Is home cooking on the irrevocable decline?

[Shalmanese]

It seems to me that the overwhelming trend in rich, 1st world societies is tending towards going to eat out more and more at the expense of home cooking with from scratch ingredients. Is a person who cooks at home with raw ingredients in 50 years time going to be viewed as someone who builds their own furniture or performs their own car maintenence is viewed today? It seems skills like these have virtually disappeared from the average person's life unless they specifically choose to make a career out of it due to a variaty of factors.

Looking at the economics of it all, I can't say I blame most people. With wages rising and food costs falling, it seems more and more rational to outsource your cooking needs. Indeed, if we take a place like Manhattan, an apartment might easily top $1,000,000. Assuming 10% of the space is taken up by the kitchen and that's $100,000 just for kitchen real-estate. Figure 5% rate of return on investment per annum and that means your using $5000 per year just to maintain a kitchen or a bit less than $15 a day. Figure an hour to prepare a meal per day at maybe $20/hr and its now up to $35 a day, add $10 for ingredients and it's $45 a day. Now for $45 a day, there are usually a lot better options that home cooking unless you specifically enjoy that terype of thing which it seems most people do not. Economically, it would be more rational to ditch the kitchen and eat out every night for a single yuppie living in manhattan.

On the other end of the spectrum, say we have a 4 person family in middle america. $200,000 house with 1/5th the space for cooking, works out to be $2000 or about $6 per day. Figure $10/hr worth of labour so $16, $15 worth of ingredients so ultimately around $30 for a family of 4. Your pretty much on mcdonalds for that sort of budget so, economically, the advatages of home cooking are pretty significant.

But as land prices go up and real wages go up and new technology makes it easier to prepare food on a mass scale, the numbers are going to get closer and closer to the point where it doesn't make sense for anyone to cook their own meals unless they derive pleasure from it. After all, when psychotherapy costs $100 per hour, cooking clocking in at $50 is still relatively cheap . And after that point, could it ever reach the stage where not even people who wanted to could cook at home because the infrastructure that surrounds it has disappeared (uncarpeted rooms, gas lines for stoves, supermarkets etc.)

[NulloModo]

Honestly, I don't think those particular numbers have any bearing on the issue.

How can you assign labor rates for something you do yourself ? You do not charge yourself to cook, it simple comes from your free time. Also, I am confused by your 'rate of return' statement. If you pay rent for your place, you pay rent for your entire place, the kitchen is there and you are paying for it if you use it or not.

Economically cooking is still cheaper than eating out, even in NYC. You can buy raw ingredients for rather inexpensive prices, especially at farmer's markets, and then do your own cooking and end up spending a lot less than if you were to eat out all the time. You spend more time doing it, and you might buy some kitchen tools/repair some appliances/use more electricity, but you still come out ahead.

I think the decline in cooking is more due to hectic schedules than economics. There is more take-out, more of it is good, and it is fast and easy. You pay more for the convenience, but society as a whole is more willing to do that nowadays.

[Shalmanese]

Well, say your faced with the choice of an apartment for $1,000,000 with a kitchen and $900,000 without a kitchen, everything else being equal. If you chose the $900,000 one, you could then stick the $100,000 you had left in a bank and earn $5,000 interest off it per year which you would not have otherwise.

Similarly, you could be doing something else rather than cooking which you would personally "value" at $10/hr. It's a fairly non-intuitive way of thinking about it if your not an economist but it's a very powerful analysis tool.

[Carrot Top]

The way that you are looking at it, Shalmanese, is exactly the way corporate analysts (usually in the accounting department of a large corporation) do when top management looks at costs of everything that it takes to run a business, including the cost/benefit analysis of providing foodservices (of any sort, even coffee service or areas) to the employees.

Coffee service, areas for vending machines, cafeterias, executive dining rooms all come under scrutiny at least annually and sometimes quarterly.

Every detail of running the operations is detailed including below and above line budgetary costs...and then it is up to the department head to justify the expense(s), bearing in mind what the overall corporate philosophy is in terms of employee benefits and perks.

Cafeterias are generally subsidized to a greater or lesser percent and are provided in part as a benefit to the employees. The prices finally charged to the consumer and the quality of the food provided are finally the result of delicate and detailed negotiations between the client and the service provider.

Often the 'client' (the person in charge of foodservices) in smaller corporations is a facilities management person and does not have the background in foodservice to sort out exactly what it is the service provider is saying...and to ask the right questions about each line item in order to negotiate the best product for the company. Therefore often cafeterias are not run as best they might be (in terms of economics for the client).

In executive dining, where costs can be very high, the manager of the dining rooms can be asked by the analysts to provide a competive cost/benefit analysis...in order to justify the large expense of having an in-house fine dining service. This can involve providing average costs of outside restaurants that would be considered competitive (depending on the corporation and the style of food and service, this could range anywhere from the corner bistro to Lutece, for example...depending on exactly where the 'executives' would be going rather than dining in-house) and including whatever costs would be involved in final cost of the meal(s), and transportation or other needs.

The final report is then presented to the management committee or board, and they must make the decision as to whether their dining rooms are actually providing a competitive service in terms of style, quality, services, and costs.

Thank god this does not usually have to be done at home.

The kitchen...of a home...should be more a warm and loving place, free of the constant fuss that the outside world hammers out each day.

I say keep it. Whether it is just used to microwave a cup of tea or whether it is used to cook up a storm of tasty delights. It's a symbol.

Edited October 6, 2004 by Carrot Top (log)

[Moopheus]

Looking at the economics of it all, I can't say I blame most people. .... Indeed, if we take a place like Manhattan, an apartment might easily top $1,000,000.

←

Of course "most people", even in manhattan, do not live in million dollar apartments. Not even close. Nor is there really a choice of liquidating the equity value of their kitchens. (Can imagine the conversation: "What do you think, dear, should we sell the kitchen, invest in T-bills, and eat out every meal for the rest of our lives? Heck, for that matter, why don't we sell the whole house, and live in a hotel and order room service? Economically, it makes no sense to own anything; just invest enough money to buy everything new every day.")

[Katherine]

Well, say your faced with the choice of an apartment for $1,000,000 with a kitchen and $900,000 without a kitchen, everything else being equal. If you chose the $900,000 one, you could then stick the $100,000 you had left in a bank and earn $5,000 interest off it per year which you would not have otherwise.

Similarly, you could be doing something else rather than cooking which you would personally "value" at $10/hr. It's a fairly non-intuitive way of thinking about it if your not an economist but it's a very powerful analysis tool.

←

I have my doubts about how powerful a tool this is, considering the assumptions on which you base your conclusions. If I had the choice of of an apartment for $1,000,000 with a kitchen and $900,000 without a kitchen, everything else being equal, I guess I'd have to choose to remain in my current abode, which is a little run down, but serviceable, and currently evaluated at $75,000, considerably less than the cost of your hypothetical run-of-the-mill kitchen.

I suppose your would be a valid analysis for someone for whom money is no object, who lives in a metropolis where it would be considered reasonable to pay $900,000 for an apartment without a kitchen, and who hates to cook. But even that person should take into account the loss of resale value you have incurred by not having a kitchen, which most people do want and at least occasionally use.

[bleachboy]

It must be sort of true. The other night I made for my parents a simple meal:

Roast chicken (with shallots, rosemary, paprika)

Rice pilaf (with homemade eGCI-style chicken stock)

Grilled asparagus with beurre citron

Tossed green salad with garlic croutons

French bread with seasoned butter

It was not a hard meal to prepare at all. Two years ago I would have struggled, but after teaching myself to cook (basically), I was cooking and hanging out at the same time, without much effort.

Both my parents declared it to be one of the best meals they'd ever had. My mom declared the chicken to be the best she'd ever had, hands down (spatchcocked, brined, flavor stuffed under skin, high heat). And it wasn't really a big deal to prepare.

Both my folks raised me on a diet of easy-to-prepare foods: Canned or frozen vegetables, hamburger helper, salmon croquettes, etc.

I think that if people just learned some basics -- specifically, some basics of French cooking, of which I'm a proponent -- they'd be more willing to cook at home once they realized the truth. Hey, practice for two months, and it's not hard. You can crank out a simple protein and two simple vegetables with almost no effort whatsoever.

Yay home cooking!

[jess mebane]

I think that if people just learned some basics -- specifically, some basics of French cooking, of which I'm a proponent -- they'd be more willing to cook at home once they realized the truth.  Hey, practice for two months, and it's not hard.  You can crank out a simple protein and two simple vegetables with almost no effort whatsoever.

Yay home cooking!

←

And the French would probably get a chuckle out of this corporate amoritization of cooking prices and practices; after all, no one gets more mileage out of cheap ingredients and shrewd cooking tricks than your average Gallic cook.

[Lady T]

Not buying the premise, friend. A straight dollar-value analysis doesn't yield the complete picture: cost/benefit analysis doesn't factor in the fun of cooking, nor the 'pleasure of the chase' to be had in shopping around for the precise quality of the precise ingredients you want to use at the precise price point you want to find 'em. (Yes. It takes time. I choose to spend the time in that way, as recreation.) It doesn't begin to estimate the pleasure of pairing the cool white wine you found for rock-bottom prices last month with the salad you're about to serve. I tend to think of home cooking as vastly higher in quality, but that may be simply because I do it in a way tailored to my taste (so of course I like it!). I also think of it as safer, but industry experts will surely argue that with me. Still and yet: it's to the store and to the kitchen for me, most days, and I like that just fine.

[Busboy]

Not buying the premise, friend.  A straight dollar-value analysis doesn't yield the complete picture: cost/benefit analysis doesn't factor in the fun of cooking, nor the 'pleasure of the chase' to be had in shopping around for the precise quality of the precise ingredients you want to use at the precise price point you want to find 'em.  (Yes.  It takes time.  I choose to spend the time in that way, as recreation.) It doesn't begin to estimate the pleasure of pairing the cool white wine you found for rock-bottom prices last month with the salad you're about to serve.  I tend to think of home cooking as vastly higher in quality, but that may be simply because I do it in a way tailored to my taste (so of course I like it!).  I also think of it as safer, but industry experts will surely argue that with me.  Still and yet:  it's to the store and to the kitchen for me, most days, and I like that just fine.

←

My guess is that, demographically speaking, you may not be in the fat part of the bell curve on this one.

I think the original post is a little labored, but the fact is that home cooking is in decline and that the trade off is, more or less, an economic one. I expect it's a "value of time" thing, though, more than a straight dollar trade-off -- that people factor the cost of an outside meal against the amount of time and effort saved by not cooking at home.

The question I might ask of our Doctoral thesis random sample is: if you were given $50/day -- in addition to your income -- that could only be spent feeding your family, how many meals would you cook at home, and how many would you eat out? I think that would give an accurate view of whether people cook at home because they like it or because the have to.

[FaustianBargain]

first of all, cooking at home will *always* be cheaper. secondly, the whole point of cooking and eating at home is familial interaction..we are social animals, afterall. i know at least two people who employ the same logic to ordering zone meals that get delivered to your doorstep in nyc. both are single. the female is trying to lose weight and the guy is just too lazy too cook. only slightly more expensive than hiring a part time home chef...but i am willing to bet that both will save money if they cooked at home..altho...if you are going to throw the 'time IS money' line, i'll wont have anything to say..as it becomes an entirely different ball game...ahem...nice analysis..but this duck doesnt even limp, let alone fly...

[Jujubee]

Re: the $1,000,000 home w/ kitchen vs. $900,000 w/o

I don't think you can take that extra $100,000 and apply it to the cost of cooking. I think most people who don't cook still want a kitchen. They want it for the fridge (to hold leftover takeout), the microwave (to nuke said leftovers), for the dishwasher, for the seperate storage space for food (most people don't want to store chips and cookies in their living room, even though they could), and for a seperate sink for food goo. Also, I'm thinking of all those people who don't cook but have gorgeous, top-of-the-line kitchens with gorgeous, matching All-Clad pots and Wusthof knives and absolutely no intention of using them. Kitchens are showpieces. A realtor once told me that kitchens and baths sell homes, and resale value factors into whether or not to purchase a home too.

And, currently most (if not all, I certainly haven't seen an exception) house/condos have kitchens. People already pay for them, yet eating out is very much on the rise. So even beyond the sunk cost of their current kitchen that they've invested in, it's still worth it to them to eat out. I agree with the poster that said it is due to lack of time. People just feel their time is worth more than the $$ they save by cooking at home.

[elswinger]

It has nothing to do with being rich, it's all about having time and energy.

I am in the $30-35k a year bracket (which is poor for Seattle) and though I love to cook, I wind up eating out way more than I want to (or can afford). I work 40 hours a week, have kidney dialysis 3 nights a week, which takes up 15 hours of my time, and all the commuting to and from is another 13 hours. (Total away from home is 68 hours).

I'm only home Tuesday and Thursday nights and the on weekend, so frankly I'm tired. I only wind up cooking from scratch on the weekend (Tuesday and Thursday it's either order pizza or Chinese or cook a frozen dinner).

With so many two income housholds and some people even having to work multiple jobs (I know one person who works three) eating out is pretty much the only option.

[chile_peppa]

It has nothing to do with being rich, it's all about having time and energy.

I agree. Plenty of middle- and low-income people resort to eating out, even if it is more expensive than home cooking, simply because there is not enough time and energy left after everything they must deal with during the day.

I hesitated to reply to this post because I didn't want to go on a rant about people who see value only in monetary terms. We deal with this fiscal nonsense a lot where I work, and frankly I'm sick of it.

Sometimes people do things like real cooking, fine woodworking, and other "lost arts" not because they want to make a career of them (and artisans are often not paid well, I might add), but because these activities are ENJOYABLE! How lovely to have the luxury of time to make something with your hands to share with people you love after a long day at a soulless job! How do you put a price on that?

[Cusina]

And you forgot the 2.5 children in the analysis too. I think most people, myself included, get a lot more interested in what they eat when they are also feeding/setting an example for a little growing person. It's also a lot more energy to take young children out or find take out that their bland loving little taste buds will accept than it is to just make something simple at home. And believe me, guilt is a mighty powerful thing. Parents don't get cut slack on this issue, even if the work two jobs and are extremely busy. It's still very much socially expected that you cook at least somewhat healthy meals for your kids and eat around a family table more often than not.

It's an interesting premise, definitely sparked a lively discussion. Thanks for asking the question, Shalamanese.

[Busboy]

first of all, cooking at home will *always* be cheaper. secondly, the whole point of cooking and eating at home is familial interaction..we are social animals, afterall. i know at least two people who employ the same logic to ordering zone meals that get delivered to your doorstep in nyc. both are single. the female is trying to lose weight and the guy is just too lazy too cook. only slightly more expensive than hiring a part time home chef...but i am willing to bet that both will save money if they cooked at home..altho...if you are going to throw the 'time IS money' line, i'll wont have anything to say..as it becomes an entirely different ball game...ahem...nice analysis..but this duck doesnt even limp, let alone fly...

←

Well, one can interact perfectly well with the family at a restaurant. Better, sometimes; if they don't like the pork you don't take it personally.

Ignoring the time/money relationship is absurd, failing to consider it ignores reality and makes one's argument irrelevant. People trade money for time every day, in ways big and small: when we take a cab instwead of the bus; when we hit the corner grocer instead of the market, when we pay someone else to wallboard the ceiling instead of doing it ourselves. Growing incomes relative to the cost of food versus shrinking available time to prepare and eat it is the major cause of death of the family dinner.

PS We should all remember that someone else may get the same pleasure from woodworking -- or just TV-watching, if we're being strictly neutral -- as we do from cooking and eating; trading a few extra food dollars for a few extra hours of lathe-time is perfectly legitimate.

[viva]

The question I might ask of our Doctoral thesis random sample is: if you were given $50/day -- in addition to your income -- that could only be spent feeding your family, how many meals would you cook at home, and how many would you eat out?  I think that would give an accurate view of whether people cook at home because they like it or because the have to.

←

We have that. It's called a per diem. I get $50 a day for food when I travel for work. Although my ability to cook is very limited in a hotel kitchenette, I *vastly* prefer schlepping over to the Italian grocery around the corner and stocking the mini-bar fridge with coppa, salami, cheese, olives, fruit, foccacia, etc., so I can assemble my own sandwiches, have a little antipasta, salads, whatever. (Even though the check-out lady there gets mad at me because I don't speak enough Portuguese.) I eat out at a restaurant maybe 2-3 times per week when I travel. To me, eating out is more exhausting... takes more time, have to take a cab, you eat more than you really want to, etc.

[Busboy]

And you forgot the 2.5 children in the analysis too.  I think most people, myself included, get a lot more interested in what they eat when they are also feeding/setting an example for a little growing person.  It's also a lot more energy to take young children out or find take out that their bland loving little taste buds will accept than it is to just make something simple at home.  And believe me, guilt is a mighty powerful thing.  Parents don't get cut slack on this issue, even if the work two jobs and are extremely busy.  It's still very much socially expected that you cook at least somewhat healthy meals for your kids and eat around a family table more often than not.

It's an interesting premise, definitely sparked a lively discussion.  Thanks for asking the question, Shalamanese.

←

Another thought, to draw back to the original question, is that having kids gives you certain economies of scale -- it takes roughly the same time to cook for four, roughly, as is does for two (or one). Meanwhile, the costs of eating out rise significantly, both in hassle factor and food costs. Hence, "family dinner" becomes relatively more economically desireable.

[Daddy-A]

I agree. Plenty of middle- and low-income people resort to eating out, even if it is more expensive than home cooking, simply because there is not enough time and energy left after everything they must deal with during the day.

<SNIP>

Sometimes people do things like real cooking, fine woodworking, and other "lost arts" not because they want to make a career of them (and artisans are often not paid well, I might add), but because these activities are ENJOYABLE! How lovely to have the luxury of time to make something with your hands to share with people you love after a long day at a soulless job! How do you put a price on that?

←

This was my favorite answer to this question. How does one put a price on these things?

From where I sit, there is some validity to Shalamanese's argument. Many of the kitchens I am designing today have more to do with "WOW" factor than true functionality. I had a client drop $35K on appliances after telling me he never cooks. "I just want the kitchen to look like I do" was his reason. The investment speaks more to real estate values than anything else.

However ...

The overwhelming majority of my clients continue to cook in their kitchens, and are doing so at the expense of eating out. After all, once they receive my bill, they can't afford to eat out for a while Seriously though, kitchens with what I term specialty appliances (warming drawers, double ovens, wine fridges, secondary prep sinks, steam ovens, etc.) are on the increase, not for WOW, but because they are being used. And I see more specialty appliances being used every day.

We call this The Martha Factor. We may laugh at her, but she put us back in the kitchen, and I thank her for that every payday.

Back to the point about there not being enough time in the day ... there has never been a point in time where there was enough time in the day. My parents bitched about it, and so did my grandparents. Times are always hard, there's always so much work to do. Today it's trying to fit in time at the gym before taking the kids to soccer practice ... 50 years ago it was darning socks before Ward & the Beave got home ... 100 years ago it was bringing in the harvest before month's end. Same shit, different decade.

So, while I understand the argument, I just don't see it playing out. Sure, we're eating out more. But we're also eating at home, and eating better. Cooking is done as much for necessity as for less tangeable reasons. Much like gardening, it has become a hobby as much as a chore.

Great topic.

A.

[Busboy]

Back to the point about there not being enough time in the day ... there has never been a point in time where there was enough time in the day.  My parents bitched about it, and so did my grandparents.  Times are always hard, there's always so much work to do.  Today it's trying to fit in time at the gym before taking the kids to soccer practice ... 50 years ago it was darning socks before Ward & the Beave got home ... 100 years ago it was bringing in the harvest before month's end.  Same shit, different decade.

So, while I understand the argument, I just don't see it playing out.  Sure, we're eating out more.  But we're also eating at home, and eating better.  Cooking is done as much for necessity as for less tangeable reasons.  Much like gardening, it has become a hobby as much as a chore.

Great topic.

A.

←

You're living in a dream world if you think families have as much free time as they used to. I grew up middle class in the 60's and 70's and virtually every mother stayed home. Mom did a little sewing - and a little painting and whatever else needed to be done in addition to the housework. She probaly spent as much time working as my wife does, but making dinner was part of her "job" not in addition to it. My brothers and I ran around the neighborhood for fun; the endless shuttling of kids from soccer to ballet to tutors hadn't been invented yet -- though there was some of that -- because unstructured time was tolerated and people weren't paranoid. The lack of time is real and, and anybody who has time to cook as a "hobby" on a Tuesday night is probably either not working full time, or childless.

[Moopheus]

And also people aren't just choosing between cooking and eating out, but also between cooking and using convenience and processed foods. Which is clearly a time issue, or at least a perceived time issue, since many processed foods are not really a good value compared to making from scratch. So they're using the kitchens they've paid for, but the goal is to spend as little time as possible in them.

[Daddy-A]

And also people aren't just choosing between cooking and eating out, but also between cooking and using convenience and processed foods. Which is clearly a time issue, or at least a perceived time issue, since many processed foods are not really a  good value compared to making from scratch.

Is it a time issue, or just that some people don't care what kind of crap they eat? Do people eat Wonder Bread because it's simpler, or because they can't be bothered to go to the baker (assuming the baker hasn't been put out of business by the local big box retailer)? It's a matter of priorities. Some people put cooking first, others don't.

I'm not saying we're not busy ... just that we've always been busy. It's just that what we spend our time on has changed. 100 years ago, the concept of "leisure time" was completely different than it is today.

You're living in a dream world if you think families have as much free time as they used to. I grew up middle class in the 60's and 70's and virtually every mother stayed home. Mom did a little sewing - and a little painting and whatever else needed to be done in addition to the housework. She probaly spent as much time working as my wife does, but making dinner was part of her "job" not in addition to it.

You're in the dreamworld if you think that while your mom was painting and sewing she considered that "free time". Your mom's "job"(and mine too ... I grew up during the same time) was to do those things. Just because she didn't work out of the house didn't mean she had free time.

Now it's more common for both parents to work "outside" the home (although tele-commuting is changing that). Chores that used to be done at home are now jobbed out. Are we eating out more? Of course. Does that mean the kitchen will disappear? I don't believe so.

So they're using the kitchens they've paid for, but the goal is to spend as little time as possible in them.

You couldn't prove that in our house, or in the houses of many other people I know, clients or otherwise. I'm in my kitchen a lot (and aparently at my computer a lot too) and it's not because I'm not busy. I like being there, and I find time to be there. Again, it's all about priorities. I'm not saying your experience is the same.

A.

Edited October 8, 2004 by Daddy-A (log)

[Tepee]

After #3 child came along, I decided to have our dinner (2 veg/meat combo and 1 meat dishes) catered and delivered to our doorstep in tiffin-carriers. I figured this would help lessen the stress of my life of chauffeuring the kids to their 1001 classes and my cake-decorating pursuits. I'm lucky to have a husband who's none too fussy about his dinner...hmm..I suspect he's feeds himself too well during lunch (he's in the sales line).

This went on for 3 years. Some days the menu was really good (somehow they always give a smaller portion when something's good), some days one of the dish would be left practically untouched. I must have been enjoying all that free time in the afternoon so much (from not having to prepare for meals), that I neglected to see that my girls did not look healthy, until one month ago. I've been ignoring comments that they were skinny, and etc... How nutritious can the food be when it has been prepared 8 hours earlier and left at room temperature?

To cut an already long story short, I woke up one day and decided to cook dinner again. Everyone in the family celebrated! Eating healthy had become my mission. I filled my larder with liquid aminos, sea salt, grapeseed oil, etc.. It was timely that I discovered 2 organic food sites, which did deliveries for a nominal fee. One of them even waived the delivery charges as he stays closeby. So, that saved us from making marketing trips, since time is still a factor.

Just within one month of cooking, I can boast that my kids are sporting rosy cheeks. I've never had more fun in the kitchen knowing that I'm giving my family the best, and I haven't repeated a recipe yet!

Home cooking just became alive for me again...cooking with LOVE.

p/s Oh, I'm on "leave" during weekends...a time spent discovering new places to eat at. A win-win situation for me, at last.

[Jujubee]

...that I neglected to see that my girls did not look healthy, until one month ago. I've been ignoring comments that they were skinny, and etc...

←

You know, that's an interesting comment. My MIL once said to me that when her kids were little, her pediatrician said to her "don't listen to people who say your kids are too skinny. Most kids are too fat." Today, my husband is still very thin (BMI = 18). I use to think she took the doctor's comments a little too much to heart, as my husband had a couple unusual health problems and a lot of issues with food (e.g. when visiting his parents - we were in college at the time - he would feel guilty for eating "their" food, and we would buy our own at the grocery store; or he would be very stingy when serving guests and not be willing to share his food in general). However, now I don't know. My parents were in the overabundance of food camp (All your teenage friends are hungry after school? Sure, bring them over!), and my sister and I are both a bit chunky (not my brother though). Not obese, but overweight and constantly trying to lose a few pounds.

So who was right? On one hand, I get short-term sick (flus, colds) much less often than my husband, and I have more energy on a day-to-day basis. I am much more generous with food and friends and family, and enjoy the experience freely. On the other hand, he has a much lower risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc., and he never has to worry about his weight.

[Shalmanese]

Wow, this thread certainly has sparked some lively discussion :D.

I guess many of you just aren't used to this sort of cost/benifit analysis so some of the ideas seem rather strange. A "dollar" in CBA terms isn't really the same thing as a physical dollar but is used as a convenient placeholder for a unit of effort that would correspond to $1 in traded. For example, if you were given the choice of taking the bus or taking a taxi costing $1, you would obviously take the taxi. If it was taking the bus or taking a taxi costing $1,000,000, you would obviously take the bus. Somewhere in the middle, you reach a balance and that is the "cost" of taking a bus over taking a taxi in intangible terms. It's a very blunt but powerful tool, useless at making precise predictions about a single person but it allows us to easily talk about trends and payoffs.

I'm sure there will always be home chefs like there will always be people who make their own clothes or build thier own furniture or grow their own food. Yet, for the majority of urbanised westeners, we buy our clothes/furniture/food at the local strip mall and I suspect in a few years time, we'll be eating there as well. Obviously egulleters are going to be at the extreme end of the bell curve so its hard to put yourself into the mind of the "average" American but I think it's safe to say that currently, cooking is viewed on average as somewhere between a chore and a mild pleasure. Just exactly how much can be factored in as "cost of labour" which is how much value an alternative activity would have over cooking.

Lalitha: Your point has always sounded counter-intuitive to me. Think about it, in one scenario you have a group of 100 people who own 25 - 30 lots of very expensive equipment which is used maybe 2 times a day, 25 - 30 seperate rooms which are again, used primarily but not exclusively for the task of eating which only happens sporadically and each person is tasked with buying their own produce and preparing it. On the other hand, you could have 100 people all eat in 1 kitchen which is in almost constant use and a larger dining hall and produce bought by a larger customer who can leverage economies of scale and chefs who can produce large batches of food in only a bit more time than it took you to prepare a single batch. Surely, at some point, the overheads of restaurant dining are going to be outweighed by the massive economies of scale.

Except when people try and sit down and work out the figures, they don't include stuff like cost of maintenece of appliances or floor space used or even labour because the most obvious cost is ingredients so thats what they focus on. But subconciously, we weight up all these factors all the time which is why stuff like CBA *IS* such a widely used tool in econometrics.

Jujube: It's true that not many houses are without a kitchen entirely, but theres a fairly standard gradation from "Kitchen lite" (bar fridge, microwave, kettle, sink) to "Kitchen standard" (full fridge, range, oven, microwave, sink, lots of counter space) and upwards. What I predict is that the trend will be increasingly moving towards kitchen lite style living where the space increasingly becomes used for other purposes such as a larger and more spacious living room. A friend I recently visited living in a ultra-modern apartment had a kitchen the size of a bathroom and a laundry *inside* a closet. Obviously, they made a lifestyle choice where cooking took less of a precedence.

Daddy-A: It's interesting you mention that because one trait of a skill that is going into decline is that theres actually MORE activity in the high end market. I think it's very accurate when you say it's becoming a hobby and not a chore, for the two are treated very differently in terms of how we buy them.

Edited October 8, 2004 by Shalmanese (log)