Why Is Dining Alone So Difficult?
There are few customers Conor Proft appreciates more than people who eat alone.
A bartender at the Italian restaurant Fausto, in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, he said the solo diners he serves tend to be more engaged and willing to chat. They are self-aware and more attuned to the restaurant's rhythms.
But does Mr. Proft dine alone? Rarely.
'I love the romantic ideal of going into a restaurant and sitting at the bar and striking up a conversation with a bartender,' he said. 'But oftentimes in practice, I am just consumed with anxiety' about standing out.
This is part of the paradox of solo dining. Even as Americans are spending more time on their own, many find eating out alone to be rife with awkwardness and judgment. And many restaurateurs, who already run their businesses on thin profit margins, worry that tables for one will cost them.
Reservations for solo dining in the United States have risen by 64 percent since 2019, according to data from OpenTable, and 21 percent from 2022 to 2023, according to Resy. The increase in eating alone is probably even greater, given that many people simply walk in.
The trend may stem in part from a post-pandemic uptick in business trips, when solo travelers need to grab a bite, or the rising attention given to self-care, said Debby Soo, OpenTable's chief executive. Image Credit... Kathleen Fu
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
31 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump's family has a new business venture: a gold-colored $499 smartphone
The Trump family is getting into the mobile phone business. On the 10th anniversary of President Donald Trump 's formal unveiling of his 2016 presidential campaign, his eldest sons made another announcement in Trump Tower: a Trump-branded mobile phone service, including a gold-colored smartphone that is set to be available later this fall. "We've partnered with some of the greatest people in the industry to make sure real Americans can get true value from their mobile carriers," Donald Trump Jr. said Monday morning at the press conference. The new venture is the latest example of how Trump and his family are finding new ways to cash in while Trump serves his second term. The Trump Organization touted Monday's unveiling as a "major announcement." Like many of the Trump-related business ventures, Trump Mobile has a licensing agreement that allows it to use the president's name. According to its website, Trump Mobile will offer a "47 plan," which includes unlimited talk, texting, and data for $47.45 a month. The first 20GB of data will be at high speed. Trump, of course, is the 47th president and also served as the 45th. Most interestingly, Donald Trump Jr. said that the company would manufacture its smartphone in the United States. Apple and other major tech companies have manufactured their phones outside the US due to labor costs. Trump and the White House have threatened to impose tariffs on those companies if they don't bring back more manufacturing to the US. The T1 Phone, according to the site, will cost $499. Interested consumers can preorder the phone now. The website shows that the phone is gold colored throughout and has "T1" and an American stamp on the back. The promotional image says, "Make America Great Again," Trump's trademarked political slogan.
Entrepreneur
34 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
What Is 'Doom Spending' and Which Generation Falls for It?
Consumer prices are 23.7% higher than they were in February 2020, which means Americans must spend about $1,237 to buy the same goods and services that cost $1,000 when the pandemic-induced recession hit, according to a Bankrate analysis. Some people have responded to the rise in expenses with an effort to curb their consumption. A new study from Intuit Credit Karma found that many Americans are turning to "low-buy" (44%) or "no-buy" (42%) lifestyles: restricting spending or committing to shop only for items that need to be replaced. Related: Want a Job That Pays Enough for a Comfortable Lifestyle? You'll Have the Best Shot in This U.S. City — and the Worst in 4 Others. The most common reasons for embracing a low-buy or no-buy challenge are to build savings (41%), pay down debt (37%) and cover basic necessities (30%), according to the research. Gen Z adults and millennials, in particular, find it difficult to build wealth. Despite 63% of them believing that investing in the stock market will set them up for financial success, 61% are not saving for retirement each month, a poll from CNBC and Generation Lab revealed. Intuit Credit Karma's research found that more than half of Gen Z report participating in or considering low-buy and no-buy challenges. Related: This Buzzy Retirement Strategy Is Helping Young People Escape the 9-5 Before Becoming Millionaires — Here's How to Pull It Off However, Gen Z respondents are also most likely to admit to "doom spending" (41%). Doom spending is the habit of making impulsive purchases — often items that people don't need or can't afford — to ease feelings of anxiety and hopelessness. Many Gen Z respondents (42%) report "panic buying" products out of fear of price hikes or shortages as well. Additionally, Gen Z is most susceptible to TikTok discourse: 43% say social media content related to tariffs has influenced their spending, fueling purchases on shopping apps like DHGate or from advertised wholesalers they saw in trending TikTok videos, per Intuit Credit Karma. It might be difficult to put an exact number on doom spending's financial toll, but U.S. consumers owe more than $1 trillion on their credit cards, and the average American credit card debt balance is $6,580, Motley Fool Money reported. Related: Americans in These 5 U.S. States Might Fare the Worst in Retirement. How Do Your Numbers Compare? Ashlee Piper, a former political strategist and the author of No New Things: A Radically Simple 30-Day Guide to Saving Money, the Planet, and Your Sanity, has some words of wisdom for anyone who wants to reduce doom spending with a low-buy challenge. "No matter how much time folks can try the challenge for, they're going to see benefits," Piper, who paid off $22,000 debt and saved $36,000 with her "no new things" challenge, told Entrepreneur earlier this year. "What's more, if someone has any concern or stress around trying the 'no new things challenge,' that in and of itself should be a sign that it's time to go for it."
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
America Needs a Real Plan To Make Homeownership Affordable Again
The American dream of homeownership, already slipping out of reach in recent years, is now vanishing for millions. The housing market is under siege from all sides. We're short approximately four million homes, mortgage rates have nearly tripled since the coronavirus pandemic, and tariffs are driving up the cost of materials, slowing development to a crawl. In April alone, single-family housing starts dropped 12 percent compared with the same month last year. From the earliest days of the republic, property ownership was deemed essential to liberty. The Founding Fathers believed that broad ownership of private property, especially land, was essential to sustaining a self-reliant citizenry. "Dependence begets subservience," Thomas Jefferson warned, and owning the ground beneath your feet was a guardrail against both. That ideal distinguished the United States from the Old World, where land belonged to the elite and everyone else merely rented. Legislation like the Homestead Act of 1862 and the GI Bill of 1944 reflected the fundamental ethos that ownership ensures empowerment. Today, that ethos is at risk. Our nation faces three interlocking crises: a massive supply shortfall, punishing interest rates, and a worsening affordability spiral. Tackling them head-on to produce homes that everyday Americans can afford requires courageous and targeted reform. First, policymakers must create incentives for developers to build entry-level housing targeted at buyers earning around the median income in the communities where they operate. The sole purpose of this policy should be to increase the inventory of homes accessible to everyday Americans while limiting competition from investors and second-home buyers. As part of this initiative, the federal government should offer a 50 percent reduction in capital gains or income tax liability to non-publicly traded developers who build and sell homes priced within 20 percent of the local median home price, provided those homes are sold to first-time buyers. To further jumpstart development and encourage scale, that incentive should rise to 75 percent after the first ten qualifying homes. Larger, publicly traded firms should be included as well, though at a lower incentive rate. AUSTIN, TEXAS - APRIL 17: An aerial view of houses undergoing construction in a neighborhood on April 17, 2025 in Austin, Texas. AUSTIN, TEXAS - APRIL 17: An aerial view of houses undergoing construction in a neighborhood on April 17, 2025 in Austin, the federal government should put its own land to better use. Vast tracts of underutilized and unused federal land could be sold at a discount to qualified developers, yet with strings attached. Homes must go to first-time buyers, priced near the local median, and states must commit to a 20-year property tax abatement. President Donald Trump's proposal to unlock federal land was an admirable start. But we also need to direct development toward working families rather than vacation-home investors. Third, states must be empowered to lead. Governors would apply, identifying housing-strapped regions, providing local price data, and agreeing to tax abatements. A dedicated federal agency should coordinate this program, modeled on the successful Opportunity Zone framework established under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Without micromanaging, the agency would ensure funding and enforcement consistency across state lines. New homes mean nothing if no one can afford to buy them. Since 2020, prices have soared by almost 50 percent while rates have tripled. That's a double whammy for prospective middle-class buyers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should offer discounted mortgage rates for income-qualified households purchasing homes in the program. Without financing relief, inventory will not translate into ownership. Then there remains the danger that Wall Street will pounce on any new homes. Institutional investors have bought up single-family homes in cash by the thousands, inflating prices and freezing out first-time buyers. Publicly traded firms should be capped at ownership of 50 single-family homes. If they own more, they must sell the excess within two years or face heavy penalties. That single measure would instantly return inventory to the market. To additionally safeguard homes for families, we also need to keep them from becoming just another asset class. Homes built under the program should carry 20-year deed restrictions with only primary occupants having the ability to buy and sell. If a homeowner wants to sell before the 20 years are up, the next buyer must also intend to live there. Localities have used similar models successfully for decades. This plan is admittedly aggressive, but it's achievable. It merely asks government to use resources readily at its disposal—land, taxes, and regulation—to empower developers, protect families, and rebuild the American middle class. If implemented, it would resuscitate the founding principle that every citizen should have a shot at owning the place they call home. Policymakers must act before the American dream becomes little more than a nostalgic memory. Pierre E. Debbas is managing partner of Romer Debbas LLP. Follow on X: @pierredebbasesq The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
