Steve Plotnicki wrote:BR - I don't accept your premise that Thai food is about using the same sauces. In fact that is exactly the point that Suvir was trying to make. In a good Indian kitchen, the spice mixture is made from scratch for every dish, as is the accompanying sauce. I am sure it is the same in good Thai kitchens as well. But cheap restaurants use shortcuts, and 99.9999999% of ethnic restaurants are cheap.

You don't believe that a raw shrimp larb requires the same sauce as a chicken, pork or beef larb? That issue aside, many Thai sauces contain almost the same ingredients, just with different ratios of ingredients. If you were interested in sampling the entire Spoon Thai menu, you'd find that Spoon Thai uses so many different sauces, pastes and condiments, and an experienced palate would certainly pick up on the subtle differences. But you probably haven't run down the entire menu of dishes to figure that out. For example, although Spoon makes its red curry paste, it incorporates it into dishes differently - sometimes as a rub, sometimes as a sauce, and sometimes as just one component of a dish such as in the hor mok pla. The fact that they don't make their own fish sauce or shrimp paste to me is not a valid criticism -- good luck finding any Thai restaurant that does (although it sounds like you take issue with Indian restaurants that don't use only house-made yogurt).

And what troubles me is not that you offered your opinion that you did not love your meal at Spoon, but that you made an assertion of fact about Spoon Thai - i.e., that they only or largely use ready made and commercially available sauces/pastes, and that they cut corners, and you do not offer any evidence to support this assertion. That is irresponsible.

Dmnkly wrote:

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Ethnic restaurants do not go to this trouble. They get their sauces from jars. The reason for this has nothing to do with their being ethnic restaurants. It has to do with the price point being cheap. Because Thai restaurants are cheap to eat in, they can't afford to hire people to make fish sauce etc. in house.

Do you know how fish sauce is made, Steve?

You tack anchovies** to the roof of your Porsche and let them the sun-dry in the hot Chicago November sun.

**locally sourced

thaiobsessed wrote:**locally sourced

BR wrote:That issue aside, many Thai sauces contain almost the same ingredients, just with different ratios of ingredients. If you were interested in sampling the entire Spoon Thai menu, you'd find that Spoon Thai uses so many different sauces, pastes and condiments, and an experienced palate would certainly pick up on the subtle differences. But you probably haven't run down the entire menu of dishes to figure that out. For example, although Spoon makes its red curry paste, it incorporates it into dishes differently - sometimes as a rub, sometimes as a sauce, and sometimes as just one component of a dish such as in the hor mok pla. The fact that they don't make their own fish sauce or shrimp paste to me is not a valid criticism -- good luck finding any Thai restaurant that does (although it sounds like you take issue with Indian restaurants that don't use only house-made yogurt).

Look we seem to be having two different discussions at cross purposes. The first one is--Is Spoon better than other Thai restaurants. I agree with you that it is and as I said, I enjoyed my meal there. The second question is -- Is the difference between it and other Thai restaurants enough to make it transcend its category of inexpensive ethnic restaurant. To that I say no and the limtations of the category were clearly apparant to me.

BR wrote:And what troubles me is not that you offered your opinion that you did not love your meal at Spoon, but that you made an assertion of fact about Spoon Thai - i.e., that they only or largely use ready made and commercially available sauces/pastes, and that they cut corners, and you do not offer any evidence to support this assertion. That is irresponsible.

Actually if you read carefully I merely offered my opinion. I never said I was certain about it in terms of viewing physical evidence. I said I had come to a conclusion based on prior knowledge which included knowledge I recieved from an ethnic chef, and how it tasted to me. But I would bet you a meal at Next that my assessment is generally correct. That's becase the limitations in that category of dining are inherent given the pricepoint.

I think Steve, by in large, has a good point.

Random thought: how many Mexican places actually make moles from scratch?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:That's becase the limitations in that category of dining are inherent given the pricepoint.

This is the only point on which I disagree with you in this thread. I've never cooked fully-from-scratch Thai at home, so I'll use a simple Indian chicken curry in my example. Let's look at the ingredients:

- Chicken (cheap)
- Onions (cheap)
- Tomatoes (cheap)
- Ghee and/or oil (cheap)
- Garlic & ginger (cheap)
- Coriander, cumin, turmeric, chile powder, salt, pepper (cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, and cheap)
- Garam masala (cheap, and easy to make)
- Some sort of green chile (cheap)
- Cilantro (cheap)
- Water (cheap, until Rahm raises our rates )

Granted, this won't be a heritage breed chicken, in-season tomatoes, locally-sourced onions, or organic herbs...but even if the fresh ingredients are from the grocery store, this will still be a solid dish with no corners cut, and can easily be sold for $10-12 per serving. Heck, it could even come with a generous side of basmati rice, which sells for a buck a pound at Costco, so we're talking 25 cents/heaping mound of rice.

I don't think the "cheap ethnic restaurant" concept inherently dooms one to cutting corners & selling pre-packaged commercial junk. Laziness & lack of passion, on the other hand, I can see resulting in taking shortcuts that result in generic food.

But Khaopaat, where those tomatoes grown in soil that French cows have shit in for centuries?

teatpuller wrote:I think Steve, by in large, has a good point.

Random thought: how many Mexican places actually make moles from scratch?

That a large percentage of any restaurant genre doesn't make everything from scratch (food service french fries, marinara sauces, etc) in no way implies a glass ceiling, which in this case, is a term being grossly misused. Glass ceiling relates to an inability to arise above a certain level of achievement despite possessing the qualifications to do so. The Mexican and Thai places with the qualifications to rise above the fray, do so and they're not hard to find.

The OPs post is 100% elitist snobbery and frankly offensive.

Habibi wrote:But Khaopaat, where those tomatoes grown in soil that French cows have shit in for centuries?

See, Foer et al are so concerned about the moral/ethical dilemmas involved with eating animals, but they never tell us about how these same animals are shitting all over our produce, and have been doing so for centuries.

The next time I eat some boeuf bourguignon, I'm going to do it for the poor, defenseless tomatoes that were forced to eke out their existence in dirt full of 100-year-old French cow shit.

AlekH wrote:The Mexican and Thai places with the qualifications to rise above the fray, do so and they're not hard to find.

I think you've missed the point.

Khaopaat wrote:

Steve Plotnicki wrote:That's becase the limitations in that category of dining are inherent given the pricepoint.

This is the only point on which I disagree with you in this thread. I've never cooked fully-from-scratch Thai at home, so I'll use a simple Indian chicken curry in my example. Let's look at the ingredients:

- Chicken (cheap)
- Onions (cheap)
- Tomatoes (cheap)
- Ghee and/or oil (cheap)
- Garlic & ginger (cheap)
- Coriander, cumin, turmeric, chile powder, salt, pepper (cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, and cheap)
- Garam masala (cheap, and easy to make)
- Some sort of green chile (cheap)
- Cilantro (cheap)
- Water (cheap, until Rahm raises our rates )

Granted, this won't be a heritage breed chicken, in-season tomatoes, locally-sourced onions, or organic herbs...but even if the fresh ingredients are from the grocery store, this will still be a solid dish with no corners cut, and can easily be sold for $10-12 per serving. Heck, it could even come with a generous side of basmati rice, which sells for a buck a pound at Costco, so we're talking 25 cents/heaping mound of rice.

I don't think the "cheap ethnic restaurant" concept inherently dooms one to cutting corners & selling pre-packaged commercial junk. Laziness & lack of passion, on the other hand, I can see resulting in taking shortcuts that result in generic food.

You are certainly right that laziness and lack of passion and important motives that lead some restaurants to excel and others to take a higher road. But for the sake of argument, I'll add one most cost to your list above: labor. (yeah, cheap, I know...) Also, the point isn't simply that all of these are cheap. The point is that it is even cheaper to take shortcuts. The prices at places like Arroy Thai aren't that much more than the prices the crappy Thai restaurants (and of course many crappy ones are more expensive), but if you want to charge low prices and don't care about the food, making things from scratch may not be the best option.

I think Steve is right that there are two separate conversations going on here. This is frustrating. One side seems to say that Thai, Chinese, American, etc. restaurants don't have to be cheap and/or bad. Another side says many are. I hope it is clear that both views can be simultaneous correct.

Khaopaat wrote:

Steve Plotnicki wrote:.but even if the fresh ingredients are from the grocery store, this will still be a solid dish with no corners cut, and can easily be sold for $10-12 per serving. Heck, it could even come with a generous side of basmati rice, which sells for a buck a pound at Costco, so we're talking 25 cents/heaping mound of rice.

I am trying to work this one out but I honestly don't know how to because there are a number of things that have been conflated into a conclusion. Your premise seems to be that because a dish made as you described above tastes good to you, then we should accept the premise that the underlying ingredients are acceptable. Not only do I not see how you can reach that conclusion, the analysis is anti-empirical in nature.

Let me ask you, isn't it possible that something is made with low quality or cheap ingredients but still tastes good? I mean I eat lots of things that are made with crappy ingredients which I enjoy. But that doesn't prevent me from acknowledging that my favorite taco cart uses store bought tortillas that are like cardboard. But in spite of that realization, I am happy eatng them because they serve a purpose in my daily routine. But if I had easy access to artisanal tacos, I would probably eat the food from the cart less often because the artisanal stuff would offer a higher reward, providing I was looking for that.

There is another point in this discussion which needs to be raised which is how a restaurant delivers relative to expectations. For example, I am going to have lunch at Xoco either today or tomorrow. Since it is billed as artisanal Mexican food, I have set my expectations accordingly. But because my expectations are set at a certain level, if the food doesn't live up to its billing and it doesn't meet my expectations, I might choose to prefer to eat tacos from a cart in the future. But that doesn't mean that the ingredients at Xoco aren't better than the ingredients at a taco cart. That is something that is factual. The difference between the two is how Xoco executes its proffer to its customers.

I believe that is the reason people like Spoon so much, and they like Arun's so little. Regardless of the fact that they are trying harder at Arun's, it fails relative to expectations. On the otber hand Spoon exceeds most people's expectations by a wide margin. But reaching that conclusion has no bearing on what the facts are about how each restaurant goes about preparing their food. As Darren said above, those two concepts actually reconcile. But you need to include the expectation factor to reconcile them.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:First of all French restaurants make their sauces from scratch. Every day. And there are French chefs who source their cream from specific farms. In fact some try to get their dairy products from a single herd of cattle that have been grazing on the same pastures for hundreds of years. The reason for this is that what customers are willing to pay for is the expression of specific terroirs that have unique qualities. Ethnic restaurants do not go to this trouble. They get their sauces from jars.

These are very broad brushes, SP. It seems unnecessary to point out that French is an ethnicity, and it's entirely possible to find the equivalent of jar sauce at many French restaurants. It's also entirely possible to find very "cheap", yet entirely authentic, dishes in very good French restaurants (tête de veau, anyone?).

I guess the question is, if the highest possible ingredient quality is a major factor in the overall quality of a restaurant, and it is assumed that a higher cost is indicative of quality, then does Arun's serve a better meal than Spoon?

Runs away from this thread at high speed.

kl1191 wrote:Runs away from this thread at high speed.

Is this a discussion site or just a place to go rah, rah at the same restaurants? Is there a place here to intelligently discuss differing opinions and perceptions? Or do you only want to read ideas that you agree with?

Darren72 wrote:

kl1191 wrote:Runs away from this thread at high speed.

Is this a discussion site or just a place to go rah, rah at the same restaurants? Is there a place here to intelligently discuss differing opinions and perceptions? Or do you only want to read ideas that you agree with?

I thought that was pretty clearly tongue in cheek. If you don't think the rest of my post was germane to the conversation, feel free to dwell on that one line.

I actually agree with a lot of the substantive points here, if not the ham handed way they've tended to be expressed.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Khaopaat wrote:

Steve Plotnicki wrote:.but even if the fresh ingredients are from the grocery store, this will still be a solid dish with no corners cut, and can easily be sold for $10-12 per serving. Heck, it could even come with a generous side of basmati rice, which sells for a buck a pound at Costco, so we're talking 25 cents/heaping mound of rice.

I am trying to work this one out but I honestly don't know how to because there are a number of things that have been conflated into a conclusion. Your premise seems to be that because a dish made as you described above tastes good to you, then we should accept the premise that the underlying ingredients are acceptable. Not only do I not see how you can reach that conclusion, the analysis is anti-empirical in nature.

Let me ask you, isn't it possible that something is made with low quality or cheap ingredients but still tastes good? I mean I eat lots of things that are made with crappy ingredients which I enjoy. But that doesn't prevent me from acknowledging that my favorite taco cart uses store bought tortillas that are like cardboard. But in spite of that realization, I am happy eatng them because they serve a purpose in my daily routine. But if I had easy access to artisanal tacos, I would probably eat the food from the cart less often because the artisanal stuff would offer a higher reward, providing I was looking for that.

There is another point in this discussion which needs to be raised which is how a restaurant delivers relative to expectations. For example, I am going to have lunch at Xoco either today or tomorrow. Since it is billed as artisanal Mexican food, I have set my expectations accordingly. But because my expectations are set at a certain level, if the food doesn't live up to its billing and it doesn't meet my expectations, I might choose to prefer to eat tacos from a cart in the future. But that doesn't mean that the ingredients at Xoco aren't better than the ingredients at a taco cart. That is something that is factual. The difference between the two is how Xoco executes its proffer to its customers.

I believe that is the reason people like Spoon so much, and they like Arun's so little. Regardless of the fact that they are trying harder at Arun's, it fails relative to expectations. On the otber hand Spoon exceeds most people's expectations by a wide margin. But reaching that conclusion has no bearing on what the facts are about how each restaurant goes about preparing their food. As Darren said above, those two concepts actually reconcile. But you need to include the expectation factor to reconcile them.

So, I see this really boiling down to a need to ask two different questions:

1) Is it good for the price?
2) Could it be better if it were more expensive?

You're advocating that #2 is a more important question to your rating of an overall dining experience than #1, whereas many people here feel the opposite.

KL, I agree with your point that the comparison between French and "ethnic" restaurants is a bit off base since Steve is clearly comparing above average French restaurants with average "ethnic" restaurants. I've had mediocre meals in France (though not many!) and I have no doubt that the same things that lead to bad restaurant food here lead to bad restaurant food there.

I think dwelling on the word "ethnic" is silly. Just as every place is within walking distance if you have the time, every cuisine is ethnic to someone. Steve was pretty clear what particular ethnicities he has in mind. I and others have made the point that his point is not specific to those ethnicities, but extends to others.

thaiobsessed wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Ethnic restaurants do not go to this trouble. They get their sauces from jars. The reason for this has nothing to do with their being ethnic restaurants. It has to do with the price point being cheap. Because Thai restaurants are cheap to eat in, they can't afford to hire people to make fish sauce etc. in house.

Do you know how fish sauce is made, Steve?

You tack anchovies** to the roof of your Porsche and let them the sun-dry in the hot Chicago November sun.

**locally sourced

I'm actually on my way to Phu Quoc next week...I'll let you know if they use a 911 or a Boxster.

kl1191 wrote:These are very broad brushes, SP. It seems unnecessary to point out that French is an ethnicity, and it's entirely possible to find the equivalent of jar sauce at many French restaurants. It's also entirely possible to find very "cheap", yet entirely authentic, dishes in very good French restaurants (tête de veau, anyone?).
Runs away from this thread at high speed.

I can actually tell you a story about this. In the South of France, fish soup is about as prevelant as tacos are in Chicago. Nearly every restaurant serves the stuff. The cheaper restaurants use fish soup from a bottle and heat it up. The next notch up are restaurants that purchase bundles of the spice mixture used to make the soup which they then doctor. But the best fish soups are found at places that do everything from scratch. It's the same at traiteurs in Paris. Have you ever walked around Paris and come upon one of those stores that have rows and rows of beautiful looking terrines and pates in the window? Well go out to Rungis Market near Orly Airport and you will find that most places buy premade terrines from wholesalers. They are just packaged nicely so they can be disaplyed in a shop window. But the true gourmands that live in Paris will tell you which places make their own terrines and which places buy them. Same in the south. People can tell the difference when the soup is made from scratch and when it comes from a jar or mix.

I already explained why people like Arun's less than Spoon. It's about expectations and the food at Arun's not living up to its billing (or price point.)

Just as Steve apparently finds all "ethnic" restaurants lacking, I find Plotnicki comments rather generic and substance free. For all the pretense of spicy authentic commentary, in reality he routinely delivers canned trollery that falls into at most four or five saucy modes: look at my porsche, I know important chefs, I am being so kind to inform you poor peasants of your lack of discernment, you'd understand if you ordered off menu, ... etc In fact, I suspect his lack of appreciation for Spoon reflects his disdain that their secret menu is translated and offered to the rabble.

A while back I had promised myself I would skip Plotnicki threads since they just feed the Plotnicki self-promotion beast but the tipping towards racist bit of "all ethnic restaurants ..." with the assumption that one Indian chef is an expert about all food "ethnic" (which equates apparently to "Asian" but not French and noting that even David Chang who clearly Plotinicki is on first name basis with is still a slacker ("ethnic?") for not making his own buns) is really rather beyond the pale.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

kl1191 wrote:These are very broad brushes, SP. It seems unnecessary to point out that French is an ethnicity, and it's entirely possible to find the equivalent of jar sauce at many French restaurants. It's also entirely possible to find very "cheap", yet entirely authentic, dishes in very good French restaurants (tête de veau, anyone?).
Runs away from this thread at high speed.

I can actually tell you a story about this. In the South of France, fish soup is about as prevelant as tacos are in Chicago. Nearly every restaurant serves the stuff. The cheaper restaurants use fish soup from a bottle and heat it up. The next notch up are restaurants that purchase bundles of the spice mixture used to make the soup which they then doctor. But the best fish soups are found at places that do everything from scratch. It's the same at traiteurs in Paris. Have you ever walked around Paris and come upon one of those stores that have rows and rows of beautiful looking terrines and pates in the window? Well go out to Rungis Market near Orly Airport and you will find that most places buy premade terrines from wholesalers. They are just packaged nicely so they can be disaplyed in a shop window. But the true gourmands that live in Paris will tell you which places make their own terrines and which places buy them. Same in the south. People can tell the difference when the soup is made from scratch and when it comes from a jar or mix.

I already explained why people like Arun's less than Spoon. It's about expectations and the food at Arun's not living up to its billing (or price point.)

Yes, I've actually spent a good deal of time in France. You could say the same thing about Alsace and choucroute garnie or countless other regional specialties. The best places do more in-house. But, clearly there are exceptions to the rule, no? Places that despite their best efforts manage to mangle the highest quality ingredients and still charge an arm & a leg?

I read your point on Spoon vs. Arun's and didn't actually glean your opinion. Arun's apparently takes more time, uses higher quality ingredients and charges an accordingly higher price. Assuming you've eaten there, was the result of that a "better" meal, in your opinion than Spoon, regardless of expectations?

Siun wrote:Just as Steve apparently finds all "ethnic" restaurants lacking,....

Discussion is difficult when you don't understand what others are saying.

Darren72 wrote:

Siun wrote:Just as Steve apparently finds all "ethnic" restaurants lacking,....

Discussion is difficult when you don't understand what others are saying.

Admittedly, understanding can be difficult when the trenchant points are encased in anti-populist musings.

Steve Plotnicki wrote: Ethnic restaurants do not go to this trouble. They get their sauces from jars. The reason for this has nothing to do with their being ethnic restaurants. It has to do with the price point being cheap. Because Thai restaurants are cheap to eat in, they can't afford to hire people to make fish sauce etc. in house.

If you had meant to describe your experiences in "cheap" restaurants, why did you emphasize the "ethnic" aspect? The whole ethnic/non-ethnic dichotomy that you employ seems meaningless in our current century. What about the highest level of cuisine in the temples of gastronomy? Does it not currently reflect international ingredients, sourcing, techniques, roots, inspiration, chefs, and so on? (e.g. L20, Next) Can't we move past discussing restaurants in this stale outdated lingo drawn from the personals ads? Food writing has enough cobwebs on it, can't we move into the present century?

Steve Plotnicki wrote: The point I was trying to make about Spoon is that while I enjoyed my meal there, I also noticed those limitations. I would have enjoyed it more if those limitations weren't there.

Perfectly valid as an observation. You are entitled to describe your experiences. (Note, please, that I and others who count themselves fans of Spoon have also weighed in on some less-than-perfect dishes there. This is not about criticizing Spoon.) What I have a problem with is your overly broad characterizations as below:

Steve Plotnicki wrote: But cheap restaurants use shortcuts, and 99.9999999% of ethnic restaurants are cheap.

If you don't understand the point then I suppose I understand why you made these assertions in the first place.

By the way-Can't we change the title of this thread? It's a pebble in my shoe. . .

Darren72 wrote:

Siun wrote:Just as Steve apparently finds all "ethnic" restaurants lacking,....

Discussion is difficult when you don't understand what others are saying.

Clearly I am not up to the lofty standards of Plotnicki thought ...

I haven't been to Arun's. My commentary is solely base upon what I have read. And I agree with you that there are exceptions. But the issue is, do the exceptions overcome the limitations imposed by the low price point? Rarely do I find that they do.

People keep couching this in terms of ethnicity, or price, but the real isssue is standardization of ingredients and techniques. It is invariably the case that a $2 hot dog is more likely to be something that is a standardized product than a $4 hot dog and it is logical to assume that an $8 hot dog is less standardized than a $4 one. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HAVING THE $8 HOT DOG IS ALWAYS A BETTER EXPERIENCE. But what you will find is that it is almost always a higher quality product than the cheaper dogs. That's where the title of this thread comes in. The $4 dog comes with an invisible ceiling.

Jospehine I honestly don't understand your objection. You seem to be saying that I am using ethnic in a genetic way when it is clear that I am not. I am using it as a unique category of restaurant that exists in our food culture. That the people who run these restaurants happen to be Thai, Mexican, Chinese or whatever doesn't matter. The issue is the strong correlation between ethnic restaurants and a low price point which correlates into cheap ingredients and cheap labor costs. When you combine that with food that tastes better than it should given the price, you end up with a unique category of restaurant.

Do you not agree that a $12.99 curry at an Indian restaurant is a different animal than a plate of beef stew at Howard Johnson's that cost $12.99? There is no reason for that other than it falls into the ethnic category. Non-ethnic restaurants are simply not serving good tasting stews at that price point.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:People keep couching this in terms of ethnicity, or price, but the real isssue is standardization of ingredients and techniques. It is invariably the case that a $2 hot dog is more likely to be something that is a standardized product than a $4 hot dog and it is logical to assume that an $8 hot dog is less standardized than a $4 one. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HAVING THE $8 HOT DOG IS ALWAYS A BETTER EXPERIENCE. But what you will find is that it is almost always a higher quality product than the cheaper dogs. That's where the title of this thread comes in. The $4 dog comes with an invisible ceiling.

This may have once been true, but I'm not sure how universal this concept is anymore...as evinced by the rise of vodka, price has become more and more a part of marketing rather than a true reflection of quality or uniqueness. In this, more than anything, I think your general perspective on dining has a flaw.

kl1191 wrote:

Steve Plotnicki wrote:People keep couching this in terms of ethnicity, or price, but the real isssue is standardization of ingredients and techniques. It is invariably the case that a $2 hot dog is more likely to be something that is a standardized product than a $4 hot dog and it is logical to assume that an $8 hot dog is less standardized than a $4 one. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HAVING THE $8 HOT DOG IS ALWAYS A BETTER EXPERIENCE. But what you will find is that it is almost always a higher quality product than the cheaper dogs. That's where the title of this thread comes in. The $4 dog comes with an invisible ceiling.

This may have once been true, but I'm not sure how universal this concept is anymore...as evinced by the rise of vodka, price has become more and more a part of marketing rather than a true reflection of quality or uniqueness. In this, more than anything, I think your general perspective on dining has a flaw.

This is exactly how I felt when I first read Steve's post in the Spoon thread. However, I think what Steve is trying to say (and Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong) is this:

- Cutting corners by buying commercial/pre-packaged products results in an inferior product
- Many (perhaps even a majority of) "cheap" restaurants cut corners
- Restaurants that make food from scratch tend to produce a superior product
- All things being equal (skill level, technique, recipe, etc.), better-quality ingredients will yield a better product
- Better-quality ingredients tend to cost more
- If a restaurant uses the best ingredients money can buy, then in order to recoup their costs & turn a profit, they will have to set their prices at a point where they're not considered "cheap" anymore

So say Khaopaat's Indian Café is a "cheap" Indian restaurant, where all of the dishes are in the $10 range. At that price point, I have to make sure I only spend $2-3 on its ingredients (the rest goes to payroll, rent, and keeping the lights on). I can only afford grocery store-quality ingredients, but I manage to turn out a nice chicken curry with them - it's literally the best thing I can make with those ingredients.

If I decide I want my chicken curry to be better than it currently is, or even the best it can possibly be, the only variable I can change is the quality of the ingredients. But to do so will most likely cost me more, and then I'll have to raise my prices, and Khaopaat's Indian Café will no longer be a "cheap" restaurant, because all of my entrées will cost $20 instead of the former $10.

If this is in fact what you mean, then we are fully in agreement.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:But cheap restaurants use shortcuts, and 99.9999999% of ethnic restaurants are cheap.

Okay I did the math. Chicagoland has about 14,000 restaurants. Let's say 50% qualify as "ethnic" (whatever that means - probably a generous estimate). That means that, in all Chicagoland, the number of ethnic restaurants that aren't cheap is (drumroll) ... 0.00000699999980, or about 7 one-millionths of one percent, if my decimal counting is right. So I guess Topolobampo and Arun's are cheap, according to that definition.