Don’t think of the model as “what happens to a restaurant when there is an exogenous increase in the beauty of its women” (recall Scott Sumner — “don’t reason from a beautiful women [price] change!” ). Think of the model as “what does lots of beautiful women predict about the place of a restaurant in its product life cycle?”
I read the line in the book as making a causal argument that the beautiful women actually induce lower-quality food, but this heuristic interpretation is more consistent with the overall message of An Economist Gets Lunch.
If You Drop Your Air Conditioner Out the Window, the Only Thing That Matters Is Whether You Hurt Anyone
It's Not Just Josh Duggar—A String of Sex-Abuse Scandals Have Recently Rocked Christian Fundamentalism
What Happened at Slate This Week? Editorial assistant Rachel Gross on the best of Slate, from wedding debt to the evolution debate.