[jkrems]

If food or drink consumption was the primary purpose of going out, there'd be no reason to coordinate and meet. If a group of people meets for food, they don't meet for food. They meet for each other. They meet to enjoy each others company, the mood, and good discussions. The price of food and drinks for the group is meant to facilitate these things. For the group.

That's not paying for other people's alcohol consumption. It's paying a fair share of the expenses that were involved to create this particular communal experience. Which also means that if somebody is budget constrained, the group may want to keep that in mind - no matter what they order. I've been routinely in groups where somebody with budget constraint paid less. Not because they ate or drink less. But because the group decided that it was their fair share, based on the group's perception of fairness.

[lotsofpulp]

> I've been routinely in groups where somebody with budget constraint paid less. Not because they ate or drink less. But because the group decided that it was their fair share, based on the group's perception of fairness.

That is interesting, I have never been in this situation because it seems awkward to bring it up explicitly. That is why I think it is better to simple expect people to pay for what they consume, so it may be implicitly understood that they may be budget constrained without it being a topic.

I imagine most people who are budget constrained simply opt to decline an invitation to meet with friends if they know the average bill will include an extra couple drinks they cannot afford. To me, this is a worse outcome than spending the very little mental effort required to allocate expenses individually.

[borski]

The most common solution to this I’ve seen is “I’ll get this one, you get the next one.” And the person that simply can’t just… doesn’t get it until they can, or chips in as much as they’re able (provided they’re at least covering themselves) in cash to the person getting it.