I don't think I could disagree more. See, eg:
https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear... (And this comment in particular:
https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear...)
Or: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/why-getti...
Or especially: https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/05/introducing-lefkowitzs-la...
Nice chairs and free snacks are a trivial expense, and are very helpful for generating a specific type of company culture (eg, if important people have nice chairs, and everyone has nice chairs, then we're all, on some level, important. Trivial, but these things matter).
Cutting them either means:
1. The company is going bust as we speak. They've either already made meaningful cuts (ie, firing people) or they're about to start, and they're now now doing the metaphorical equivalent of stealing pennies from fountains to try and make rent. You should leave for somewhere not imploding.
2. The company culture is changing, and it has been deemed important to remind engineering that they aren't that important. Making sure important people have nicer chairs than uninmportant people is an easy way to demonstrate this. Again, you should leave before the company finishes turning into a Dilbert-esque hell.
Either way, cutting snacks will not, under any circumstances, fix whatever is wrong (again, they're too cheap) and it's usually a leading indicator of bigger problems.
So when you say:
> It says a lot about a company's command of their expenses.
I sort of agree - it tells you they have no command of their expenses. :)