Why is Indian food always expensive?

[Anonymous]

For meat go to Pakistani restaurants, for vegetarian go to Indian and for seafood go to Bangladeshi restaurants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, the issue is that there have been tons of lower priced options around and the food tastes better at the hole in the wall or small place in a strip mall mom and pop joint than the sit down locations. Maybe those are gone from the DMV and you only have mediocre Indian food at high prices at places like Rasika.

Mexican out here in CA is a good example. The best by far Mexican is from several of the tiny Taquerias in strip malls on the east side. The expensive Mexican near the foothills is meh and really overpriced for a taco. The best barbecue we ever had was at a place next to a gas station with nothing else nearby in Texas. Best Chinese was in a tiny run down restaurant in outer sunset.

Part of this is overhead. The tiny rundown places can spend on ingredients and employee time instead of rent.

I don’t think the mom and pop rundown restaurant is buying high end ingredients. What even would be high end lentil? The Indian food at sit down restaurants is very basic and less flavorful, my guess, is because they are trying harder to cater to what they perceive as American tastes. The foods used in the most popular Indian dishes are not expensive either.

That you do not comprehend the gradation in lentils says everything.

But 100% agree that much Indian restaurant food is toned down for US palates.

[Anonymous]

At my local Indian restaurant the food is as expensive as anywhere else but I feel like they really overdo it on the vegetarian stuff. An 8 ounce order of yellow dal (ginger and turmeric) is $14, plus add $5 for "extra spicy". Insane!
Samosas are $5 each which seems perfectly reasonable until you see that each one is the size of a golf ball.
The spinach paneer dish someone mentioned is $20 for 8 ounces plus you get 16 ounces of free rice with it.

[Anonymous]

Our local Indian place is a little expensive, prices went up after Covid. I don't mind though because takeout will usually give us enough food for two dinners and a lunch for someone. Obviously it's cheaper if my H cooks our Indian food but sometimes he just doesn't feel like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At my local Indian restaurant the food is as expensive as anywhere else but I feel like they really overdo it on the vegetarian stuff. An 8 ounce order of yellow dal (ginger and turmeric) is $14, plus add $5 for "extra spicy". Insane!
Samosas are $5 each which seems perfectly reasonable until you see that each one is the size of a golf ball.
The spinach paneer dish someone mentioned is $20 for 8 ounces plus you get 16 ounces of free rice with it.

Chances are that what you are getting is barely above the premade and frozen stuff at Trader Joe’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, the issue is that there have been tons of lower priced options around and the food tastes better at the hole in the wall or small place in a strip mall mom and pop joint than the sit down locations. Maybe those are gone from the DMV and you only have mediocre Indian food at high prices at places like Rasika.

Mexican out here in CA is a good example. The best by far Mexican is from several of the tiny Taquerias in strip malls on the east side. The expensive Mexican near the foothills is meh and really overpriced for a taco. The best barbecue we ever had was at a place next to a gas station with nothing else nearby in Texas. Best Chinese was in a tiny run down restaurant in outer sunset.

Part of this is overhead. The tiny rundown places can spend on ingredients and employee time instead of rent.

I don’t think the mom and pop rundown restaurant is buying high end ingredients. What even would be high end lentil? The Indian food at sit down restaurants is very basic and less flavorful, my guess, is because they are trying harder to cater to what they perceive as American tastes. The foods used in the most popular Indian dishes are not expensive either.

That you do not comprehend the gradation in lentils says everything.

But 100% agree that much Indian restaurant food is toned down for US palates.

There is no gradation of lentils. It’s pretty much lentils.

Most are pretty much the same. There’s no such thing as gourmet lentils. It’s a legume. Most are used in a stew which is cooked till mushy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get food from Indian restaurant, eat half one day with store bought and pan warmed naan, next day boil basmati rice and eat with leftovers.

+1, skipping the rice saves a few $$ and is super easy. Mine is never as good though.

[Anonymous]

You’re going to the wrong places if you think Indian food is always expensive. Let me guess, Rasika and Bombay Club in DC? Go to the small, unassuming places in Northern VA where Indian people go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indian good is expensive because it requires certain expertise, equipment and spices, none of which are cheap. It also is expensive because people are willing to pay what the restaurants charge.

Not true except for a few specific dishes. Your run of the mill palak paneer, butter chicken and naan are very easy to make.

That does not even begin to explore the very wide world of Indian cuisine. It’s patently untrue that “except for a few specific dishes”, the rest do not require expertise, equipment or spices.

Do try to make a Dal baati churma or Soan papdi, and report back on how easy they’re to make (and before you go there, these are but two examples of hundreds of dishes that are difficult to make).

Silly argument. No one in India makes soan papdi at home. You buy it from the halwai. When I was a kid growing up in India there would be vendors cycling around the neighborhood carrying the feathery sweet in big glass jars. We’re talking about typical Indian restaurant fare in the US.

I have eaten a soan/halwa combo dessert at a restaurant; was quite good although I don’t really like either separately. I found it rather dismissive to say that with a few exceptions, Indian food is easy to make, when it is likely the other way around, or 50-50.

My point is that just because you can make some sort of bastardized version of some Indian dishes at home does not mean that the actual ones, served at many restaurants, are not time/labor/ingredient intensive.

Take butter chicken, for instance. The dish is believed to be created to use up leftover tandoori chicken. As such, you’ll have to first make tandoori chicken, and then use it to make butter chicken, which let’s just say that “crockpot butter chicken” is most decidedly not doing. Of course, since most of us don’t have a tandoor, if we bake the chicken, you’d then have to take the extra step of infusing the curry with a little smoke to emulate the authentic flavor. If a restaurant charges 20 bucks for a butter chicken and they’re serving the real deal, I’d call that a bargain.

90% of the restaurants are baking the chicken in the oven and using a frozen sauce base among other shortcuts.

Using a frozen sauce base isn’t really a shortcut, poster. At some point the kitchen staff made that base, and it took a good long while. When they finish using that batch in the freezer, they’ll spend hours making a new one.

Batch cooking certain things like that happens in all cuisine kitchens, you aren’t getting a totally fresh product made for your order when you order Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish, I could go on and on with cuisines that have sauce based dishes. I mean obviously, the Sunday gravy takes hours to meld into something divine and worth paying good money for.

It’s not complicated to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indian good is expensive because it requires certain expertise, equipment and spices, none of which are cheap. It also is expensive because people are willing to pay what the restaurants charge.

Not true except for a few specific dishes. Your run of the mill palak paneer, butter chicken and naan are very easy to make.

That does not even begin to explore the very wide world of Indian cuisine. It’s patently untrue that “except for a few specific dishes”, the rest do not require expertise, equipment or spices.

Do try to make a Dal baati churma or Soan papdi, and report back on how easy they’re to make (and before you go there, these are but two examples of hundreds of dishes that are difficult to make).

Silly argument. No one in India makes soan papdi at home. You buy it from the halwai. When I was a kid growing up in India there would be vendors cycling around the neighborhood carrying the feathery sweet in big glass jars. We’re talking about typical Indian restaurant fare in the US.

I have eaten a soan/halwa combo dessert at a restaurant; was quite good although I don’t really like either separately. I found it rather dismissive to say that with a few exceptions, Indian food is easy to make, when it is likely the other way around, or 50-50.

My point is that just because you can make some sort of bastardized version of some Indian dishes at home does not mean that the actual ones, served at many restaurants, are not time/labor/ingredient intensive.

Take butter chicken, for instance. The dish is believed to be created to use up leftover tandoori chicken. As such, you’ll have to first make tandoori chicken, and then use it to make butter chicken, which let’s just say that “crockpot butter chicken” is most decidedly not doing. Of course, since most of us don’t have a tandoor, if we bake the chicken, you’d then have to take the extra step of infusing the curry with a little smoke to emulate the authentic flavor. If a restaurant charges 20 bucks for a butter chicken and they’re serving the real deal, I’d call that a bargain.

90% of the restaurants are baking the chicken in the oven and using a frozen sauce base among other shortcuts.

Using a frozen sauce base isn’t really a shortcut, poster. At some point the kitchen staff made that base, and it took a good long while. When they finish using that batch in the freezer, they’ll spend hours making a new one.

Batch cooking certain things like that happens in all cuisine kitchens, you aren’t getting a totally fresh product made for your order when you order Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish, I could go on and on with cuisines that have sauce based dishes. I mean obviously, the Sunday gravy takes hours to meld into something divine and worth paying good money for.

It’s not complicated to make.

May or may not be complicated. Depends on what they're making. But it's almost always time consuming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indian good is expensive because it requires certain expertise, equipment and spices, none of which are cheap. It also is expensive because people are willing to pay what the restaurants charge.

Not true except for a few specific dishes. Your run of the mill palak paneer, butter chicken and naan are very easy to make.

That does not even begin to explore the very wide world of Indian cuisine. It’s patently untrue that “except for a few specific dishes”, the rest do not require expertise, equipment or spices.

Do try to make a Dal baati churma or Soan papdi, and report back on how easy they’re to make (and before you go there, these are but two examples of hundreds of dishes that are difficult to make).

Silly argument. No one in India makes soan papdi at home. You buy it from the halwai. When I was a kid growing up in India there would be vendors cycling around the neighborhood carrying the feathery sweet in big glass jars. We’re talking about typical Indian restaurant fare in the US.

I have eaten a soan/halwa combo dessert at a restaurant; was quite good although I don’t really like either separately. I found it rather dismissive to say that with a few exceptions, Indian food is easy to make, when it is likely the other way around, or 50-50.

My point is that just because you can make some sort of bastardized version of some Indian dishes at home does not mean that the actual ones, served at many restaurants, are not time/labor/ingredient intensive.

Take butter chicken, for instance. The dish is believed to be created to use up leftover tandoori chicken. As such, you’ll have to first make tandoori chicken, and then use it to make butter chicken, which let’s just say that “crockpot butter chicken” is most decidedly not doing. Of course, since most of us don’t have a tandoor, if we bake the chicken, you’d then have to take the extra step of infusing the curry with a little smoke to emulate the authentic flavor. If a restaurant charges 20 bucks for a butter chicken and they’re serving the real deal, I’d call that a bargain.

90% of the restaurants are baking the chicken in the oven and using a frozen sauce base among other shortcuts.

Using a frozen sauce base isn’t really a shortcut, poster. At some point the kitchen staff made that base, and it took a good long while. When they finish using that batch in the freezer, they’ll spend hours making a new one.

Batch cooking certain things like that happens in all cuisine kitchens, you aren’t getting a totally fresh product made for your order when you order Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish, I could go on and on with cuisines that have sauce based dishes. I mean obviously, the Sunday gravy takes hours to meld into something divine and worth paying good money for.

It’s not complicated to make.

May or may not be complicated. Depends on what they're making. But it's almost always time consuming.

No one’s slaving over a stove for hours murmuring sweet nothings to the gravy. My aunt used to own an Indian restaurant. The kitchen is quick and efficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, the issue is that there have been tons of lower priced options around and the food tastes better at the hole in the wall or small place in a strip mall mom and pop joint than the sit down locations. Maybe those are gone from the DMV and you only have mediocre Indian food at high prices at places like Rasika.

Mexican out here in CA is a good example. The best by far Mexican is from several of the tiny Taquerias in strip malls on the east side. The expensive Mexican near the foothills is meh and really overpriced for a taco. The best barbecue we ever had was at a place next to a gas station with nothing else nearby in Texas. Best Chinese was in a tiny run down restaurant in outer sunset.

Part of this is overhead. The tiny rundown places can spend on ingredients and employee time instead of rent.

I don’t think the mom and pop rundown restaurant is buying high end ingredients. What even would be high end lentil? The Indian food at sit down restaurants is very basic and less flavorful, my guess, is because they are trying harder to cater to what they perceive as American tastes. The foods used in the most popular Indian dishes are not expensive either.

That you do not comprehend the gradation in lentils says everything.

But 100% agree that much Indian restaurant food is toned down for US palates.

There is no gradation of lentils. It’s pretty much lentils.

Most are pretty much the same. There’s no such thing as gourmet lentils. It’s a legume. Most are used in a stew which is cooked till mushy.

There are in fact lentils that are better than other lentils. As you recognize by asserting lentils are “pretty much” the same, meaning they are not precisely the same. The fact that you don’t comprehend the difference and/or have not experienced it does not mean it does not exist. And lentils in Indian cuisine are used and cooked in a variety of ways from urad daal used as part of the tempering of certain dishes to the finely ground daal used in making batter for idli, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You’re going to the wrong places if you think Indian food is always expensive. Let me guess, Rasika and Bombay Club in DC? Go to the small, unassuming places in Northern VA where Indian people go.

Where do you recommend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re going to the wrong places if you think Indian food is always expensive. Let me guess, Rasika and Bombay Club in DC? Go to the small, unassuming places in Northern VA where Indian people go.

Where do you recommend?

Also would love to know - everything I’ve tried around me in Fairfax is so bland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, the issue is that there have been tons of lower priced options around and the food tastes better at the hole in the wall or small place in a strip mall mom and pop joint than the sit down locations. Maybe those are gone from the DMV and you only have mediocre Indian food at high prices at places like Rasika.

Mexican out here in CA is a good example. The best by far Mexican is from several of the tiny Taquerias in strip malls on the east side. The expensive Mexican near the foothills is meh and really overpriced for a taco. The best barbecue we ever had was at a place next to a gas station with nothing else nearby in Texas. Best Chinese was in a tiny run down restaurant in outer sunset.

Part of this is overhead. The tiny rundown places can spend on ingredients and employee time instead of rent.

I don’t think the mom and pop rundown restaurant is buying high end ingredients. What even would be high end lentil? The Indian food at sit down restaurants is very basic and less flavorful, my guess, is because they are trying harder to cater to what they perceive as American tastes. The foods used in the most popular Indian dishes are not expensive either.

That you do not comprehend the gradation in lentils says everything.

But 100% agree that much Indian restaurant food is toned down for US palates.

There is no gradation of lentils. It’s pretty much lentils.

Most are pretty much the same. There’s no such thing as gourmet lentils. It’s a legume. Most are used in a stew which is cooked till mushy.

There are in fact lentils that are better than other lentils. As you recognize by asserting lentils are “pretty much” the same, meaning they are not precisely the same. The fact that you don’t comprehend the difference and/or have not experienced it does not mean it does not exist. And lentils in Indian cuisine are used and cooked in a variety of ways from urad daal used as part of the tempering of certain dishes to the finely ground daal used in making batter for idli, etc.

This is like saying there is no gradation in meat and not knowing how stupid you sound.