(02-19-2017, 12:49 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(02-19-2017, 06:45 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: There's no reason someone needs to spend $200/week eating out in SF. There are hundreds of amazing food places with cheap and delicious food.
Yes, you can eat cheaply or expensively anywhere. But as an anecdote, I ate at a (fairly ordinary) Thai restaurant in SF on Thursday night. A Thai curry main course cost US$24, or about C$32, once I include the rice. At Northern Thai it's C$11. Really, eating out is definitely more expensive in SF. And you would expect it to be, because the rents the restaurants pay are far higher than here, and that drives up the cost of everything.
But I could find thai restaurants much cheaper than that in SF. And rent isn't the only cost. Food and labour are costs can be cheaper in SF. Not to mention its not just costs that determine prices.
I'm less familiar with SF, but very familiar with NYC where many of the same ideas apply. There are tons of cheap and quality options that easily dwarf anything available in KW. So to say that "eating out is definitely more expensive in SF" is just false. For any set budget, I'd argue you can eat much better in a major diverse city like NYC/SF than you could ever eat in KW.
Edit: And not to mention that its kind of an absurd thing to put in their example budget. There are a lot of people that are coming out of school and avoiding having multiple expensive meals for 2 every week. It's not a realistic budget, and just used to bullshit.