I always think it's a rationalization for those who don't want to cook (and yea, I'm in that group), but maybe I'm wrong.Dunno about the OP. For me it was more cost-effective to eat out for reasons such as:1. I am clumsy in almost every area away from a keyboard2. Recipes always seem to call for a dash of some spice I might never use again, and as an ignoramus in the kitchen I was always afraid that would be the ONE ingredient which "makes the meal" ... so I always felt like I should have a full array of stuff I've never heard of and never know if I'm going to use again3. Clean up!4. Investment in cooking utensils, appliances, and all that other stuff5. Time spent learning how to cook6. Hassles involved in moving all the kitchen equipment every time I movedIf you want to call that rationalizations for not wanting to cook, I would not take offense. But I would also note that one year (in another decade, when food prices were lower than they are now) I went from spending about $100/month feeding myself by eating out all the time, and the next year my housemate was spending $300/month to cook for both of us.These days I eat almost all my meals at home. Am also nowhere near the carnivore I used to be, so even with higher food prices I'm spending less now than I was then. Over the years, most restaurant food tastes more and more like plastic (or cardboard) to me. But yeah, for a number of years, every time I sat down to figure what it would take for me to cook for myself, it came out to way more $$$ than I was spending at the time.ILC
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra