About Us  |  About Cheetah®  |  Contact Us

Survey finds American workers spend an average of $3000 a year on coffee and lunch at work

American workers spend an alarmingly high amount of their hard earned cash on somewhat average daily expenses, according to a new Workonomix survey by Accounting Principals. The survey found that 50 percent of the American workforce spends approximately $1000 a year on coffee, or a weekly coffee habit of more than $20. And the spending doesn’t stop there. Two thirds (66 percent) of working Americans buy their lunch instead of packing it, costing them an average of $37 per week — nearly $2,000 a year.

Despite these high costs, the survey suggests workers are unclear about the biggest drain to their wallet. When asked which work expense they most want to be reimbursed for by their employer, 42 percent of employees chose commuting costs and only 11 percent chose lunch expenses. However, the average American’s commuting cost is $123 a month or approximately $1500 a year, which is well below the average annual lunch tab of $2000.

“Small — but consistent — expenses add up quickly over time, and it can be difficult for consumers to realize it because they’re only spending a few dollars at a time. But, as our survey shows, those few dollars can quickly turn into a few thousand dollars,” said Jodi Chavez, senior vice president, Accounting Principals. “Additionally, when you look at it over a worker’s lifetime, that number grows exponentially. Consider the average American who works for about 40 years, starting their first job around age 22. By the time they retire at age 62 they would have spent at minimum $120,000 on coffee and lunch, not including inflation.”

This is especially true for young American workers. The survey found that younger professionals (ages 18-34) spend almost twice as much on coffee during the week than those ages 45+ ($24.74 vs. $14.15, respectively). They also shell out more for lunch, spending an average of $44.78 per week on lunch compared to their older colleagues who spend $31.80 per week. However, it seems American workers of all ages are starting to realize the effect this incremental spending has on their personal bottom line. According to the survey, one-third (35 percent) of employees have made it a financial goal to bring lunch instead of buying it in 2012.

Other survey findings include:

  • Better food and coffee in the office might help cut back personal spending. Perhaps because of how much they’re spending outside the office, American workers would like companies to invest in better food and drinks in the office. One-quarter (25 percent) of Americans wish their company would invest in better vending machine snacks and 22 percent of American workers would like their company to invest in better coffee in the office.
  • Employers should focus on the “simple pleasures” to keep employees happy. Although better food and drinks would be a plus, employees most want to see their companies invest in better office equipment (46 percent) and more comfortable office chairs (32 percent) in 2012.
  • Corporate discounts do not factor into employees’ purchase decisions. Companies looking to attract new candidates shouldn’t focus on corporate discounts as a selling point. The majority (82 percent) of employees say corporate discounts matter little or not at all when buying a new product or service.

“As the recovery gains momentum and companies look to attract and retain talent, they should consider worrying less about big-ticket discounts and focus instead on what will impact their employees’ happiness every day,” said Chavez. “Small improvements around the office, such as better equipment, food and drinks, can make a big difference in workers’ morale. After all it is often the little things in life that tend to make people the happiest.”

Source: Accounting Principals; www.accountingprincipals.com.

Requiring employees to use vacation or find coverage on Sabbath may violate Title VII

January 19th, 2018

By Lorene D. Park, J.D.
In a Title VII suit by two Seventh Day Adventists, who were fired for excessive absences after Kellogg’s new scheduling policy required they work every other Saturday, the Tenth Circuit refused the employee’s and amicus EEOC’s invitation to adopt a per se rule that a “reasonable” accommodation must completely eliminate the [Read more...]


Sheriffs get qualified immunity on employees’ First Amendment retaliation claims

January 19th, 2018

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.
A county sheriff and undersheriff were entitled to qualified immunity from several subordinates’ claims of First Amendment retaliation, the Tenth Circuit ruled in reversing the lower court’s denial of their motion to dismiss. The law was not clearly established that a lieutenant’s refusal to make a false statement to the media fell [Read more...]


7-Eleven employee’s murder not foreseeable, so no liability for lack of security guard

January 19th, 2018

By Lorene D. Park, J.D.
7-Eleven, Inc., and its franchisee were not liable for failing to hire a security guard at a store from which an employee was leaving when he was murdered by either the suspect in a prior robbery he witnessed or by the suspect’s girlfriend. The employee was killed after his first day [Read more...]


Outlook calendar showed males scheduled for more meetings, bolstering fired female’s pretext argument

January 18th, 2018

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.
Reconsidering and vacating its initial decision tossing a fired state agency director’s gender bias and retaliation claims on summary judgment, a federal court in Pennsylvania decided that a jury might disbelieve the employer’s proffered reasons for firing her—which included her alleged bad attitude, poor leadership, and bad working relationships—based on newly considered [Read more...]


Doc fired for drinking at holiday party advances age bias, retaliation claims

January 18th, 2018

By Harold S. Berman J.D.
A 67-year old physician fired by a medical organization after he tested positive for alcohol at a company function can proceed with his ADEA discrimination and retaliation claims, a federal district court in Arizona ruled. The court denied summary judgment on the discrimination claim, finding it disputed whether the physician was [Read more...]