"We can't justify a £52 lunch" - AIBU to think you didn't need to?

[PropitiousJump]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg3g11z6d8o

I found this article irritating. Middle earning families complaining they can't afford a day out, in part because of the expense of eating lunch and dinner out. A family of four in both cases.

I completely agree it's got expensive to eat out, but have they never heard of taking your own sandwiches?

And if you look at what they've eaten, they've ordered a lot of extras that have bumped up the bill.

Costa family - £52 lunch for four. If they could have done without an overpriced bag of crisps on top of their mains, and not had puddings (this was lunch, not dinner) they could have got the bill down to a more reasonable £40ish - a tenner each.

Pizza Express family - £174 dinner for four. If they cut out the starter and side orders and the adults had soft drinks instead of alcohol, they could have got the bill down to approx £109 for soft drinks, mains and a dessert each.

This isn't saying they are eating too much - it's not a diet-bashing thread - but common sense says that if you are eating in a chain place on a day out and trying to keep costs down, you don't order loads of extras and alcohol. Have a drink and a snack at home if you're still hungry. Save all the extras for an 'occasion' where eating out is the focus of the event and you're going somewhere special, not fuelling up in a chain restaurant.

AIBU?

That is because people shop online and don't use the high street like they used to. Plus independents can't afford the business rates charged by most councils. Much cheaper just to have a website for a niche business.

It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg - people aren't going into the high streets because they're just full of shit chains, but without the footfall, independents have no chance of thriving. Not sure what the answer is tbh.

This is a completely irrelevant response. I didnt comment on the pros and cons of any eating establishment and didnt comment on the views of others on those either

Im simply talking about how 'packed lunches' are viewed with disdain by a lot of people on this thread.

Bit the point is it didn’t used to be ridiculous. My kids could have a party at the local soft play for 10 kids, cost around £80 including food and party bags around 6 years ago. The same now would be over £200 and you supply your own party bags.

My thoughts exactly ?? Like what do you mean lunch at Costa haha

And I simply commented that the distain goes both ways.

Quite.

The snobby comments have it backwards.

I don't think it's snobby at all to want the majority of people to have the choice of eating in a cafe sometimes, instead of always having to take sandwiches anywhere.

Why should eating out solely be the preserve of the wealthy?

I was a child in the 70s and remember eating stew cooked over a camping stove by candlelight during the 3 day week. We rarely ate out, not even for coffee and cake, fizzy drinks were a luxury, and we always took sandwiches if we had the odd day at the seaside.

Then the economy improved, and there was more flex in a lot of peoples' budgets. No longer did every penny have to be tightly controlled. My mother didn't have to approach a day out like a military operation, involving cool box and all food pre-prepared. She could have a day off too (and she bloody deserved it), because we were able to have a modest lunch in a cafe. Nothing fancy - maybe a toastie, perhaps a pizza or bowl of pasta.

It was much, much better.

I don't want to go backwards. Others may accept that. I don't think we should have to.

The point some posters are missing is that is about discretionary spending. Focusing on the merits/non merits of Pizza Express and Costa is not the point of the article.

It could be about people dyeing their hair at home as the hairdresser is out of their budget or not being able to afford their cleaner or running in the park instead of having a gym membership.

We need people to spend on non essential items to keep other people in employment.

Again, there is and was nothing compelling you or anyone to have a big party ...or even a party at all.

Its a choice to spend that money.

I completely agree with you. The food and drink cost more than the activities! They could have had several more trips out if they'd taken their own picnics. It's what my parents did when we were growing up. We'd have the occasional coffee out, but not meals like this on a regular basis.

No more disdain than the attitude towards chain restaurants. There's a lot of virtue signalling of the 'anyone who spends more than a tenner on eating out when they could just make a cheese sandwich is a profligate wastrel' variety on this thread. It's clearly all the same classic MN posters who make a home-made roast chicken feed a family of four for a month.

The article is talking about whole class parties so times that £80 by 3.

Softplay parties in our area are £100 for 6.

I do agree - in that when I was a kid we were skint - so the rare days out would have been on some kind of token, and we absolutely took our own food and drink (ducking out of the park at lunch to go and eat in the carpark) - and it was fine. I didn't eat in an actual restaurant (My friend's occasional mcdonald's birthday party aside) until I was 12.

Having said that though - for me and 2 kids (admittedly teen/tween boys), a meal deal each - costs nearly 35EUR which is insane. If we eat in an actual restaurant - no booze or desert - I won't get any change from 70EUR.

Aren't the activities themselves discretionary spending?

Not a month but 2 or 3 days. 😋

but it IS the point.... you choose to go to expensive places and then get shocked its expensive? There are other choices freely available ...

This point has been made lots of times but some people are too keen to show how good they are at not spending money (and how bad everyone else is for spending it) to acknowledge it.

I’m missing the point completely but who tf has a family lunch out in Costa? Shite sandwiches and overpriced cake.

At least go to Pret 🤣

No, the point is that you need people to keep eating out and buying things so that the economy doesn't collapse.

but it isn't the consumers responsibility to choose an expensive option just to keep them in jobs...

I wasn't talking about restaurants either. Of all "indie type" cafes I can remember in London, only Ole&Steen do sandwiches, but they're not really indie and quite expensive imo.

Ah so we risk our mortgages and pensions by spending on shite we don’t need to keep the businesses of millionaires going.

No thanks .

No, because cleaning your own home and running in the park doesn't involve spending.

Of course and many are still regularly eating out, as witnessed in my local high street and in most areas in my city. We all make choices.

Absolutely.

When the discretionary spending items become unaffordable for most, even those on what were previously good incomes, the economy is free-spinning in a downward, doom-spiral.

Regardless of who likes Costa, or who looks down their nose at it, that's an issue for the economy as a whole. It's a red flag that needs to be paid attention to.

You think that's a 'gotcha' but it isn't. Those businesses are what pay ordinary people, like me. If you eat out at Pizza Express, the money doesn't just go straight to the pocket of the CEO. Same with any hospitality or retail business - costs eat up most of the revenue, and the bulk of those costs are for paying the staff.