5 ms·

No, that's not true. Cooking for yourself is _easily_ cheaper than eating out. You pay heavily for the luxury of having someone else prep your food. You can go

No, that's not true. Cooking for yourself is _easily_ cheaper than eating out. You pay heavily for the luxury of having someone else prep your food. You can go to the grocery store once a week, cook a few meals to last through the week, and eat for $3 a meal without trying hard. Frugal people can eat for $1 a meal easily.

taeric 10y ago
This can easily depend on what you eat. Both when eating out, and eating in. As such, strawmen and assertions without data will be tough to argue against. Specifically, I'm sure there are folks that spend more than I do. In either category. Numbers would be interesting to see, and I'm sure someone has them.
- disordinary 10y ago
  It will very wildly city to city, state to state, country to country, and also season to season. Whereas fast food tends to be reasonably standard.
- redial 10y ago
  If you compare the same meal and don't account for the time you spend cooking it, it will be cheaper to do it yourself every time. If you go to fancy restaurants it's not even close. You just have to compare the price of a soda, ~$3 and up (usually $5), to its price at the supermarket and you'll have your answer. Wine is also an easy one, with at least 300% markup even on cheap bottles. Everything is marked up like that (maybe calling it 'markup' is not really fair as they provide other things and not just a meal, but you get what I mean.) I've been cooking for years and not even trying to save money meals are less expensive.
  - taeric 10y ago
    You can't skip on the time. It is one of the main reasons to do fast food, after all. And it has been a long time since I bought soda. Still, I feel it is impossible to list ingredients and recipes without building a straw man. Research on average amount spent eating out and eating in would be nice to see. My point is it is easy to save money doing either. It is equally easy to spend more than makes sense doing either. My gut would be that eating in is cheaper. My gut is also that it is easier to waste food at home. Is amazing how many times we let something ruin in the fridge. And again, neither of those gut checks are data.
    - redial 10y ago
      Wine bottle prices and beer prices are available everywhere. It's not that hard to compare them.
      - taeric 10y ago
        And when I'm eating out, I'm not ordering those... When I'm having a night out, beer. Maybe. That is, since most eating out is at fast food locations, wine and beer are irrelevant.
        redial 10y ago
        They are not irrelevant as 'hard data', which is what you requested. If you want to have only anecdotes and personal experiences then by all means stay with what you order when you go out.
        taeric 10y ago
        Sorta. That is hard data on price of some things. My question is data on what people actually spend. Consider, many people buy dollar beers at the bar. What I buy at the grocery isn't even that cheap. So, again, straw man. I'm not asking what people could spend. But what they do spend.
randomdata 10y ago
> You pay heavily for the luxury of having someone else prep your food. To be fair, you also pay heavily for the luxury of having the means of production (i.e. a kitchen) at your disposal. Some back of the napkin calculations show that simply allocating a small area to a kitchen in San Francisco costs you $6-10 per day. That's not even including the opportunity cost and operating cost of having the tools found within the space, or the many other costs of operating a kitchen beyond raw food ingredients. And that alone can buy you an entire meal per day at some restaurants, prepared by someone else. When you factor in all of the costs of cooking for yourself, I don't think there is any way you can complete with restaurants. They have economies of scale on their side. But it is easy to ignore many of the costs of cooking for yourself.

taeric 10y ago

This can easily depend on what you eat. Both when eating out, and eating in. As such, strawmen and assertions without data will be tough to argue against. Specifically, I'm sure there are folks that spend more than I do. In either category. Numbers would be interesting to see, and I'm sure someone has them.

disordinary 10y ago
It will very wildly city to city, state to state, country to country, and also season to season. Whereas fast food tends to be reasonably standard.
redial 10y ago
If you compare the same meal and don't account for the time you spend cooking it, it will be cheaper to do it yourself every time. If you go to fancy restaurants it's not even close. You just have to compare the price of a soda, ~$3 and up (usually $5), to its price at the supermarket and you'll have your answer. Wine is also an easy one, with at least 300% markup even on cheap bottles. Everything is marked up like that (maybe calling it 'markup' is not really fair as they provide other things and not just a meal, but you get what I mean.) I've been cooking for years and not even trying to save money meals are less expensive.
- taeric 10y ago
  You can't skip on the time. It is one of the main reasons to do fast food, after all. And it has been a long time since I bought soda. Still, I feel it is impossible to list ingredients and recipes without building a straw man. Research on average amount spent eating out and eating in would be nice to see. My point is it is easy to save money doing either. It is equally easy to spend more than makes sense doing either. My gut would be that eating in is cheaper. My gut is also that it is easier to waste food at home. Is amazing how many times we let something ruin in the fridge. And again, neither of those gut checks are data.
  - redial 10y ago
    Wine bottle prices and beer prices are available everywhere. It's not that hard to compare them.
    - taeric 10y ago
      And when I'm eating out, I'm not ordering those... When I'm having a night out, beer. Maybe. That is, since most eating out is at fast food locations, wine and beer are irrelevant.
      - redial 10y ago
        They are not irrelevant as 'hard data', which is what you requested. If you want to have only anecdotes and personal experiences then by all means stay with what you order when you go out.
        taeric 10y ago
        Sorta. That is hard data on price of some things. My question is data on what people actually spend. Consider, many people buy dollar beers at the bar. What I buy at the grocery isn't even that cheap. So, again, straw man. I'm not asking what people could spend. But what they do spend.

randomdata 10y ago

> You pay heavily for the luxury of having someone else prep your food. To be fair, you also pay heavily for the luxury of having the means of production (i.e. a kitchen) at your disposal. Some back of the napkin calculations show that simply allocating a small area to a kitchen in San Francisco costs you $6-10 per day. That's not even including the opportunity cost and operating cost of having the tools found within the space, or the many other costs of operating a kitchen beyond raw food ingredients. And that alone can buy you an entire meal per day at some restaurants, prepared by someone else. When you factor in all of the costs of cooking for yourself, I don't think there is any way you can complete with restaurants. They have economies of scale on their side. But it is easy to ignore many of the costs of cooking for yourself.