I disagree. I think this was an important lesson about how we can satisfy ourselves with hard work and determination. Cooking at home costs so much less than eating out, and you can usually eat more nutritionally while you’re at it.
I have some girlfriends who like to eat out together once a month, and I tell you, rarely is the food better tasting than my own cooking. When it is better, it usually costs me an arm and a leg. Last night was one of those nights. That fancy dinner cost me $40 plus the tip, and I could’ve made nearly the exact same meal for $18-20. (However, I will say it was nice to not have to cook for a change.)
The PB&J’s won’t last forever, but the lesson learned will last a lifetime.
Yeah, I was being somewhat facetious by my post.
I’ve always promoted the axiom that a penny saved is MORE than a penny earned, when you account for income and payroll taxes. In other words, if you can easily save an extra $100 per month, that is equivalent to earning slightly MORE than $100 per month before tax to net $100 afterwards.
But there is a cost to cooking at home and eating leftovers, mostly time in cooking and cleaning up afterwards. We shouldn’t ignore that. You are largely paying for convenience and the time saved when you eat out. Otherwise, people wouldn’t do it so often. There is a benefit there which people value.
I agree though on the food quality. Restaurants are businesses, usually operating on a very slim margin. So they have to cut costs wherever they can, and those savings are usually found in buying less-than-premium food quality. I buy fresh, free-range eggs for home use, and the difference in taste and food quality is tremendous. Restaurants buy the factory-produced eggs, probably under less than humane conditions, and they taste much more bland than my store-bought eggs, are far less nutritious, but cost a lot more when prepared for me at a restaurant.