Why You Can Afford to Eat at Home

February 29, 2008 RSS Feed Print

My first reaction to the headline on a recent Christian Science Monitor article—"Is Eating Out Cheaper Than Cooking?"—was one word: no. It's hard to imagine how restaurant dining, with tips and often inflated food prices, could cost more than a home-cooked dinner. And yet the article suggests just that.

My second reaction was a sense of déjà vu. Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal caught a lot of flak for defending the same point—that cooking at home can easily cost more than eating out. That article, "Why You Can't Afford to Eat at Home," cited $20 bottles of champagne vinegar and $10 mushrooms to make its argument. Add a new set of All-Clad cookware, and you're out $900 more.

The problem, as many letters to the editor pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, is that no one needs to use $20 champagne vinegar or All-Clad to make a scrumptious meal. I say this as someone who is obsessed with replicating Barefoot Contessa recipes on an almost daily basis. I spend around $120 on groceries each week for my husband and me, and that generates about five dinners, plus breakfasts, lunches, and snacks. Meanwhile, even a relatively inexpensive restaurant can easily put us out $40. Clearly, we save by cooking. (Blogger Wanda at Well-Heeled recently wrote about how she saves even more at the grocery store.)

The Journal and Christian Science Monitor articles also include the argument that professionals earn too much money to "waste" time cooking, because it would be more lucrative to instead spend the time working longer hours. That ignores the fact that cooking is often the perfect antidote to a day spent feeling stressed out while sitting in front of a computer, as so many professionals do. The smell of sautéing onions in butter and olive oil can be more relaxing than a spa treatment, as is the family dinner time that often follows it. To say cooking saves money—which it does—misses the even larger point, which is that it can save one's sanity.

Readers, what do you think?
I love to cook. Rachael Ray had better watch her back.
I cook but not every day - it takes so long!
I would cook if it weren't so expensive and so much work.
The only cooking that interests me is reheating my leftover takeout.


View results without voting

 

Requires JavaScript

Tags:
personal finance,
food and drink,
money

Reader Comments Read all comments (31)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Here are some more tips for saving on groceries. This will save you so much money and cut your grocerie bill in half.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5318465_save-money-groceries-month.html

Bobby of PA 4:15PM August 21, 2009

I'm a public accountant, which means that I work approximately 66 or mor hours a week from mid-January until April 15th. I've been working for 18 months, and I have yet to pay for a lunch. I do everything on Sundays (my day off): buy groceries and make dinners and lunches for the week.

I don't know if I net savings because I have expensive taste, try to buy local and/or organic and I live alone, but at least I know what goes into my body--and that is more valuable to me than convenience. You have no idea what you're truly eating when you go to a restaurant. How can you be sure that "wheat" is actually whole wheat? Or that the steamed veggies aren't exceeding sodium allowance for the day? The only way you'll know for sure what you're eating is if you make it.

The only way I'll go out to eat is if I can't cook something, and that usually limits things to very gourmet restaurants where I can easily spend half of my monthly food buget on one meal...or barbecue (NOT grilling!), which I can't make due to my condo's fire codes. Why would I pay [insert common chain restaurant name] $15 for a mediocre steak when I can cook a better tasting steak from a grass-fed cow the way I like it with the sides I like for the same cost? It doesn't make sense. More importantly, I get to control my portions and seasonings.

Fortunatley, I do enjoy cooking, and people tell me I'm good at it. I would have the typical accountant's build if I didn't cook, and not knowing what you're eating is just asking for an early death in this industry.

I think this country has a major problem with setting priorities. We should care more about how much we sleep, how much we exercise and what we eat than we should about money or objects. Yes, I understand that I'm ignoring families here, but something should be in place to nurish kids better than standard school lunches or fast food. Do you really think that pizza and fries are going to produce healthy kids? I actually blame Congress more than any one parent because of this nutritional abuse, but that's another rant.

I don't know what my point is, but I'd like to think that even if I'm not saving money by cooking at home, I'm saving for the future by eating right.

Now, back to my grass-fed local brisket, organic quinoa and organic kale with caramelized onions and mushrooms...

promark420 of GA 4:27PM June 12, 2009

Eating out will always cost more,on top of that you have to give a tip if its a dine in place,like Friday's.Unless you are one of those people that don't mind giving 2 dollar tips,lol.Restaurant foos always taste better than home cooked,unless a you are dating a chef student.Yes at home is time consuming,you have to prepare,cook,then clean those dirty dishes,and place any left overs in containers,that takes to much time,that's woman's work if you have a stay at home wife

Michael Knight of FL 5:17AM June 05, 2009

Alpha Consumer

Alpha Consumer

Kimberly Palmer, senior editor for U.S. News & World Report, is the author of Generation Earn: The Young Professional's Guide to Spending, Investing, and Giving Back. Send her your personal finance questions.


advertisement

Latest Video

advertisement