"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?

Yes, we all know they could have made cheaper options.

But that's the whole point isn't it? People who didn't have to budget and make savings are now having to. And it's those people who don't have to budget that keep "optional" industries like leisure and hospitality going.

It depends on what you mean by regularly. I eat out with my kids every couple of weeks or so, maybe twice a month. Sometimes dinner, sometimes a cheaper lunch. They’re past the age of a treasure trail at the national trust, or a picnic in the park appealing to them and frankly so am I.

I don’t think that’s extravagant at all, certainly not kardashian level spending.

Food is extremely expensive in the U.K. and the quality is mostly bad for what you pay to be fair . I think it’s probably one of the worst price quality countries in Europe . And don’t get me started on coffee and tea prices it’s dailight robbery

I think families today want to have it all tbh.
On one hand, we are told (wrongly, as it happens) that in the past most families could afford to have a parent at home, yet on the other hand, we are told we should expect to be able to afford a standard of living that no family with a SAHP in the 1970s-80s ever had.
I've said it before on here, but lifestyle creep is the issue in a lot of families. My mum was a SAHP but we did pretty much nothing at all. A day out like the one described in the article would have been only when my wealthy relatives took us kids out for the day when they visited from overseas. It certainly would never have been anything approaching an ordinary family day out.
These days, families want the two-car, four-bedroom house, holidays and weekends away, new clothes and toys, eating out, gym memberships, hair and nails and endless entertainments lifestyle, yet bemoan they can't afford to have a parent SAH.
If my mother had expected anything like this lifestyle, she would not have been able to stay at home either.

I disagree. Both my grandmothers worked, and there is no way my DM would have been eating out regularly as a child. It just wasn't a thing, it was reserved for very special occasions and I was the same. I remember as a child (I'm mid 40s) going out for dinner with such excitement because we knew it was so seldom. It wasn't because we were poor, it just wasn't the done thing. My DSIS has DC that are 10 and 8 now and every weekend has to be filled with outings, 'experiences' and memory making 🤢. In her circle spending time at home at weekends and chilling doesn't seem to be a thing, and if I want to see her I have to book in months in advance as they have a full calendar. There seems to be so much pressure now to constantly be doing things/going places. As children we went food shopping on a Saturday and church on a Sunday then dad would either cut the grass or wash the car. We'd play with neighbours in the cul-de-sac, we rarely went anywhere. Days to the zoo, pumpkin patches, sunflower fields etc were once a year treats, certainly not a regular occurrence.

Agreed. There was a post on here a few weeks ago asking what a reasonable amount of 'pocket money' would be for a SAHM to pay for clothes, treatments, toys, activities etc. Not bills or food, just essentially treats.
The consensus seemed to be a minimum of £500 a month, with one poster saying she could not get by on less than £1,500.
Yet young families 'can't afford' to have a SAHP apparently ...

This, and there is such a sense of entitlement that we 'deserve' everything that we want. At Christmas my DM (who was from a lower MC family) was telling her grandchildren about how magical it was as a child getting a clementine in her stocking and ONE toy. Her DM would make them a new outfit for Christmas day. My nieces were but had been complaining about some presents they received. Expectations have gone through the roof.

I don’t think that’s true. The US and Australia are far more expensive. £2.50 for 160 tea bags isn’t daylight robbery. Our food is far better quality than in the US I can assure you.

I don’t earn near £100k but you expect me to pay for your children?

maybe 3 people in my office of 60 earn that much and you expect everyone else to subdidise poor old hard done by you?

some people’s sense of entitlement is staggering

Why are kids having toys outside of Christmas and birthdays?

Why should I pay for yours?

Because it’s nice to buy children little things “just because”. I always did that rather than an overwhelming glut twice a year.

Is no one allowed treats outside of xmas and birthdays?

I'm not the one whingeing about how much money I'm on and yet everyone else should pay for my childcare

Of course but don’t whine if you can’t then have expensive days out regularly on top or get kids with high expectations.

I’m not on £120k and don’t have childcare to pay, but it really isn’t fair that some people on lower wages have more disposable income after childcare than someone on higher wages, just because of the subsidies. Cliff edges are unfair whatever level they’re set at.

(And don’t get me started on the unfairness of two middle earners with a combined higher income getting subsidies when single higher earners don’t)

I thought people only went to pizza express using Tesco club card vouchers we do , not paying for my food 🤣

so if i tie my high income up in a lovely house I should still be entitled to more "disposable income" than those stinking poor people? they should just work harder right?

Do they still do that?
Tesco clubcard is rubbish now. I used to use it for all sorts of dining places.

Not talking about housing costs.

But to take the figures quoted previously. If someone has £6.5k after tax and they’re paying £3k in childcare, that leaves £3.5k. Someone with a take home of £3.5k would get subsidised childcare. So they’d be better off than the person with the higher income. How is that fair?

you are talking about housing costs, you clearly think you should be entitled to more "disposable income" (your words) than the filthy proles.

Alĺ this ! We should be able to enjoy some nice things in life. Our quality of life is going the wrong way and this is not good. We should be aspiring for more.

We could be talking about a 2 bed semi in London why are you assuming it’s a lovely house?

Because when the childcare years are done they’ll have £6.5k while the lower earner will still have £3.5k. Excepting twins, how many years are you actually paying two lots of childcare for? And in the long term you have hugely better prospects.

What? Its a sweatshirt from Matalan.