Is home cooking on the irrevocable decline?

[Shalmanese]

Oh, and the other point I wanted to address was what WOULD happen if cooking became a hobbyist activity?

For one, the local supermarket produce section would all but disappear. Fruits would still be very much in demand as well as cheeses and deli meats. But in the same way I wouldn't expect a furniture store to sell untreated wood, I suspect these things to be all but banished:

fresh meat

cream

Most vegtables (mushrooms, turnips, onion, potato and other things which are inedible raw would be particularly hard hit)

Spices

Oils

Flour, Rice, Beans, pasta

I suspect there might be stores catering exclusively to obtaining these things in the larger cities but at a fairly marked up price. The upside is that quality should be excellent since they are catering to those who really care about food.

Good kitchens would also be a hard thing to find and many people without extravagant amounts of money or are willing to buy and restore older houses will have to make do with whatever area of the house that is free. Gas cooking seems particularly hard to retro-fit into an existing house so I suspect it would become very rare.

I suspect that even people who are enamoured with cooking will only do it occasionally and it will be treated with more reverence and dressed up as a special occasion.

[fifi]

Great topic. I'll put in my two cents.

I took a hiatus from cooking for about 12 years or so. My kids were living with their dad and stepmom. I was traveling a lot. My main meal was lunch, eaten out. There was no "evening meal" as such, fruit and cheese or other snack. If I were really ambitious I would nuke a Lean Cuisine. When the kids visited short term or longer over the summer, a little cooking went on. But... boy was that expensive! I just wasn't set up for major cooking. I had long ago learned that while living alone, it made no economic sense to cook routinely.

Then my son came to live with me while he was finishing school. (He was in his 20s at the time.) He likes to cook and insisted that when we were both home, that we cooked and sat down to dinner, no phone, no TV. That got me back into cooking. I started buying new toys. I sold the condo. I bought a house with a pretty good kitchen and a walk-in pantry. The adventure was back on! (I had grown up with a bevy of great and creative cooks and gardeners.)

Now, the pendulum swings. I live alone again. I have sold the house and am in an apartment until the house gets built. But, I won't be going back to the cooking hiatus. In fact, there will be a lot of compromises in the house in order to have a dynamite kitchen. I now look at cooking for one (most of the time) as a challenge to figure out how to do my favorite things "downsized". Cooking is my hobby and creative outlet. I love my toys and to heck with the economics.

Daddy-A brings up a great point that I wonder about... telecommuting. I started doing that 2 or 3 days a week about two years ago. That has proven to be a real opportunity for indulging my hobby. When it is time for a lunch break, I can pop off to the store and put an idea into the oven for a long braise, get back to work, and keep an eye on the oven. I wonder what effect telecommuting will have, long term, on how our society will approach cooking and the effect on family life. Maybe we should start a thread about telecommuting and the kitchen.

[chile_peppa]

I guess many of you just aren't used to this sort of cost/benifit analysis so some of the ideas seem rather strange.

Au contraire...

I hold an MBA and manage project budgets, but I am sick and tired of people trying to apply CBA to all aspects of life. There is much more to real life than numbers crunching -- real or virtual.

[fifi]

Au contraire...

I hold an MBA and manage project budgets,  but I am sick and tired of people trying to apply CBA to all aspects of life. There is much more to real life than numbers crunching -- real or virtual.

←

AMEN!

[Daddy-A]

Au contraire...

I hold an MBA and manage project budgets,  but I am sick and tired of people trying to apply CBA to all aspects of life. There is much more to real life than numbers crunching -- real or virtual.

←

I suppose if people looked at the cost benefit of having children, the human race(at least in developed nations) would be doomed.

I agree with chile_peppa ... it's a useful tool and makes for an interesting discussion, but doesn't apply to all aspects of life, regardless of what end of the bell curve we're on.

A.

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

[Jujubee]

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.

←

That's an interesting observation. My husband and I are house hunting right now, and I've actually noticed the opposite trend. The newer homes all have huge, expansive, beautiful kitchens, while the older homes have smaller, darker kitchens, even when the square footage of the house is about the same. If anything, the new homes sacrifice the living room for more kitchen space. Some of the older homes we've seen have seperate rooms for a formal living room, and then a casual living/family room (and maybe an additional basement/rec room). In the newer homes, the formal living room is obselete, and instead there is one multi-purpose living area, and maybe still an additional rec room in the basement or common area upstairs by the bedrooms for kids. We are shopping in suburbia, not the city, so maybe that has to be taken into account. But even in suburbia, people are eating out more, getting takeout more, etc.

But your point is one I hadn't thought of before. I'm sure someone out there keeps statistics regarding how much space is devoted to specific rooms in new constructions and remodels vs. how much used to be devoted in the past. And I would really be curious how that differs in city vs. suburb vs. rural.

[Busboy]

Daddy-A

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.

You missed my point. My Mom certainly considered it work, so do I. The point is that she only had one "job." Today most women (and the burden still falls disproportionally on them) have two -- the "work work" and "housework." If you add time spent by parents at the office or factory or wherever to the time spent working around the house to the time spent transporting kids, to increased extracurriculars and homowrk for the kids, etc, today's families have fewer hours to cook and enjoy a meal than most middle-class families of the past. Throw in the growing number of single parents and you have a huge change in dinner's role. People who spend $35,000 on kitchen equipment -- or are able to persue it as a mid-week hobby (that have three hours to spend shopping and cooking because they like to do it) -- do not represent the realities most Americans face.

Nor, btw, does eGullet. Asking this group about the future of dinner is a little like asking the Young Dempcrats abnout the future of the war in Iraq. The answers are valid, but not necessarily representative of the nation as a whole.

[origamicrane]

hmmm.... home cooking is on the decline but i don't believe it is just an economic reason. The following is a list of random thoughts.

Incoming sexist comment !!!

in the previous generations it was typically the woman of the house that cooked the daily meals. But in our generation with the longer working hours and the equality in the work place woman are more likely to go out and work after a hard day no one really wants to cook?

Following on from above because more woman are going out to work the handing down of granma's secret recipes to her children has also stopped so the culinary pool has also been reduced. Naturally if you not good at cooking you won't want to cook right?

I think the populations is slowly become more polarised in the kithchen stakes, at present you will have those that just microwave ready meals and those that can cook up a complete storm, its the people in the middle i think that are in decline. People see cooking as a chore rather then something fun.

Home cooking is on the decline but home entertaining isn't,

you be hard pushed to have a party with out a good kitchen.

Also final point is home cooking will always be healthier, there is less fat, sugar, salt, flavorings and calories in home cooking then in eating out. If you want to do the maths on home cooking versus eating out, how would you quantify the cost on your health?

Look at the problem first world countries are having with obesity, diabetes and other eating disorders. I think alot, if not all of these problems are due to convenience food and the increase in people eating out. It has only been in the last few decades that the number of child diabetes case has exploded.

Admittedly this is down to more then just the food they eat, lack of exercise is a major contributor.

[beetee]

Eating out three times a day is going to cost more than cooking at home no matter how many numbers you try to add on to the cost of home cooking. If my kitchen budget every month is $400 that means each meal I eat costs me $4.50 (that includes drinks, equipment, and other miscellaneous supplies). The cost of floor space, time, etc. are pretty moot points, because eating out takes just as much time, and would cost me more in travel expenses. Floor space is a non-issue also because even the newest apartments built for singles ages 25-30 have decently equipped kitchens. I can not even touch the $4.50 a meal mark eating out unless I settled for the most horrendous food on the planet (Wendy's $1.39 menu, hot dogs from 7-11, etc..). In fact I figure if I ate every meal out my eating costs would skyrocket to $600 a month and my health would quickly decline.

Your analysis also completely ignores the aging population, whcih means more retirees, more bored people, and I bet more time spent in the kitchen.

[Moopheus]

Is it a time issue, or just that some people don't care what kind of crap they eat? 

←

I think both, to varying degrees, which is partly why I said "perceived time issue." People think they're busier, and want to spend less time in the kitchen, regardless of how busy they really are. As you say, it's somewhat a matter of priorities, and food can be low on the totem pole. For me, the kitchen is a high priority; I like to cook, and the kitchen is one place where I can "do my own thing" without external restriction, and I like having control over what I eat.

Shal: I understand Cost-Benefit Analysis, but I think you misapplied it here. Since most people have kitchens regardless of how much or how well they use them, it seems unlikely that the cost of the kitchen itself is much of a factor in whether people decide to cook or eat out.

[rosebud]

To follow up a bit on origamicranes' comments: Economics is certainly playing a role in the home-cooking issue; but, here in DC (and I suspect other cities), it isn't the economics talked about on this thread. Rather, it is the complete lack of supermarkets in a large area, which is also the poorest area--the same area where large numbers of people don't have cars or access to good public transportation. Nutritionists have had to throw up their hands in dealing with obese children/teenagers who have, or are in danger of developing, Type 2 Diabetes in that part of town because there is no way to buy and prepare the proper food. It's fast-food or starve for quite a few of my fellow citizens.

Also, I would like to remind everyone that being a good cook takes practice. My DH and I learned classic cooking techniques by watching Public Television cooking shows, checking out cook books from the Library and reading about it. I also make use of Epicurious.com. We take turns cooking dinner and I think we eat better than the average American, since we rarely use prepared foods (with the exceptions of canned tomato sauce, chicken stock and beans). And, it takes practice to come up with the kind of meals that can be prepared with little time or effort and still be quite delicious. As an example, in Jacques Pepin's memoir "The Apprentice" he has a recipe for Chicken with Cream Sauce. I make that with rice and a vegetable (Brussel Sprouts are good with this--really!!) in less than 45 minutes.

Finally, there very little that's more satisfying than gathering your family and friends together and feeding them something delicious that you have prepared with your own hands. Good food, good wine, good friends. And no haggling over the bill at the end.

[tejon]

I think home cooking has always been seen as a chore by the majority of people (mainly women) who were responsible for putting dinner on the table. There have always been some who enjoyed planning meals and cooking, but I think those have always been a minority. The large difference between now and a hundred years ago is the number of options available to those who don't cook well or who don't enjoy preparing things in the kitchen. Not only are there sit down restaurants, but fast food is quick and relatively inexpensive, and grocery stores are filled with foods that need little to no preparation.

So the logical result would seem to be smaller kitchens and less food actually prepared at home. But is this actually happening? Yes and no. More meals are being eaten out of the house than one hundred years ago, true. But there has also been an explosion of foods that need *some* amount of preparation - crock pot mixes, soup mixes, ready bake meals, bread mix, cookie and cake mixes, frozen skillet meals, marinated and/or pre-cooked meats, etc. Why are people seeking out foods that need some amount of cooking when ready made foods are just as easy to purchase? Because there is an equal desire to care for one's family by making meals for them. Food is part of how we care for the ones we love. Something baked in the oven or simmered on the stove is valued above something that came out of the microwave.

There will most likely always be home cooking in most homes. Perhaps less than our grandparents did, but I can't see it dying out completely.

[Toliver]

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.

←

Funny you should say that. I started a discussion a short while back,

"The Eating Out Generation, What used to be special, isn't anymore.", because a mucky-muck from Food Television was quoted in yet another discussion as basically saying the same thing:

"...Research shows that "the job of America" is to get out of cooking, not to spend more time cooking..."

As for all the arguments that today we have less "free" time today than we used to or than our parents did...this is a misperception that has actually been given a name by the researchers: "time famine". There have been studies researching this and it was shown to be a false perception:

Despite the popular perception that Americans are working longer than ever, the time diary data clearly show that total work hours—defined as labor market work plus housework—decreased substantially from 1965 to 1985 for both men and women.

This particular study attributes today's perception of less free time due to the available free time being filled with scheduled activities (as opposed to sitting on the couch and just "vegging"). This is also verified in another time use study (see page 20 and the pages following).

We have the time to cook our own meals. We just perceive incorrectly that we don't.

[wilewil]

Most vegtables (mushrooms, turnips, onion, potato and other things which are inedible raw would be particularly hard hit)

←

Obviously not from the south where raw turnips are commonly eaten. Onions and mushrooms are also somewhat common in salads, on sandwiches etc.

[mikeycook]

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.")

←

Actually, as of Q3 of 2003, the average price of a Manhattan apartment was $916,959. It is probably close to, if not over $1M now. Of course, some people rent and some people got in earlier, but they are certainly living in million dollar apartments now.

[Moopheus]

The cost of floor space, time, etc. are pretty moot points, because eating out takes just as much time, and would cost me more in travel expenses.

←

Not to mention travel time. Time to go to a restaurant, wait for a table, wait to be served, etc., is likely not shorter than cooking, though generally perceived to be less work. "I just don't feel like cooking tonight" is as good a reason to go out as any. Even fast food restaurants can be slow at busy times. Of course a lot of people eat some meals out because they are already out for other reasons, such as lunch during the work day.

Another thing to consider is that most people do not choose cooking or not cooking exclusively, but may choose one or the other at various times.

[Busboy]

Interesting article here.

Among the links are a graph showing the results of a study that found that the average hours per household worked rose from 57.5 in 1969 to 71.8 per week, largely the result of women entering the workforce. That's almost three more hours a day for a five-day workweek. A pretty significant climb even if, as in the Busboy household, some of that time is made up by letting household chores slide. Another thing they touch on is lengthening commutes and the stress that brings.

Toliver, this is from one of the articles you quote: "From 1989 to 1999, the questionnaire recall data indicate that paid work in the labor market increased by 10 percent for men and 17 percent for women, reflecting the decade’s strong job market and the increasing labor market participation of women. As a result, total work time for men increased by 8 percent over that decade. But given the drop in housework time for women, their total work time increased by only 2 percent. "

Paid work is increasing significantly, according to your own source, for men and especially women. People have less free time. So people are doing less housework, one assumes including cooking, in order to slow the growth of their "total" workload. They cook (and clean) less, because they are working more. Your own sources contradict you. So there.

Moopheus, it's tough to argue that it takes as long to eat out as it does to cook. Admittedly, I'm in the city, but there's a good two dozen restaurants around that I could walk the family to, eat in, and walk home faster than I could cook a roughly equivalent dinner and wash the dishes. Hell, the whole restaurant industry -- except for a relative handful of places -- is geared to getting tables turned as fast as possible. Most of the times I go out to eat I end up thinking, "geez, that was quick."

[Katherine]

Actually, as of Q3 of 2003, the average price of a Manhattan apartment was $916,959.  It is probably close to, if not over $1M now.  Of course, some people rent and some people got in earlier, but they are certainly living in million dollar apartments now.   

←

This is clearly true of Manhatten, but in no way does it represent a nationwide trend, except perhaps in a few metropoli.

I do not know a single person who made a decision to forego the kitchen and invest the cash instead. No landlord here could rent an apartment without a kitchen, at any price.

There are plenty of reasons why fewer people are cooking than in previous generations, but it doesn't have anything to do with saving money by eating out and not installing a kitchen. Although my ex-husband probably would have done this, had he heard about saving a few bucks this way. Then I could have divorced him earlier...

[Toliver]

...Paid work is increasing significantly, according to your own source, for men and especially women....

←

You're correct. I was looking at the data from '65 to '85. The 10% increase came later after that first study.

Though you label this 10% increase as significant, the researchers don't think it's big enough to justify today's sense of "no free time". From the end of the paragraph:

“These changes are not large enough to explain why people feel like they have so much less free time these days,” Juster says. “It could be that more leisure time today involves scheduled activities, which make people feel busy rather than relaxed.”

An interesting side note in some of the studies is that the researchers think our actual perception of time here in the U.S. has changed since the days of our parents.

And overall, women are still getting the short end of the stick, so to speak. As it's been noted by others in this discussion, women still do a day's "paid" work and then come home and do a majority of the housework.

We're such bastards, ain't we?

[Carrot Top]

Academic studies can be found to support almost anything.

But as I look at life around me and how it has changed from when I was a child...there are basic differences.

There are very few people left who do the job of 'home-maker'. Woman or man. It is no longer considered to be a truly feasible job for many reasons...both economic and sociologic. So there is really nobody in the kitchen (and home) doing the work that used to be done, unless one hires a cleaning service or housekeeper.

Everyone that cooks knows how long grocery shopping, organization, meal planning, food preparation and cooking take. This used to be done (along with the laundry and keeping a house that people would say "You can eat off her floor"...this is a slightly separate issue...but one that goes, again, to show how times have changed...because now the saying is "There are more important things to do than clean the house.") by the mother of the family, where such a stable situation existed.

There are still only 24 hours in a day, but the way people spend that time is different now.

Corporations and manufacturers and service suppliers alike have now taken with a vengeance to increasing production and becoming lean and mean.

In the 1970's and 1980's you would see people's lives being disrupted by their employers 'transferring' them here and there...disrupting what used to be stable communities with family ties and knowledge of common culture.

That declined due to the high cost of the transfers...then came the late 1980's and the crunch to perform. At every level of the workforce, things were looked at with hawk's eyes to try to find the least bit of fat. Then after that fat was cut, the new management philosophy came in that 'If they can do this much, they can do more' and the idea of management by pressurized reduction of hours and employee cuts began.

What this translates to in real life is people working outside the home much more than what used to be a forty-hour workweek. It is translated differently. Sometimes you will see a blue-collar employee who works two twenty-hour jobs which have been set up that way so that the employer can avoid paying costly health insurance. The 'shift' hours are totally ridiculous. They start early, end late, have no respect for a person's 'family life'. Then there are the white collar employees, the supervisors or mangement who do not get paid by the hour so are expected to work at least fifty hours a week..sixty to be considered 'good'.

In reality, I see less people in the kitchen. They are working terrible hours...the children are in before and after-school care and then need shuttling to sports and dance and whatever activities...because there are no longer many 'neighborhoods' where the Moms were in the house sort of watching over everyone...as the children ran here and there outside and played.

I see tired people with undone laundry and unvaccuumed homes who are happy for convenience foods, happy for family restaurants, but who are also happy to have a kitchen for the rare times they can find to sit in it and maybe dream of having the time for cooking.

There are the wealthy with the fancy kitchens which are put in the home to keep the value up to par. If they don't have children, they have a chance to use them, maybe. Who cares?

Again, the point is that it is not about money. It is about having a place to feel that you COULD make yourself a meal if you wanted to. Lots of people want to.

What's next to do a cost/benefit analysis on, the bathroom?!

Edited October 9, 2004 by Carrot Top (log)

[Busboy]

You're correct.  I was looking at the data from '65 to '85.  The 10% increase came later after that first study.

Though you label this 10% increase as significant, the researchers don't think it's big enough to justify today's sense of "no free time".  From the end of the paragraph:

An interesting side note in some of the studies is that the researchers think our actual perception of time here in the U.S. has changed since the days of our parents. 

←

The time thing perception deserves a whole 'nother thread, probably not on eGullet, just for the examining the difference between working shorter workweek but having to work on line in a blizzard -- ie increased leasure v. the abandonment of natural rhythms.

I meant the "significant" probably more in the economic/statistical sense. If you think of the caveats that a 3% difference in a political poll means a statistical dead heat --ie there is no statistically "significant" difference between Bush at 47% and Kerry at 45% (I apologize to anyone whose taken statistics courses, I'm not trying to be condescending) . But, I would argue that the loss of 45 minutes a day is significant in the other sense as well. The difference between getting home at 5:30 and 6:15 is very noticeable, if add in longer commutes and some stupid kid thing (my parents weren't required to review my homework) you've losylost much more than 10% of that small slice of life that, after work, kids, housework and the dishes is yours.

[Shalmanese]

I suppose if people looked at the cost benefit of having children, the human race(at least in developed nations) would be doomed.

←

If you look at birth rates in most developed countries, apparently we DO apply CBA to having children :P. nearly every 1st world country is at below replacement rates.

I still think factoring the cost of the kitchen is valid since many people are increasingly opting for kitchens that are smaller and smaller when land prices become ever more expensive. Compare kitchen sizes in New York vs Idaho and it's plainly obvious. It's much harder and much more unpleasant to prepare meals in small kitchens vs large ones so this makes eating out a more attractive option.

I don't think theres any place yet which you could sell a house with no kitchen but I can certainly envision kitchen facilities no more advanced than what is present in most hotels.

[snowangel]

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.

←

Shit. Now I feel like a dinosaur. I change my own oil in my vehicle (as well as other routine maintenance), have just made a desk, cook all of my food from scratch (providing that produce is in season, otherwise I commit adultery with canned or frozen), every bed has a hand-made quilt on it, and we wear hand-knit sweathers.

Yikes!

But, then again, we have dinner together as a family 6 nights out of 7. We've made a point of limiting evening activities. There are plenty of kids out tossing a baseball or kicking a soccer ball in our neighborhood, without the expense (time and money) of "organized" sports. It leaves us a summer to rush to the cabin when the weather is good. The kids regularly are involved in choosing what we will have for dinner, going to the markets with me, prepping and cooking. Food is important in this household, and every participates. For the kids, it's not just about creating a great meal, it's about the math involved (grocery costs, proportions, etc.) but organization, prep, planning, sanitation. Life lessons.

[Daddy-A]

It's much harder and much more unpleasant to prepare meals in small kitchens vs large ones so this makes eating out a more attractive option.

You've not seen one of my small kitchens now have you??

Slightly off topic ...

The trend, due to increased urban living (at least in this market), is towards smaller more efficient kitchens. Local markets and specialty shops allow a more "European" style of shopping/cooking ... people pick up food for dinner on their way home from work. Daily shopping allows for smaller fridges. Smaller cooktops, ovens & ranges (typically European) also add to my ability to create better kitchens in small spaces. So I think the size of the kitchen has less to do with not cooking as much and more to do with size constraints.

Personally, I prefer smaller kitchens. Less to clean up and WAY more efficient. Some of these 500 square foot "great room" kitchens should come with roller blades to help you get around. These mega-kitchens are tyically in the larger homes (i.e. I don't see disproportionately large kitchens in smaller homes.) I think the situation in Vancouver is pretty common in that houses are built to the maximum size of the lot for investment reasons, not because there is a demand for large houses.

snowangel ... you're not a dinosaur. IMO it's the way children should be raised whenever possible. I respect and admire parents like you.

A.

[Katherine]

I still think factoring the cost of the kitchen is valid since many people are increasingly opting for kitchens that are smaller and smaller when land prices become ever more expensive. Compare kitchen sizes in New York vs Idaho and it's plainly obvious. It's much harder and much more unpleasant to prepare meals in small kitchens vs large ones so this makes eating out a more attractive option.

I don't think theres any place yet which you could sell a house with no kitchen but I can certainly envision kitchen facilities no more advanced than what is present in most hotels.

←

If you're comparing the $100,000 NYC kitchen you cited with the size of a typical kitchen in Maine, I'd say the $100,000 one has got to be much larger. What are your stats on kitchen sizes in Idaho, and how are you relating these to average house size of new and existing homes there?

I'd also like you to be more specific about your statement that it is "much harder and more unpleasant to prepare meals in small kitchens vs large ones". I know that this is the theory behind building trophy kitchens, the bigger and more ostentatious the better, but that's really not most of America lives. How small is too small? How large is large enough? I have always had a 12'x16' kitchen/dining/laundry room in my house, and I've found it neither hard nor unpleasant to prepare numerous enjoyable meals there. As a person who does not find it pleasant to cook at all, you are in no position to judge what is an easy or pleasant cooking experience.

I'm not sure what sort of kitchen facilities are present in the hotels you stay in. I'd guess that, commensurate with your income level, you stay in hotels that do provide some. The ones I stay in provide you with a bathroom sink only. Now that would be my definition of "much harder and more unpleasant to prepare meals in".