> Please define “massively” for us. It sounds like you were eating larks tongue in aspic and are now buying year-old potatoes at the Latvian coop. Remember, some in an international audience may have done just that at some point. Is that what happened?
Whoops, my bad!
Due to the step nature of purchasing food, the break even points change depending on exactly which meals we're talking about dining out for. The more you eat out, the higher the cost per home cooked meals due to loss of economy of scale and spoilage.
My wife, the keeper of the budgets, calculated that the break even point for work lunches was $11 a lunch. This is doable, but it basically means relegating yourself to low end fast food. In the area where I lived (Southern California) that put even Chipotle out of reach for my preferred configuration. There are certainly places that can reliably deliver 800 calories for less, but that'll cost you in the long run in different ways.
> Wonder if a functional kitchen should be thought of as an expense-management device. No matter what the financial situation, in the US without a kitchen you can always find something to eat to keep body and soul together, but with a functional kitchen you can always eat something both tasty and healthy (if you can cook).
I think that's a pretty good way to think about it. As GP has pointed out you do need to purchase an actual kitchen too, but I think that the cost is fairly marginal compared to buying a home in most markets.
> You can choose to cook if you have the cash; you may need to do that if you don’t. The fact that you always can is a very consoling fact in rough economic times.
If one wants true consolation in rough economic times, buy a chest freezer. Nothing provides emotional security like a hundred pounds of meat and vegetables frozen in the garage.