'Wildly more expensive': Workers with in-office jobs spend about $31/day that they wouldn't working from home — here's what employers need to do
'Wildly more expensive': Workers with in-office jobs spend about $31/day that they wouldn't working from home — here's what employers need to do
You're viewing a single thread.
I agree with the premise, but this rub me the wrong way:
"$16 on lunch, $13 on breakfast and coffee."
It sounds like entitlement if you think someone should be paying for something you already do at home (eat), but choose to do it in the most expensive way possible.
Make food and coffee at home and bring it to work. And if you're already buying expensive shop meals to eat at home, why complain about spending that outrageous amount of money when you're outside the home?
I feel this has to be pointed out to young people: it used to be possible to eat out every day, go to the movies, drink in a bar after work, see a live band on the weekend, and still buy a home and save for the future. This was possible in major cities around the country. This was taken from you.
It is not outrageous for single people living in a city to buy food outside the house. I believe prices have clearly skyrocketed because fewer people know how to make their own food. In the 50s everyone had grown up during the depression, so if something was even a little expensive you made it yourself.
P.S. Not only did many workplaces provide free or discounted cafeterias to eat in, they paid you during your lunch hour! That's where the phrase " working 9:00 to 5:00" comes from.
This is why so many apartments have kitchens that look like they were recent ideas squeezed into the space, or tiny "kitchenettes".
Reading older literature I've noticed how in older books the main character's living arrangements often just doesn't have any place to prepare or store food. They'll reference street carts, open markets, pubs, etc as where they get food from. Or maybe a meal included with the rent in a boarding house.
Medieval peasants in pre-industrial Europe expected their employer to provide at least one, if not two meals during work. Three during long hours, like harvest season.
What a way to make a livin
She is the voice of our revolution!
I am happy to make this concession provided I can either start making my lunch on company time, and then commute after I have finished making my lunch, or be allowed to fully go home, make and prepare lunch, dine, and commute back to work.
Oh, is that unproductive, a waste of time, money and energy, and massively impairs my ability to get work done?
Someone should draw some kind of conclusion from that, it seems.
Embrace the siesta!
that is the entire point of the commercial real estate excuse: that was your labor and money that was supporting it not the bosses.
the bosses don't care about commercial real estate, either. They care about being able to use their status to bully people in person in front of others.
it is a garbage barge with lipstick on the front.
the bosses don’t care about commercial real estate, either.
That depends on how high up you go, the upper bosses certainly do care about real estate. There's a reason that all of the leases are expiring and everyone is being required to come in at the same time.
I suspect people are not spending as much on nonessentials and businesses are seeing this as their workplaces being empty and not spending. But something tells me it's a nationwide thing, people are thinking twice due to inflation and I doubt bringing people back is gonna make them want to spend money the way they used to. My claim is based on layoffs and stocking issues.
My work pays for my lunch, it's how it should be. I'm here for them, if I wasn't I'd eat at home.
I totally agree. There's no reason anyone needs to consistently purchase breakfast and lunch if they work in an office.
If you don't do it at home, why would you do it at the office?
You can make food at home as a part of your lunch break. If you make food and bring it in, you need to spend extra non paid time to do that.
That's fair to say for lunch. Not for breakfast though, unless one makes the argument there should also be a breakfast break.
Regardless, with the existing status quo it's not a good financial decision to eat out for breakfast and lunch everyday.
The status quo shouldn't mean that you are forced to spend time outside of work time preparing for work time. Unless they want to pay for that time, or your lunch.
Because I don't have a commute at home so there's time to make breakfast and lunch.
Work pays well enough for meals, then it's a non-issue.