When it comes to today's "challenge" in the New York Times' "Dining" Section - Great Meals for Two, Under $100 (It’s Possible) - most of us could probably have given restaurant critic Frank Bruni a pointer or two. Bruni describes his task as finding "a dinner for two that was at least three courses in a restaurant structured that way — and a similar amount of food in a restaurant that wasn’t — would be $99 or less, including tax and a tip of 20 percent on the total of the check before tax." (Wine, obviously, is out of the question on this pauper's budget.) Amazingly, he manages it! We say: no one wants to deny these writers the fun of slumming it, but "experiments" like this are an insult to those of us for whom the budget he describes is a challenge of quite a different kind. Emputhee: ur duin it rong. [New York Times]
Allow me to be the dissenter to the "this crazy man knows nothing" - while I certainly don't eat out like this all the time (not the least because I moved away from NYC, sob) - he's essentially saying $75 for 6 courses of food then tax and tip = $100. That's not cheap, by any means, but to eat a great three course meal in NYC, it's a damned bargain, IMHO.
And, yes, the noodle place down the street IS amazing, has happy hour, cheap cocktails, and you can drink and eat for maybe a $20 meal, but that's not the restaurant experience Frank Bruni reviews, sells, or tht his target audience wants. So he's looking for the right expreience at a cheaper price. Found.