Should every workplace pay lunch for employees instead of offering a higher salary?

I'll argue for Higher salary. The question says every workplace, so the policy has to work for the night-shift nurse, the person with a food allergy, the parent who goes home at noon to see a kid, and the colleague who brings leftovers and would rather bank the difference. A free lunch treats all of them the same. Cash does not. Here is the plain trade-off. An employer who spends a certain amount per head on meals can hand that same amount over as pay. With the meal, you eat what is offered, when it is offered, where it is offered. With the money, you decide. Some people will spend it on a better lunch than the cafeteria serves. Some will spend it on rent. Both are fine, and neither needs permission. There is also a tax angle in many places, but I won't lean on specifics I can't verify. The simpler point is that cash is flexible and a meal is not. You can turn cash into lunch. You can't turn lunch into cash. Free lunch fans say it builds culture. Sometimes it does. But a team that likes each other can eat together without the boss footing the bill, and a team that doesn't won't be fixed by catered sandwiches. Culture comes from how people are treated, and trusting adults with their own pay is a pretty good start. So my case is short: make it a rule that every workplace pays lunch, and you take choices away from the people it's meant to help. Pay them, and let them eat.