Eating Out Cheaper than Cooking?

[doodles44]

MSN Money posted this article on how eating out could be cheaper than cooking (originally published in the Christian Science Monitor). I think this is absolutely crazy!

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...oney/IsEatingO
utCheaperThanCooking.aspx

My BF and I purchase enough food for a full week's worth of meals for the amount that we'll be charged for one nice meal out (around $40). I thought when I was in college that the Wendy's $1 menu was the best thing available to mankind, but once you realize that cooking your own can be cheaper and better, it's hard to go back (and I'm not even that good of a cook, LOL!). Has anyone had experience when eating out can be cheaper than cooking? If it doesn't pay off for a family of 2, I can't see how it can work for a family of four or five.

I love when I come home from shopping with bags worth of stuff and my spendaholic SO says, "you spent how much, really?" and "wait, these aren't store brand." It makes me so happy that while he usually makes fun of my "cheap" ways, we eat darn well.

[disneysteve]

That link doesn't work. Can you try again?

In discussing that other article about the 4 NYC spending diaries, we've talked about how in NYC, eating out can be cheaper than cooking because groceries are expensive and there is a wide variety of reasonably priced restaurants and take-out places, but that's a situation fairly unique to NYC. Anywhere else, I just don't buy it.

[poundwise]

Use this link

The idea is seriously flawed. Not only is the person counting their hourly rate towards the cost of cooking at home (?) but it seems clear that they are not frugal grocery shoppers. Not to mention that dining out, while certainly enjoyable on occasion, comes with a lot of extra fat, sodium, and so on.

[disneysteve]

That's nuts! No way is eating out cheaper or more convenient than cooking at home. I don't know what they're making or where they're shopping, but eating at home, even using convenience foods, is way cheaper than going out.

They're counting time spent shopping for food, but don't seem to be counting time spent driving to the restaurant, parking the car, waiting for a table, waiting to give their order, waiting to get their food, waiting to get their bill and driving back home.

We do a lot of cooking at home. Virtually all meals take less than an hour, start to finish, and many take less than 30 minutes. Plus they are fresher, healthier and cheaper than the ones served in any restaurant.

[Broken Arrow]

Now that I am learning to grocery shop, I can see that it's technically possible to have cooking end up costing more than dining out. Of course, one would have to buy expensive items to cook. But that would also defeat the purpose of me cooking in the first place. My goal is to lower my food budget, so I focus only on affordable items.

[Jacklad]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

We do a lot of cooking at home. Virtually all meals take less than an hour, start to finish, and many take less than 30 minutes. Plus they are fresher, healthier and cheaper than the ones served in any restaurant.

I agree. The biggest problem is that these people don't know how to shop or cook.

That said, I have found occasionally that a "convenience" food is less expensive than the raw ingredients - one example is the rotisserie chickens at my local grocery store. It never fails to amaze me that I can buy a fully cooked chicken for less than a raw roaster. Add to that savings in time and energy costs and I'll grab one a couple of times per month. During the hot summer days where I don't want to heat up the house they can be a lifesaver.

Jackie

[pearlieq]

Originally Posted by Broken Arrow

I can see that it's technically possible to have cooking end up costing more than dining out. Of course, one would have to buy expensive items to cook.

It is absolutely possible for it to be cheaper to eat out than to cook!

For routine, simple food, of course cooking at home is cheaper, but often if I want something fancy or complicated, it's much cheaper for me to go to a restaurant and order it--with the added bonus of not having to deal with both the leftover entree and leftover ingredients. I've had many a spice and specialty cooking product die a slow death on my shelf because I only needed it for one recipe.

I'm not saying it's easier, healthier, or in any way advisable, but I can think of many, many scenarios where going out is cheaper than cooking, especially for 1-2 people.

[dossin1]

There's no way that can be true. We used to eat out every Sunday, plus pizza and wings on Fridays, and I know we dropped a bundle. Even fast food for all 4 of us costs close to $15 nowadays. Even White Castle costs a lot of money (for some of you it may be Krystle's).

[Broken Arrow]

Hehe. Well, what I still do from time to time is to eat one big meal at a all-you-can-eat buffet. Plus tip, it usually comes out to around $15. Yeah, I know that's unhealthy, but from the perspective of food cost per day, it isn't staggeringly expensive. It still doesn't compare to cooking and eating at home though, where I usually weigh in at around $5 per day.

[Ima saver]

Well, we go out to eat for the sheer enjoyment of spending a few hours have drinks, a meal and lots of talking. We can get a decent meal, plus leftovers, for about $15 for both of us. we take in our liquor and pay nothing for drinks.

On sundays, I will buy steaks, baked potatoes, charcoal, etc. That usually costs more than $20 unless I can find steaks on sale. Of course, I know you can buy much cheaper food than that. We just do it for the pleasure of it!

[JanH]

What got us thinking wasn't just the cost factors, but the "restaurant report cards" they have on our news each friday. Some are scary. And the restaurant where the delivery people left frozen food on the back porch for hours in the sun just made us ill thinking about it. Fortunately, most correct their problems, but we still curbed our eating out. And we choose more carefully. Probably makes eating out less of a routine and more of an entertainment now. That's a good thing.

[tinapbeana]

Originally Posted by Jacklad

That said, I have found occasionally that a "convenience" food is less expensive than the raw ingredients - one example is the rotisserie chickens at my local grocery store. It never fails to amaze me that I can buy a fully cooked chicken for less than a raw roaster. Add to that savings in time and energy costs and I'll grab one a couple of times per month. During the hot summer days where I don't want to heat up the house they can be a lifesaver. - Jackie

my local grocery store sells an instant meal: 1 roasted chicken, 3 sides, bag of 12 rolls for $12.99 (and sometimes it even goes on sale for $10.99). the chicken is a good 3-4 lbs (aka a $3 chicken), the bag of rolls normally sells for $2, and the sides are things like rosemary garlic potatoes, creamed spinach, roasted green beens, etc. cost-wise, it winds up being the same or less than if i'd cooked it at home (b/c of the number of ingredients needed).

plus there are only 2 of us, so after we eat the meal, i use the rest of the spinach and some chicken another night to make chicken alfredo florentine, use more chicken for chicken salad, and use the bones to make chicken stock. up to 6 meals (or more!) for $12.99

[doodles44]

I think there is a way that you could eat out for cheaper than cooking at home, I just don't think it makes any sense in the long-term. It seems like the people in the article are shopping at high-end grocery stores. I've been the victim of an "inexpensive" home meal at Whole Foods that would cost about the same if eaten out.

But on the whole, and especially for families, it's cheaper to dine in. We eat out about once a week or once every two weeks - I like to spulrge when i go out and get stuff that I normally can't cook. (I esp. like the comment about many spices dying a slow death! That's happened to me too, unfortunately).

I'm kind of a foodie, and I would rather save up my "eat out" meals for less really nice meals.

[LuckyRobin]

I think that article is completely misguided. It starts out comparing an organic shopping menu which will be quite expensive to a restaurant meal that can't possibly be organic at $17, so why are they comparing apples and peanut butter? (I'd say oranges but they aren't even in the same catgory). I really don't understand the author's thought process either, drawing big conclusions from faulty evidence. Maybe they were backed by the restaurant industry?

I know that for my family of 4, if we order everything off the dollar menu at McD's, we can get out of there having paid about $12 and that is if we all order water to drink, which we do. But I also know that a package of 8 buns is $1.29 and a pound of hamburger is $1.69 and a ten pound bag of potatoes is $1.99 and this is all NOT on sale prices. So I could make two meals out of the hamburger and buns for $2.98, add 1 pound of fried potatoes per meal at 20 cents per pound, that's two meals for a family of 4 for $3.38. Even if I add in a half gallon's worth of milk at $1.00 (we get it $2 per gallon) for those two meals, that is still $4.38, heck add in $1.00 to add 8 cheese slices to those burgers over two meals and that's only $5.38 . Not even close to that $12 meal from McD's. I could add in a bottle of ketchup, a bottle of mustard, an onion and a bottle of pickles, and I just might make it to that $12, and I'd still have all those condiments left over to use for the rest of the month or longer.

And that's the cheapy meal. I can do pot roast, potatoes and gravy, corn on the cob, and green beans and milk for $15, and get two meals for 4 out of it. Same option in the restaurant would be $8.95 a plate at a diner, $12.95 for a mid-range restaurant, per person. Plus in our state, there is no sales tax on food, except in restaurants. So tax (8.4%) and tip, you're talking $45 for the diner meal, and yes there are probably enough leftovers for everyone to get another meal from it, but still $15 or $45, there is no comparison. It's just nuts to think there is.

Now maybe, just maybe a single person could in fact do this. But I don't think so. And it wouldn't be healthy.

[getforfree]

There is no way that my family would be able to eat out on less than $250/month. $250 is enough for me to buy food for 5 people, and all the toiltries, paper products and diapers.

Whenever we eat out, we buy 1 kids meal + an item or two for every adult from $ menu. We all share the same drink from kids meal which has unlimited refils. Even that cheap way it costs us about $10. Eating at home costs less than $7/Day, so if we have 3 meals, it's about $2-3/meal. There is no way you could eat out for $ 3 for a family of 5.