[archon]

> So why would I spend $5 on an Amy's frozen Indian meal when I can get the real thing, fresh made from the restaurant for $8?

Has frozen ever been cost efficient? Seems like the better comparison would be homemade vs. the restaurant meal. (If we're comparing based on cost, not on time/convenience.)

[mywittyname]

> (If we're comparing based on cost, not on time/convenience.)

Which is exactly what we are comparing. I specifically said easy-to-make because naturally, making things from scratch can be extremely cheap, but people don't always have the time, energy or even skill to do that.

It's especially apparent for single people or couples without kids. I can get two burrito bowls from Chipotle for $15 on my way home and not have any dishes to clean up, spend $9 on home made fajitas + an hour cooking & cleaning, or and $12 on frozen enchiladas and just do dishes afterwards.

So, in my world (and probably that of most childless millenials), restaurants and ready-made meals are in competition for my meal dollars to some degree. After comparing the overall costs, we've just decided that our two busy-day dinners will be 1) pasta and 2) Chipotle -- as in, we literally plan eating out on our weekly menu. It's tastier, fresher, and probably more healthy too (than frozen/boxed meals).

[ameen]

But isn't there an inherent cost associated with time. Time which I could otherwise spend elsewhere?

This has been one of the most compelling arguments for a superfood like Soylent for me. All required nutrients, none of the hassles.

[rezistik]

It's specialization at work really, restaurants really do scale better than at home cooking. At some point, it becomes cheaper to eat out than to maintain a stocked fridge and tooled kitchen.