<prompt> Human: Just looking for opinions. Not eating out is usually one of the, if not the most recommended steps for people to save more. Do you guys really think it matters THAT much?For example, the 10 a day lunches seem to come up a lot. In a typical working month, if someone spends 10 on lunch every work day, that might add up to 200 per month. But bringing my lunch to work isnt free either. I doubt I could make something at home comparable to say a 5 assorted sub from subway or a burrito from Chipotle for significantly less than these restaurants charge. If I bring a decent lunch to work a drink, a decent sandwich, some fruit... something like that that will cost me at least 4 per meal, so the savings might be 120 per month or less assuming I spend 10 on eating out. My point is that the time it takes to think about what youre going to eat, shop for the food, prepare it, wrap it, etc etc etc seems excessive to me for the savings it represents. Am I just wrong? Obviously, 120 a month is significant for many people: but for those living a normal, dual income middle class life, why is eating out so fetishised as the enemy of sensible finance?  <response>: My lunch costs me under 2day, but hey, then again, I drink water, which is free, and I bring a simple sandwich. Even if I brought leftovers it would be cheaper than 4meal.It sounds like youre looking for justification, not opinions. Youre overestimating the cost and involvement in cooking your own food, if you ask me. But hey, thats just my opinion. 