You are supposed to convince me that cooking at home is more economical.

If you want to set aside some criteria, then I'd be game. Are you including transportation costs per restaurant trip? "Lost wages" in the time it takes to go and then wait for your meal? Delivery fees? Etc.? If so, set out the parameters.

And? The cost is the same no matter how much you use it. We call these fixed costs. They are as true in a commercial kitchen as a residential kitchen. They are, by far, the largest cost in both cases.

You look at having a kitchen as a loss, while someone else would see it as a bonus for the place you're paying for to have a roof over your head. Even without a kitchen you could make meals in your bedroom using a simple pressure cooker, or more if you want to expand on your options.

So, if you want to go that route, a kitchen is zero cost, because you can use whatever room you sleep in.

Okay, even if we say three meals at that price, your cost is only $15 - or $5 per meal. Remember, you kept $60 in your pocket from not owning a kitchen: 75 - 60 = 15.

Again, zero cost kitchen per above. You'd be overspending far more than $60 per day, and you're getting a (likely) unhealthy meal.

So, like, maybe $30 gross cost – or $30 profit each day (60 - 30 = 30)! Now you’re getting paid to eat!

Per above, you're spending specifically more!

Easier, but you lose economies of scale. Those fix costs are the same either way, so the more people you can feed, the lesser the cost per person. That $60 becomes $30 per person if you are feeding two.

No, because rather than making many meals for many people, you're making many meals for one. No added cost necessary.

This is exactly how restaurants are able to feed you for so much less.

Yeah, $20 pasta, $15 sandwich, $6 lattes, $8 for home fries, $3 for pop... much less than what? A banquet wedding dinner? LOL