• an_onanist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    6 months ago

    From the article - they believe eating fast food should be cheaper than eating at home, but isn’t. What kind of fucked up belief is this? No wonder they view fast food as a luxury.

    • Kanzar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Used to be able to get $1 cheeseburgers. The loose change menu was a huge thing here, you could actually wander in with some coins and walk out with some food.

      At $1 a burger, in less than 3 minutes, that’s way cheaper, “tastier” (subjective), faster, and no cleaning up, than having a pot of lentil curry.

      • Floey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        The cheapest fastfood cheeseburgers usually aren’t many calories, and they are even worse when it comes to overall nutrition and satiety. You may be getting something for a $1 but it could hardly be called a meal.

    • bamfic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      It was when I was a kid. “We have food at home” is what my mother always said when we wanted some fast food. That was in the 70s.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nowadays it doesn’t even matter. Grocery food prices are so high it is marginally more to go to a fast food place.

        But I forgot there is no inflation or war in ba sing se

    • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Fucked up? It’s not a matter of what “should be.” It was reality for decades. When were you born?

      When I was growing up dominos did the “5-5-5” deal. $15+tax for 3 medium 1-topping pizzas. You can feed like 6-10 people with that depending on their age. You’re talking like $2 a person.

      $1 menus included 1-2 sandwich options. Usually a chicken sandwich (obviously fried not grilled).

      Meals with fries and drinks were $4-6 all in.

      This was the 90’s and 2000’s. You could feed a family of 4 with $10 or less without much thought.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        No it wasn’t, a frozen pizza was always cheaper than dominos. And I don’t know what kind of little only eat one third of a medium pizza.

        I usually finished one myself. Well okay, I’m a big man, but still.

              • otp@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                I definitely get the appeal of fast food. It might also depend on what a “Medium” pizza is.

                6 people for 3 medium pizzas doesn’t seem too bad, especially if there’s other snacks or food. But if I had 10 people with 3 medium pizzas, I think I’d have 10 hungry people and 0 pizzas left, haha

                  • otp@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    I’m not anyone who was arguing with you about fast food vs. cooking, and I’m on the same side as you on that. I just couldn’t imagine 3 medium pizzas feeding 10 people to satiety, haha

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        It was possible to feed people for less than $1/serving then. Fast food has always been more expensive than home cooking on a per serving basis.

    • geekwithsoul@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      No one seems to be reading the article - it was a survey of only 2,000 participants on a financial advice website. These folks have already made poor decisions and likely not experienced in managing their money. The usual FUD that the OP posts everywhere.