waiters, busboys and line cooks that serve them have less chance than they have had in 80 years to go from server to diner is wrong." [Emphasis added.]

Until the last sentence of the paragraph, you are stating established sources without bias. The last sentence, saying that these statistics are "disturbing," clearly does have a bias, but I'll pass over that point to get to a bigger one. My original comment, to which this was part of the reply, responded to your reference to "an emerging cosseted class that travels to and from four-star restaurants in black sedans and forgets that the waiters, busboys and line cooks that serve them have less chance than they have had in 80 years to go from server to diner is wrong." These are the "facts not in evidence." You've produced no data showing that this "class" is "cosseted," or that they travel to and from four-star restaurants in black sedans, or that they have the attitute towards busboys and line cooks that you've attributed to them. This lack of objectivity is found in just about every paragraph you've offered on the topic so far. You have done nothing to refute the fact that income disparity is rapidly widening. You can't. You have done nothing to refute the fact that it is a reversal of a long post-war trend. You can't. You're just parsing the rhetoric. By the way, I didn't include it in my earlier rant, but -- re: moving from busboy to diner -- there's some interesting data on class mobility in the St. Paul website. Seems one study found that the chance of moving from the lowest quintile to the highest is about 1% over a period of many years. Didn't include it because I don't know enough about the study to rely on it (we liberals only trust the Catholics so far), but it's an interesting, and possbly revealing -- number.

That income would have put them smack dab in the middle of family incomes (see chart referenced above) in 2001 -- other household income would likely have drawn it up somewhat. And that was the most expensive restaurant in Philly, and the Phiully income is likely higher than the national average. ] So, I'm not convinced that the bulk of employees (remember, I also mentioned busboys, line cookes etc.) in up-scale restaurants make more than eGulleters.

The fact that, once you reach a certain level, corporate tradition and the U.S. tax code kick in to double-cosset the gilded class is not reassuring. it's oftentimes lower-level people making 50k a year being whisked around. regardless, a towncar has little correlation with the salary of the person inside. I have been in those Town Cars -- it almost like living with you, on the top. And yes, my now wife, even when she was a lowly paralegal got the occasional ride to a swell closing dinner in New York. She claims that nothing ruins a good meal like a bunch of lawyers and investment bankers talking shop. However, I'm betting that there is a pretty strong correlation between time spent being whicked about in dark sedans and average income. I find white stretch limousines to be the more egalitarian hired ride.

I knew we'd get to the "they're morally inferior" argument, sooner or later. However, if you had read my post correctly , you'd see that 1) I didn't argue against the existence of disparate income, I argued against growing disparity. If you read below, or any of my other posts, you will see my concern is not with your straw-man welfare mothers and junkies, it is with people who are statistically in the middle -- the "hard working middle-class Americans" one hears so much about. Finally, if you believe every American of equal intelligence and drive has the same opportunity to succeed, you are living in a dream world, my friend. Not that I am arguing in favor of some kind of vast Vennegutian welfare handicap scheme, mind you. But smug assumptions that the middle class are not dining at ADNY because they're too stupid or lazy to get a decent job are more than a little self-serving (remember those Puritans who believed they had money because God had blessed them for their religious ferver, while the poor got what they deserved?) and, I think, wrong.

This, as they say in the law, is assuming facts not in evidence. No wonder Grimes ducked the issue! Funny how this cosseted class is emerging all around me, and somehow I missed it. This is the point at which your argument collapses into self-parody. As the datagathered by the good left-wing brothers at the Office for Social Justice in the Archdiocese of St. Paul underscore, during approximatley the last 20 years, after tax income for the top 1% of families has tripled, for the next 4% of families it has risen 53%, and for middle income families it has risen a paltry 15%. The top fifth of families now control half of all household income. Disturbingly, these are both reversals of trends that held during the boom years between 1945 and, roughly, 1972. The trend, of course, is being exacerbated by recent tax cuts, an astonishing 52% of which, as we see here will flow to the top 1% of families, while the other 99% pick over the leftovers. Finally, if you're in the mood to play with a calculator, check out the Census Buruea's mean income charts, for 1966 -2002. Use the bottom chart for constant dollars to get a better feel for how real income has changed, and the top chart for current dollars and marvel at inflation. By either chart, however, you can see that the difference between between economic classes is growing more pronounced. And this chart doesn't account for changes in the tax code that disproportionately (and sometimes, justifiably) benefitted wealthy taxpayers. If you can't see the cosseted class emerging, you ain't looking. Tommy The fact that, once you reach a certain level, corporate tradition and the U.S. tax code kick in to double-cosset the gilded class is not reassuring.

but that was a valid point. and one, i might add, that agreed with the post that i quoted, which i believe was yours. Actually, I took it as a shot against my point, and a good one, damn you. I'll also maintain than mine was relevant, as well -- if there's a symptom, it's a good idea to find the cause, even if the people who bring the symptom to your attention have made an initial misdiagnosis. Thus, the rise in "extravagent dining" against a backdrop of declining affluence for vast gorups of Americans is a symptom. Not of immoral self-indulgence, but of a systemic economic problem and a willfull ignorance of this problem among the "extravagent diners" of the world.

Ok, I'll discuss it. Income disparity is not immoral. Any society offering free choice is bound to have both winners and losers, as well as every gradation in between. Can you think of very many counter-examples? Well, perhaps you'll think of something, but in general the societies without income disparity are the societies without income. Income disparity is not only not immoral, but inevitable. If proof were needed that Grimes should stick to food, this is it. That, my friend, is simplistic crap. First, There are a number of nations in which not only is income disparity less than the United States, but they eat better at restaurants (on the whole). Look at the G-8 meeting this weekend and think to yourself that the U.S. has the greatest income disparity of any of the nations there, save, perhaps, Russia. Gosh, I wish we could be more like them. Second, the problem isn't just the income disparity. It's not exactly news that some families bring home more than others; presenting that fact as though you're revealing a profound economic truth is more than a little condescending. Aside from the fact that our disparity is unusually large by non third-world standards, the really troublesome thing is that it's growing larger. Finally, as much as you'd like to believe otherwise, this growing disparity is exacerbated by a chattering class that backs policies that ship good-paying job overseas; suppress unions; tax capital gains at a lower rate than wages and salaries; have shrunk the social safety net until it is tiny by European and Asian standards; and pressures developing nations to lower labor and wage standards through multilateral organizations. Let's not start on schools, networks, racism and classism... Sure, any free society is "bound to have winners and losers," (another revelation there, thanks) but rigging the game against the losers is wrong and, ultimately stupid. Hey, we all like to eat well. But the creation of an emerging cosseted class that travels to and from four-star restaurants in black sedans and forgets that the waiters, busboys and line cooks that serve them have less chance than they hav had in 80 years to go from server to diner is wrong. At least Grimes was intellectually honest to admit that the issue exists. I'd like to see a little of that honesty here.

You were the one talking about doctors washing their hands the other day -- I didn't start this medical stuff. Grimes raises several potential philosophical objections to "extravagant dining." The only one that's difficult for him to dismiss, he dodges. It was a cheap out. But that's the advantage -- if not the point -- of eGullet, right? We can take an issue and explore it more deeply than a newspaper article can.

And, let me say this again, slowly. I don't have a problem with extravagant restaurants per se (ha ha ha). I go to them, when I can. I don't think everyone has a "right" to foie gras. I have a problem with three things. One is the growing divide between extraordinarily priviliged people and the plurality, if not the majority of Americans. Extravagant dining is a potent symbol of this growing divide, and denying it is sheer, well, denial. Grimes' statement ""income disparity may be immoral, but that's not my issue to discuss," is simple avaoidance of an issue that he doesn't care to discuss. Second, is the failure of the people priviliged who enjoy these restaurants to acknowledge that they may be indicative of a larger problem, or dismiss them as ignorant or morally inferior: Third, I dislike that the "extravagent" places are pulling the average tab at moderate places to ridiculous heights (the $100 was DC prices, in between NY and Arkansas, I suppose.)

And voting used to be accepted purely as the priviege of white males. But eating well in restaurants is not what many would consider a basic human right. While having access to food and, most likely, having access to nutritious food is. I don't think you can compare basic human rights with luxuries. Justifying anything on the basis of "privilege" is bogus. We do not live in a caste system. The word "ability" is fine.

And voting used to be accepted purely as the priviege of white males.

This is, at best, an excuse for indifference. Nobody suggested that it did. OK, let me rephrase. A growing number of extravagent restaurants at a time when many families, if not most families, are losing ground indicates a fundamental problem with the social and economic structure of the country. Same with hummers and other "extravagances." It's not the existence of these things, it's the fact that they are emerging at a time when the financial standing of middle class families is falling -- arguably that the "American Dream" ideal is being turned into a myth. People rightly notice the growing disparity and are annoyed at the (largely inadvertantly, except for Hummers) ostentatious way in which the new economic facts of American life are displayed. To dismiss critics because they have incorrectly identified the symptom as the cause is ignorant and self-serving. If you went to the doctor with a rash and he laughed at your diagnosis of chicken pox, wouldn't you at least expect him to do a little more examination to find out what the problem is?

A growing number of extravagent restaurants at a time when many families, if not most families, are losing ground, may indicate a significant problem with society. Glib and reflexive defences of one's own extravagences (not that all of them have been) may indicate an unwillingness to examine one's own motives and prejudices in a productive way. How's the weather up there?

the symptoms are all around us from where i'm sitting. housing costs, Hummers, expensive box seats, $100 trips to the movie for a family of 4. I'm frankly not too worried about a guy who can't afford Danielle because he chose to buy a Hummer. He makes his choices, I make mine. What bothers me is that, while choices are expanding for a relatively small group of individuals, they are being narrowed for another, larger group through what are arguably (but I won't argue them, here) conscious policy decisions, made and supported by the same insulated little group that dines at these extravagent spots -- politicians of both parties, policy leaders and New York Times writers among them.

perhaps they should address the problem and not the, or rather one of the, symptoms. Perhaps, once someone has identified the symptom, curious minds might want to search for the cause. It's more difficult than dismissing the other person's views out of hand because they are inconvenient to one's own, but sometimes more illuminating.

What I found amusing about the thread was the way so many people acted as though their own personal sacred cow was ebing stalked by food Puritans -- utter defensiveness ("people don't say this about concert tickets") and a little vehemence. No one willing to even entertain the idea that the critcs might be anything more than uptight killjoys. As to whether people are being unjustly "resentful" or justly angered, and to whether the people "aspiring to acquire the means to acquire that experience" increasingly find the game rigged against them, we can argue that off line, over a decent meal. For the record, I have reservations at Per Se, so count me among the leftists, but not the killjoys.