[mollusk]

I'm sorry, but it does cost less, like I can shop and make both the dinner and next days lunch in an hour. Sometimes I make 3-4 portions so I can eat for two days. My hourly rate is less than the difference of home cooked meal and eating out. I don't cook that often, because while I enjoy doing it, I don't always have the time or motivation, but even counting temporal expense, I save money considerably. Several hours each day is either a ridiculous overexaggeration or you're just very inefficient.

[randomdata]

> I'm sorry, but it does cost less

That leaves us wondering why economies of scale haven't beaten out your costs? A place like McDonalds should be able to buy food considerably cheaper than you can, hire people at a fraction of the cost of your time to prep for yourself, etc. While I understand why you may not want to eat McDonalds food constantly, from a price perspective you shouldn't be able to compete.

Have you forgotten some of your costs? It's easy to ignore the opportunity cost of owning the means of production, for instance, despite being a substantial cost, especially in high-cost cities. I have calculated in the past that simply having land allocated for the averaged-sized kitchen in SF costs about the same as a meal out at a nice restaurant 365 days a year, every year. That's even before getting into the cost of building the kitchen structure, furnishing it will the tools needed to prepare food, etc.

If you still believe that your methods are cheaper than a restaurant, what prevents it from working at scale to allow restaurants to offer food just as cheaply?

> I don't always have the time

This is an interesting statement. "I don't have time" means that you value doing one activity over another. If cooking isn't your top choice when faced with options, then perhaps you have undervalued your time spent in the kitchen when calculating your costs?

[mollusk]

Of course the manufacturing cost is considerably smaller for restaurants, but they charge a significant markup, which is the only reason eating at home costs less. It's funny that you mentioned McDonald's, I shamelessly love it (in moderation, of course), but in my country it's not the dirt cheap option. It's somewhere in the mid range of fast food places. I literally would not be able to afford to eat at McDonald's 365 days a year.

My setup costs are pretty much next to none, I pay a rent for fully furnished apartment with kitchen, pots and pans, tableware and everything included. Actually it would be a shame not to use them, those would be wasted expenses.

My cooking habits are opportunistic, if I'm at home, with no plans, I'll cook a meal and enjoy the process of doing so. A lot of the times I'm simply not home, so I don't even have the opportunity to cook.

[randomdata]

> but they charge a significant markup

Having explored some investment opportunities in the restaurant industry in the past, I don't see the markups being that large. Competition is fierce enough that there isn't a lot of room to go overboard with the margins. Even McDonalds makes the vast majority of their profits from being in the real-estate business[1], rather than the food business.

> Actually it would be a shame not to use them, those would be wasted expenses.

That I agree with, but the cost of the kitchen is still baked into your rent/utilities. You cannot simply ignore the cost because you happen to already be paying it. It is a very real cost that affects how much it costs to cook at home.

> A lot of the times I'm simply not home

Which, I would argue, is also a cost that should be considered as part of cooking at home. Time to get home, cost of travel to get home, giving up the opportunity of whatever else you may be doing, are all costs involved in cooking at home when you are away from home. And it seems that you have found eating out to be the cheaper option under these circumstances.

[1] http://blog.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2015/10/08/mcdonalds-beyo...