Heck, when you bring your lunch, you still have to buy the food to bring in...
Here's a better thought!Save even more money by
skipping all meals! You're fat, right? Time to use some of that stored up
fat in a sensible way. Skip food. It makes you fat and costs money.
@ Michael: I like the new headline much better! I must say, I
agree with your co-worker. I frequently make the choice to buy lunch instead of
pack it - mostly because I hate eating the same thing for lunch that I just had
for dinner, but also because at the point my family is at, I would have to cook
an entire extra meal to have enough leftovers for lunch for everyone. :)
@ Michael, regarding the article itself, I have to agree with the notion of
trying to pack a lunch as often as you can to save money. It can be difficult,
as you might not have access to refrigeration at work, but it's worth the
effort, especially in lean times.
I said (jokingly) to a co-worker once, "You buy a lot of lunches, you could
probably save a ton of money if you brought food from home. Do you know what you
could do with all that money?"He answered, "You know what I would
do with all the money I would save? I'd buy my lunches."
Pack a lunch.By the way. People spend over $1,000 a year on coffee.There choice, but don't come ask for federal handouts when you don't
"Sorry Charlie!" expressed some dissatisfaction with the headline on
this article: "Saving money for lunch can be delicious, but
costly"I can't disagree. I don't understand it myself.
I am going to request they change it.My original suggested headline
was: "Losing lunch: Saving money for lunch can be delicious"Which was filled with a few layers of double meaning that probably would only
amuse me. So they were wise to not use it.The print headline was
this:"Lunch money: Saving can still be tasty"I'm
going to request they change the unusual online headline to the print version.
The comment saving money but costly was not revering to the consumer or worker.
The costly part refers gas stations, junk food shops, and restaurants, who
looses $10-$20 sale every time someone takes their lunch to work from home. I
think the $2,000 price is an underestimate of real yearly costs of buying your
lunch and a snack to eat after lunch. It doesn't include the debit/credit
ATM card fees and charges or travel costs.The $2,000 is the direct
costs for Big Mac meals per individual in the household buying a lunch. If you
have 2 children and 2 adults eating out that comes to $8,000/yr. That is 1/4th
of the yearly household income for average workers in Utah getting paid poverty
incomes. Poverty level is now at $49,000/yr for each paid worker, so if you make
less then that, you are considered poor and destitute by federal income
standards. But the federal income standards are based on 1974 income levels that
don't consider inflation and fraud in the economic structure of today. So
actual middle income should be $200,000/yr. to be called prosperous.
@ Michael De Groote: The article wasn't bad - the headline, however, sucks.
"Saving money for lunch can be delicious, but costly"First of all, if you are saving money, how can it be costly?Second
of all, it has nothing really to do with the story - in fact, it detracts from
the story. (It sounds as if you are saving up your money so you can go to an
expensive lunch for a special occasion - which again makes the "but
expensive" part really weird.)I don't know if you guys
write your own headlines or if someone else writes them for you - but if someone
else writes them, you should at least demand they read the entire article first.
If you write them, you need to put as much effort into your headline as you do
"Trueamerican" didn't like my story.I'm ok with
that. :-)For some people to like a story, other people are going to
have to loathe it. One person who read it thanked me because he
never really thought about how much money he spends on lunches.Think
of it. $2,000 a year.
Was this a Yahoo article? Sure seemed like one. ZERO substance and essentially
no worthwhile information or news here.