Any decent gourmet restaurant in 2015 will fill you up. Serving tiny portions is an outdated practice. Although to be fair, I can't speak for what the culinary scene is like in Burgerland

>>7128296
Here's the logic, less is more. Ie, there's a reason poor people are typically more fat and unhealthy than rich people.

>>7128296

The one on the left is an amazing dining experience where you get to eat carefully stacked food. The one on the right is plebby pleb food for plebs.

Small portions are passe in high cuisine now.

>>7128311
>carefully stacked

So what? It's not like it doesn't end up messy as soon as you put your fork into it.

>>7128296
>prawns with what looks like a tomato-based risotto, rocket, pesto, and parmesan

Yeah I'm going to guess this isn't a very good restaurant

Plate on the right confuses me. Why double serving of carbs? Why random lettuce and tomato?

>>7128296
>rice AND French fries
>a piece of lettuce and a slice of tomato
>sad looking piece of beef

What the fuck?

>>7128296
You're assuming there isn't enough difference in taste, quality and aesthetics between the two meals to justify one costing an order of magnitude more than the other. And if you're someone who likes buying the cheapest food possible you may never see any justification for buying more expensive food.

But I'll explain the logic to you. If the steak in your pic actually costs $5 it's not a steak - it's a tough, bloody tasting piece of beef that probably should have been used for stew meat or ground beef served to you as a steak.Served along with a mound of unseasoned white rice and some tokes lettuce and tomato slices with nothing on them. There is not much flavor going on in that meal, and between the rice and the fries there' a lot of bland filler.

If the plate on the left is part of a $50 meal it's one of at least three courses. So think of it as 1/3 of a meal, and it costs about $16. For that you're getting a couple shrimp on some seasoned rice with a little herb infused oil to round out the flavor. It's likely to be anything but bland. Far from a bargain at that price, but remember it's just one of several courses that make up the meal.

I don't go out to eat at $50pp before drinks, tax and tip very often. But accepting the false dichotomy where my only options were the choices in OP pic I'd have to go with the "gourmet" choice. Because a $5 "steak" is just a waste of money. That shit isn't worth eating in the first place.

Paid 320 for a tasting menu & wine flight once, was worth it 2bh.

Smaller portion for the sedentary rich person who doesn't need extra calories while still getting better flavor.

Larger portions for the ditch diggers barely scraping by on their 10 hour 5 day a week job.

>>7128321
So why not just eat shit because everything you eat is going to end up as shit either way.

>>7128378
>Why random lettuce and tomato?
So people can say they had salad with their meal

Being poor must be the worst