And that's only what they're doing now - meaning there was less than a 15% discount before. The way a lot of combos seemed to work historically (anecdotally) is that you would pay the price of the...
And that's only what they're doing now - meaning there was less than a 15% discount before.
The way a lot of combos seemed to work historically (anecdotally) is that you would pay the price of the main item + side, and the drink would be "free".
Meanwhile Taco Bell has the best combos by far - their Luxe Cravings Box is barely more than the cost of the "main" item, meaning the other three items are included for usually less than 50 cents. It's basically the only fast food I ever get anymore because it's the only one that hits a price/quality ratio that's reasonable.
Taco Bell has been the quiet winner of the last decade of fast food wars, starting with the Doritos taco. We love the cravings boxes in my house, there's always a burrito or something in them that...
Taco Bell has been the quiet winner of the last decade of fast food wars, starting with the Doritos taco. We love the cravings boxes in my house, there's always a burrito or something in them that makes for a good leftover snack.
This is not the part of Demolition Man I ever expected to actually come true.
Taco Bell and Little Caesars are the champs of affordable food. Taco Bell is the better of the two but feeding three people for ~$10 at Caesars is a killer deal and their quality hasn't dropped...
Taco Bell and Little Caesars are the champs of affordable food. Taco Bell is the better of the two but feeding three people for ~$10 at Caesars is a killer deal and their quality hasn't dropped like most other chains, meaning they are now "good".
I seem to remember hearing that Little Caesar’s is privately owned, so they don’t have to worry as much about when it comes to maximizing profitability for shareholders. I’ve always liked that...
I seem to remember hearing that Little Caesar’s is privately owned, so they don’t have to worry as much about when it comes to maximizing profitability for shareholders.
I’ve always liked that they weren’t as greasy as the other national chains.
They've also got some of the healthiest (that is to say least unhealthy) options when it comes to fast food. Additionally, they are the most vegetarian, vegan, and gluten-free friendly options.
They've also got some of the healthiest (that is to say least unhealthy) options when it comes to fast food.
Additionally, they are the most vegetarian, vegan, and gluten-free friendly options.
RIP Bacon Cheddar Gordita Crunch. One of the greatest abominations ever made. Right up there with the Doubledown from KFC. So good you could feel a few brain cells dying while you ate it.
RIP Bacon Cheddar Gordita Crunch. One of the greatest abominations ever made. Right up there with the Doubledown from KFC.
So good you could feel a few brain cells dying while you ate it.
The way it’s supposed to work that the drink basically costs them nothing, so it’s highly marked up when sold separately. Put it in a combo for no extra charge and now it looks like a good deal. I...
The way it’s supposed to work that the drink basically costs them nothing, so it’s highly marked up when sold separately. Put it in a combo for no extra charge and now it looks like a good deal.
Value-minded consumers are “too often” seeing combination meals that cost more than $10 and that is “shaping value perceptions in a negative way,” Kempczinski admitted earlier this month.
I think this is the real meat of the article. Don’t actually cut prices, just get rid of your expensive offerings to shape perception
The Mcdouble is almost 4 dollars now, you used to be able to get one for a buck like 8 years ago. And let me tell you, nothing about the Mcdouble is worth a 400% increase in price, and it's only...
The Mcdouble is almost 4 dollars now, you used to be able to get one for a buck like 8 years ago. And let me tell you, nothing about the Mcdouble is worth a 400% increase in price, and it's only gotten smaller/shittier over the years... and it wasn't anything special to begin with.
It was originally itself a cost-cutting measure, as it replaced the 99¢ double cheeseburger. The savings for McDonald's: it has one less slice of cheese.
It was originally itself a cost-cutting measure, as it replaced the 99¢ double cheeseburger. The savings for McDonald's: it has one less slice of cheese.
As a broke college kid it was my go-to fast food, at least in my small town. I did some calculations and it was one of the highest calorie to dollar ratio you could get in fast food, not counting...
As a broke college kid it was my go-to fast food, at least in my small town. I did some calculations and it was one of the highest calorie to dollar ratio you could get in fast food, not counting things like Soda or desserts haha, now it's probably one of the worst
My guess is, combos were a good value for the first 2-3 years after whichever Fast Food place invented the concept, until people got into the habit of ordering combos (and don't forget to...
My guess is, combos were a good value for the first 2-3 years after whichever Fast Food place invented the concept, until people got into the habit of ordering combos (and don't forget to supersize it).
So for clarity is that Canadian dollars or a more expensive locale? In Central IL the Big Mac Meal is US $9.49 which would work out to about $11 at the high end of my tax estimate. I'm not sure I...
So for clarity is that Canadian dollars or a more expensive locale? In Central IL the Big Mac Meal is US $9.49 which would work out to about $11 at the high end of my tax estimate.
I'm not sure I can get an actual meal out for under ten bucks - maybe Taco Bell, maybe just a sandwich at a fast casual place... But a ham sandwich at Potbellies was the same price.
Hard to imagine where I'd get comparable calories for much cheaper without cooking
I don't have In and Out here, but I meant "not fast food" as "actual meal". Someone else said that for the cost of a Big Mac Meal you could get a good burger and fries at a sit down restaurant....
I don't have In and Out here, but I meant "not fast food" as "actual meal". Someone else said that for the cost of a Big Mac Meal you could get a good burger and fries at a sit down restaurant. And I don't think that's particularly accurate. Idk the size of burgers at In and Out so I'm not sure if that's comparable.
But I don't know where a Big Mac Meal costs as much as claimed either.
Anyway, I can get an entree at a fast casual restaurant for the cost of a Big Mac Meal, or a medium smoothie. A taco bell meal is about equivalent. I don't eat Big Macs, when I eat McDonald's it's almost always a $2 breakfast sandwich with an app deal, but I'm just trying to price compare based on the reported price.
Ah, gotcha. For price comparisons, here in Gilroy (cheapest town in the Bay Area to live in, which is still waaaay not cheap), a big mac meal is ~$14.50. In n Out is the only fast food chain I can...
Ah, gotcha.
For price comparisons, here in Gilroy (cheapest town in the Bay Area to live in, which is still waaaay not cheap), a big mac meal is ~$14.50. In n Out is the only fast food chain I can think of where you can get a full meal for <$10, at least in the area.
That being said, there are about a billion different taco shops where you can get a gargantuan burrito, made with reasonably healthy rice, beans, cheese, and whatever meat you want, for well less than a $10. The franchises are all ridiculously expensive, but cheap and healthy(er) food is readily accessible if you look.
We have Mexican restaurants with lunch specials but it wouldn't be under that ten bucks, certainly not with a tip if you're eating in. Two street tacos will run like 8 bucks by themselves. I was...
We have Mexican restaurants with lunch specials but it wouldn't be under that ten bucks, certainly not with a tip if you're eating in. Two street tacos will run like 8 bucks by themselves. I was using chains rather than local places for easy comparison, but a gyro or burger combo at a local place is 12 bucks before tax, carryout.
At one local college/dive bar it looks like you can get a 1/3 lb burger with a side for six bucks*. Drink extra but that's pretty good - I think their burgers suck, personally, and they're cash only. They do not thrive on their lunch, let me just say. That's really the only thing I can come up with that would slide under that ten bucks a meal not just an entrée.
There are a few real small local restaurants I've driven past but never been in that might match this. They're not close to me in the slightest for home or work and they're not accessible for my partner so we don't go other times. But I'd be hard pressed to get any meal, much less a good sit down one for the cost.
In the past, absolutely, in the past 2-3 years? Not a chance. Not even a giant burrito. Those are ten bucks at the lowest here. (And that's definitely at the authentic places. )
*It's possible this is inaccurate as they don't have an official menu online, I haven't been there in a while.
this is the wrong direction. All of this junk food should have an added tax to punish people for eating like shit. McDonalds themselves should be making their shitty food healthier instead of...
this is the wrong direction. All of this junk food should have an added tax to punish people for eating like shit. McDonalds themselves should be making their shitty food healthier instead of making it smaller so they can claim a sub-600 calorie burger.
Lowering combos by 15% to lure you into drinking that terrible HFCS and eating fries is terrible, too.
Might as well just get a banh mi for cheaper with an individual salad roll on the side with a cup of water. Cheaper and healthier.
Because the poor really need another burden right now. While I agree we need to try and encourage healthier options, idealism like this just punches people who are already struggling.
All of this junk food should have an added tax to punish people for eating like shit.
Because the poor really need another burden right now.
While I agree we need to try and encourage healthier options, idealism like this just punches people who are already struggling.
Income doesn't matter. Its not like McDonalds is cheaper than other places. This is going to sound mean or harsh -- but if you're poor, eating McDonalds is only adding more to the problem. The...
Income doesn't matter. Its not like McDonalds is cheaper than other places. This is going to sound mean or harsh -- but if you're poor, eating McDonalds is only adding more to the problem.
The blame is split, though. McDonalds should absolutely be making healthier burgers; and there's no reason they can't. Poor people absolutely need healthier food in general, since all this trash food does nothing to alleviate stress or make someone feel better.
I am absolutely not on board with RFK's ideas to prevent EBT people from buying garbage food, though. I am on board for a system that helps educate people on good diets AND I hope that creepy fuck finds a way to eliminate HFCS and take the US back to normal sugar.
I'm not American, so I have no dog in that fight. I just think their food supply is not good for the people and they're effectively killing their own tax payers, which doesn't make any sense.
Except it is? And often more importantly when doing these low income studies, it's what's actually in the neighborhood? Many of the poor communities don't actually have a wide variety of places to...
Income doesn't matter. Its not like McDonalds is cheaper than other places.
Except it is? And often more importantly when doing these low income studies, it's what's actually in the neighborhood? Many of the poor communities don't actually have a wide variety of places to choose from. And as I already talked about in my other comment, cooking at home can be a privileged as well when you're juggling multiple jobs and children/school.
McDonalds should absolutely be making healthier burgers; and there's no reason they can't.
I mean....some of it is because it will cost more? If healthy food were just 1 to 1 cheaper, they'd do it, not even a question. The issue is it's often not (for all sorts of skewed reasons), but also that yes, unhealthy food is what your clients will choose 9/10 times. So raising prices for something that's going to be bought less (and often drive some % of your customers to competition that isn't trying, although that depends ) isn't really helping.
These are very complex problems that almost always harm the ones people claim they're trying to help when first thought approaches are applied.
They actually can very easily produce healthier burgers that are also cheaper by simply offering a non-meat version. Pound-to-pound it costs more than ten times more for beef than black beans....
They actually can very easily produce healthier burgers that are also cheaper by simply offering a non-meat version. Pound-to-pound it costs more than ten times more for beef than black beans. Tofu and gluten are also several times cheaper than beef. I have not been to McDonalds in years because they have zero healthy non-animal products to offer. They got rid of salads years ago and haven't looked back. I honestly think that, at least in the US, the management has basically just decided to coast on being the default fast food option in the country.
McDonalds has a very sophisticated product management that finely tunes its products for each market. Probably one of the most sophisticated food market research operation ever. Its products in...
I honestly think that, at least in the US, the management has basically just decided to coast on being the default fast food option in the country.
McDonalds has a very sophisticated product management that finely tunes its products for each market. Probably one of the most sophisticated food market research operation ever. Its products in each country are different, catering to local tastes. In India, their burgers are beefless and instead offer paneer, corn and cheese, and chicken.
They offer beef not as a conspiracy but because that's what consumers want in a free market. McDonalds withdrew its healthy options like salads and snack wraps in the US because American consumers weren't buying them. But the vegetarian McPlant burgers are offered in Europe, but they failed in the US.
If their analysis showed that Americans were willing to buy these products (at a worthwhile scale to justify the increase in logistical complexity) then they'd offer it and profit.
To be fair to the American consumer, their salads were the absolute worst and horrifically overpriced. Notice Wendy's still has salads and baked potatoes.
withdrew its healthy options like salads and snack wraps in the US because American consumers weren't buying them.
To be fair to the American consumer, their salads were the absolute worst and horrifically overpriced. Notice Wendy's still has salads and baked potatoes.
I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy, I'm saying that they simply have zero interest in expanding their market beyond the people who want those core menu items.
I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy, I'm saying that they simply have zero interest in expanding their market beyond the people who want those core menu items.
I could give you many possibilities, but really my guess would be as good as yours. But if you wanted my extremely cynical take as to why McDonald’s isn’t trying to offer healthy food specifically...
I could give you many possibilities, but really my guess would be as good as yours. But if you wanted my extremely cynical take as to why McDonald’s isn’t trying to offer healthy food specifically it’s because healthy food isn’t as addictive as unhealthy food is. While it’s true that they haven’t made drastic improvements to their food menu, they have made drastic expansions to their drinks menu over the last decade or so, going so far as to open new restaurants that primarily focus on them.
They had healthier options. Consumers didn't buy them. They really tried. Restaurants keep menu items around because they're popular. If items don't sell enough, why bother stocking them?
They had healthier options. Consumers didn't buy them. They really tried.
Restaurants keep menu items around because they're popular. If items don't sell enough, why bother stocking them?
People aren't computers. They are animals with animal drives who can be rational for limited periods of time. Like you, sometimes they JUST don't want to cook. They want to grab something tasty,...
Income doesn't matter. Its not like McDonalds is cheaper than other places. This is going to sound mean or harsh -- but if you're poor, eating McDonalds is only adding more to the problem.
People aren't computers. They are animals with animal drives who can be rational for limited periods of time. Like you, sometimes they JUST don't want to cook. They want to grab something tasty, quick, and out. It can be a real drag living on a tight budget. They don't need people judging them when they act human like everyone else.
nobody has to cook if they dont want to --- but it feels like everybody here views McDonalds and other trash food as the only option, which it isn't. I'm thinking that I am the only one here who...
nobody has to cook if they dont want to --- but it feels like everybody here views McDonalds and other trash food as the only option, which it isn't.
I'm thinking that I am the only one here who lives in a city with good, inexpensive food that isn't tied to a mascot.
That may just be true. I'm sure you have heard of the concept of "food deserts". Similar things probably apply to choices for eating out. A big fallacy in many conversations is that people...
I'm thinking that I am the only one here who lives in a city with good, inexpensive food that isn't tied to a mascot.
That may just be true.
I'm sure you have heard of the concept of "food deserts". Similar things probably apply to choices for eating out.
A big fallacy in many conversations is that people unconsciously assume that their situation is the same for everyone else.
When you get outside cities, you start hitting places whether your options are "run-down italian place that failed food inspections," "random gas station," McDonalds, and Applebees. McDonalds...
When you get outside cities, you start hitting places whether your options are "run-down italian place that failed food inspections," "random gas station," McDonalds, and Applebees. McDonalds really is the best option there.
If this page is true, food deserts are also in with heavily populated areas. Seems like a relatively easy problem to solve, at least for the areas there I am familiar with. I am very much the type...
If this page is true, food deserts are also in with heavily populated areas. Seems like a relatively easy problem to solve, at least for the areas there I am familiar with.
I am very much the type to organize a group of people who take turns doing grocery runs.
There's so much shit going on, but this would be such an easy win for local governments.
I think lots of us are coming at this from an American perspective, but fast food really is the foundation of many poor households. In a lot of poorer communities there aren't other options. But I...
I think lots of us are coming at this from an American perspective, but fast food really is the foundation of many poor households. In a lot of poorer communities there aren't other options. But I totally get where you're coming from. I think the use of behavioral scientists in food "development" is criminal.
I'd be ok with requiring something like a calorie maximum across menus, the way we do (or did) with MPG minimums across car fleets. But I'd like to see this in tandem with programs like market match programs, beyond just whats available if you're on food stamps. If we could make farmers markets subsidized, in a progressive tax sort of way with heavier subsidies for lower earners.
Anyway there are a ton of policy ideas we could come up with, but I don't see much changing. Fun to imagine though!
The calories aren't necessarily even the danger of fast food or restaurants in general. They can be, they'll happily serve up someone a 3000 calorie meal, but I've noticed a lot of fast food...
The calories aren't necessarily even the danger of fast food or restaurants in general. They can be, they'll happily serve up someone a 3000 calorie meal, but I've noticed a lot of fast food places have started displaying calories on their menus (on the actual menu, on a website, or in the app) but they don't quite as prominently display some of the other nutritional facts. It's easy to clear 150% DV of saturated fats without touching 2000 calories even. There may even still be some that have trans fats and very high cholesterol, and the sodium can be pretty astronomical.
I think McDonalds shows 450ish calories for a Double Cheeseburger, which honestly doesn't seem that bad, but then you look at the other nutritional facts of it and its quite a bit worse. In fact if you look at their nutritional calculator and the figures they choose to display more prominently, a double cheeseburger is 440 calories, 25g protein, 12% DV of carbs and 30% DV of total fat. Those are the numbers they want you to focus on. But if you look at the smaller numbers below that, its 11g 57% DV of saturated fat, 1.5g trans fat, 1120mg 49% DV sodium.
So take two of those and you're only at 880 calories. It's not the calories that are the killer there.
Making food at home is cheaper and healthier. Fast food is in no way good for the poor, they won't be able to afford the cost of degenerative disease later in life. That said, GP's use of the word...
Making food at home is cheaper and healthier. Fast food is in no way good for the poor, they won't be able to afford the cost of degenerative disease later in life.
That said, GP's use of the word punish kinda sends the wrong message.
And is well documented as being something that struggling families often don't feel they have time for. The kind of family that's going to get screwed by this kind of tax is the kind that already...
Making food at home is cheaper and healthier.
And is well documented as being something that struggling families often don't feel they have time for. The kind of family that's going to get screwed by this kind of tax is the kind that already has kids, and likely has both parents working at least 1 job. Between the shifts and the school, fast food becomes a very very attractive alternative.
When they DO shop and eat at home, it's often for quick and easy snack foods that take little prep. While it'd be nice to see more families migrate to slightly healthier and still quick to prepare frozen meals, it's often going to be a package of chips or cookies mixed with some sugary cereal because the time is a huge factor.
I wanna know how many people complaining about poor people not cooking food from scratch have ever had to juggle 2 part-time jobs without a car, walk a mile to a grocery store, and then walk back,...
And is well documented as being something that struggling families often don't feel they have time for.
I wanna know how many people complaining about poor people not cooking food from scratch have ever had to juggle 2 part-time jobs without a car, walk a mile to a grocery store, and then walk back, and have the energy to spend 30+ minutes cobbling something healthy together. Particularly if you just spent 10 hours on your feet because retail workers aren't allowed to sit on their shift.
Opposed to just stealing a few burgers, nuggets, and fries at the end of the shift and saving yourself 2 hours of what precious little free time you have. This is exponentially harder with kids.
Late, but me. I was working 3 jobs after graduating BCIT. It's been long enough that I don't recall exactly how many hours I worked weekly, but 50 to 70 was normal. I was doing keto, and the rest...
Late, but me. I was working 3 jobs after graduating BCIT. It's been long enough that I don't recall exactly how many hours I worked weekly, but 50 to 70 was normal.
I was doing keto, and the rest of my family was decidedly not - meaning I was doing all my own cooking, in addition to all the same day-to-day, "keep your adult head above water" shit I do now at 30.
I get it, it's not easy, and the simplest way for me to have enough time to get an appropriate number of calories down my neck was to do keto. But it's also just doing what needs to be done.
Hell, one job was a bakery, and it was suggested we cut small pieces and share a slice of some of the new products "So we could tell customers how it is". This didn't work on keto, and I politely declined, every time.
Tell me it's hard, it's draining, it's monotonous and'll turn into a blur - we'll agree, and how. But please don't tell me it can't be done, or can't be maintained effectively indefinitely, because I am one of those poor bastards that has been there, done that.
And applause to you for getting it done. It is admirable that you were able to. That does not make it a moral failing for everyone else. Because that implication is part of why suicide rates are...
And applause to you for getting it done. It is admirable that you were able to.
That does not make it a moral failing for everyone else.
Because that implication is part of why suicide rates are record high.
This is only true if you have time, knowledge, and access to good grocery stores. A single mom working two jobs probably isn't making food at home that is cheaper or healthier than McDonalds. We...
This is only true if you have time, knowledge, and access to good grocery stores. A single mom working two jobs probably isn't making food at home that is cheaper or healthier than McDonalds. We used the microwave far more often than than the stove (when it worked).
My family was in a similar situation and the stuff we ate at home was also garbage. As a child the only meal I'd have for an entire day might simply have been doritos.
That sounds rough. But is the takeaway supposed to be that McDonalds is a good solution for overworked poor families? There's so much research about why that isn't true. Poverty, wealth...
That sounds rough. But is the takeaway supposed to be that McDonalds is a good solution for overworked poor families? There's so much research about why that isn't true.
Poverty, wealth inequality, insufficent minimum wage, broken safety nets, food deserts, it all sucks and we should work to fix it. McDonalds doesn't belong anywhere in the list of solutions though.
Speaking of the US... There are numerous federal programs that provide poor people with free food, including SNAP, WIC and TEFAP. There's also the SFSF and CACFP. Many states have additional food programs for poor families. Many churches have food programs. There are all sorts of nonprofits that focus on getting food to poor families. There are food banks, food pantries. Some of the nonprofits even deliver. I say this not to imply that those programs are enough, they aren't as long as anyone is going hungry. I say it to illustrate that there are better, cheaper options than fast food which are widely available.
If people aren't finding those programs because, for example, McDonalds feels easier, that's not good. Their kids could be getting a lot more to eat, and food that is less likely to interfere with their development.
Just in case it needs to be said, I make no judgements about your Mom, I'm responding to the idea that fast food is a good option, or that people don't have a choice. They don't have a choice about being poor, but they absolutely have a choice between spending money they need for other things on fast food and programs that will effectively make them $100's to $1000's of dollars a month richer.
I volunteer at the local food bank, and the challenges members face are very numerous. Nobody is going to MCD because they can't find the programs, but we do see people going in addition to these...
If people aren't finding those programs because, for example, McDonalds feels easier, that's not good
I volunteer at the local food bank, and the challenges members face are very numerous. Nobody is going to MCD because they can't find the programs, but we do see people going in addition to these programs because they are easier. Not everyone of course but there are some.
I know someone who works 10 hour shifts and drive considerable distance to and from home. Getting fresh groceries and taking them home with time to cook is a distant dream. They're just shoveling calories in before they fall asleep at the wheel so they can crash at home and do it over again in a few hours.
I know people whose homes have no working stoves and can't afford to replace them. Maybe there's a working toaster oven.
I know people who cannot store food at home because the fridge will be raided by housemates or randos who pass by.
Seniors who can't manage all that anymore.
Folks who never grew up with parents who cook either so they have no clue, and are blocked in by shame and cycles of wasted money getting groceries they don't know how to use. Our food bank has a "donate" back bin for dry goods and I know a lot of our produce simply gets tossed.
And that's just the folks we manage to reach. There are many who are working and can't make food bank hours : it takes money and time to be able to use programs.
I agree with you completely that fast-food isn't a good option: it's a terrible option. But I think we're all on the same page on that one, just differing angles on how much options people really have.
I always think of threaded conversations as being about context. In this particular sub thread I was replying to this: That in reply to the suggestion that there should be a tax on fast food. The...
I always think of threaded conversations as being about context.
In this particular sub thread I was replying to this:
Because the poor really need another burden right now.
While I agree we need to try and encourage healthier options, idealism like this just punches people who are already struggling.
That in reply to the suggestion that there should be a tax on fast food.
The only way that taxing fast food would be punching poor people would be if fast food were either a good or necessary option. It's neither.
So that was essentially my reply: it's not a good option.
Many replies, yours included, seem to be shoehorning all of the food challenges poor people face into the context of McDonalds, or fast food, where it doesn't fit as far as I can tell.
Fast food isn't helping to solve their problems, it's adding to them.
It sucks that, for example, some people don't have a working stove. That doesn't mean that fast food is their best alternative! It's one of their more expensive options.
And I suppose the shoehorning arises from the interpretation that if someone says fast food isn't good for poor people it means they don't understand how hard things are for people.
I don't believe that follows. I think it's a leap.
As far as options go, I don't believe that taking fast food out of the equation would cause anyone to starve. People are resourceful when it comes to survival, give them some credit.
On balance, fast food takes more from poor people than it gives, in the same way that industrialized, processed food does. Many of the ingredients in fast food are exactly that.
Note that I continue to not to be saying anything about what should be done about it, I'm not sure that a tax would be the right way to go, only that fast food isn't.
I see what you're saying, and yeah sorry, I think basically we agree with each other that while fast food isn't a solution, it's part of a complex state of how it current is
I see what you're saying, and yeah sorry, I think basically we agree with each other that while fast food isn't a solution, it's part of a complex state of how it current is
They did say this. It could easily be interpreted as that was their situation when they said "We", with the "we" being the children to the single mom.
A single mom working two jobs probably isn't making food at home that is cheaper or healthier than McDonalds. We used the microwave far more often than than the stove (when it worked).
They did say this. It could easily be interpreted as that was their situation when they said "We", with the "we" being the children to the single mom.
I meant punish, though. Many countries have higher taxes on cigarettes, liquor, etc --- it should be the same for heavily processed foods. The sad thing is that a lot of lower income families just...
I meant punish, though. Many countries have higher taxes on cigarettes, liquor, etc --- it should be the same for heavily processed foods.
The sad thing is that a lot of lower income families just don't have time or energy to make food at home. I can appreciate that. There just needs to be better options that aren't a 15% incentive to drink HFCS and potatoes covered with salt and heavily processed sugars.
You're referring to 'sin taxes.' Those exist in the states. Every time they get increased, a few more people quit smoking or drinking because they can't afford it anymore. However, blanketing a...
You're referring to 'sin taxes.' Those exist in the states. Every time they get increased, a few more people quit smoking or drinking because they can't afford it anymore.
However, blanketing a similar tax on 'heavily processed foods' is far too large a blanket. Impossible beef, for example is ultra-processed.
And tackling just this aspect of the problem won't solve anything. I would say this is more like the last step. Food deserts are a real problem. Many poor areas have little to no grocery stores, and what does exist is still designed to make things worse. Quick frozen meals are really just salt-blocks, and the healthy stuff is marked up like crazy.
Contrary to the right's talking points, the majority of those struggling financially are not lazy at all. But minimum wage and the gig economy force them to work extreme hours just to make ends meet. By the time they get home, doing anything else is a massive burden.
The FDA is toothless and allows all kinds of gross ingredients to be used. They're not healthier but they are cheaper. Regardless of our income, so much of the food in the US contains literal garbage (petroleum processing byproducts for instance. Cheeze-its had/might still have that). The current administration is making the situation worse.
The US needs a massive paradigm shift where we the people get corporate money fully out of the government and spend decades electing and appointing people who have the peoples' interest at heart. Until then, it will just be more YouTube videos of Paul Hollywood complaining about how awful American Snickers bars are to British ones.
i agree with you across the board here on everything but sin tax. i’m not american, but i view sin taxes as a way to compensate the medical system for services you are likely to need more of as a...
i agree with you across the board here on everything but sin tax. i’m not american, but i view sin taxes as a way to compensate the medical system for services you are likely to need more of as a result of smoking, drinking, poor diet, etc.
i don’t think this would be the case in the US with it all being private.. unless it went to Obama care, which it should.
I also think that impossible products should be taxed the same since they’re also garbage. :)
Or you know actually encourage businesses (or have government ran ones and that the Democratic candidate for NYC mayor has this as one of his platforms (obligatory fuck Cuomo)) to go into the food...
Or you know actually encourage businesses (or have government ran ones and that the Democratic candidate for NYC mayor has this as one of his platforms (obligatory fuck Cuomo)) to go into the food deserts, which is a area that does not have access to food (or affordable food for the people living that area) within a mile in a urban setting and 10 miles in rural areas, and into food swamps, areas that does have access to food, but it tends to be highly processed very cheap food, to expand the food options to be more healthier than what is being offered in those places right now. The people that are living in these areas do actually want to eat healthier foods, they literately can't because of where they live, so by imposing a fucking sin tax on food that these people are quite literately are forced to eat because of socioeconomic factors that they have no control over, is not a good move on the government's part. And because hungry people are a lot less reasonable and a lot more angrier than people that have a stomach full of food (no matter the quality), the ancient Roman politicians knew this that is how they controlled the general population.
taxes don’t have to be universal, though. no idea what the solution is for these areas, but it seems like a good place for vertical farming (and related industries) to get in and hold an easy...
taxes don’t have to be universal, though.
no idea what the solution is for these areas, but it seems like a good place for vertical farming (and related industries) to get in and hold an easy monopoly while benefiting the community.
on a related but absolutely off-topic tangent — all high schools should teach actual cooking skills, nutrition, etc so people can do the best with what they have.
This feels all a bit too hand-wavey. Where do these businesses “get in” from? Who pays for a vertical farming-style operation and (possibly newly constructed) buildings in a poor, rural area...
This feels all a bit too hand-wavey. Where do these businesses “get in” from? Who pays for a vertical farming-style operation and (possibly newly constructed) buildings in a poor, rural area until, if ever, it becomes profitable? Is it guaranteed that their prices can ever match or outdo the massively-scaled existing industries?
Unfortunately, nearly everything in this topic revolves around cost (which in turn is due to American workers’ poor position), not food quality or (one may dream) even environmental impact.
not the US, but this sort of thing is happening with startups trying to help food deserts — https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-indoor-farming-growing-1.7241104
Only if said sin tax are proportionally pegged to income + savings. Jeff Bezos private jet should cost him percentage-wise as much as it would cost me to take a private jet or first class flight....
Only if said sin tax are proportionally pegged to income + savings. Jeff Bezos private jet should cost him percentage-wise as much as it would cost me to take a private jet or first class flight. It'll pay for absolutely everything if we did that. A rich person smoking or drinking pop should cost as much proportionally.
That’s not really the point of sin taxes. Revenue is one thing, but mainly it’s to change behavior away from harmful actions. The government wants less people to get lung cancer - and you should...
That’s not really the point of sin taxes. Revenue is one thing, but mainly it’s to change behavior away from harmful actions. The government wants less people to get lung cancer - and you should also want to have less lung cancer.
If Bezos wants to spend his way to getting lung cancer… I mean, if you don’t like Bezos, you should cheer for him to smoke more cigarettes and eat more McDonald’s? Then he’ll be fat and have lung cancer.
Private jets have a heavy cost to our climate though. But as for people who like drinking coke and eating mcd or whatever, apparently they can do so with abandon into their eighties and still...
Private jets have a heavy cost to our climate though. But as for people who like drinking coke and eating mcd or whatever, apparently they can do so with abandon into their eighties and still convince a decent number of Americans that they appear healthy, so....
And most Americans are obese and still at it despite rising costs. If all we're aiming for is change of behaviour, the tax needs to be one of many prongs of action.
Meanwhile I'm all for re-couping revenue (proportional to wealth) to pay for damages from collective sin.
That’s kind of apples and oranges. Flying isn’t a sin. That would go under something like a Co2 tax. A sin tax is a tax on something that’s bad for you. Not the environment, not the world, you....
That’s kind of apples and oranges. Flying isn’t a sin. That would go under something like a Co2 tax.
A sin tax is a tax on something that’s bad for you. Not the environment, not the world, you. Drinking, gambling, smoking are the famous examples. These harm yourself. The point isn’t to “collect damages from collective sin”, the point is to get people to stop harming themselves in a more gradual way than a straight up ban. The former is, again, more of a externality tax situation.
All that is to say, my point is that these aren’t mutually exclusive, they’re mostly unrelated and disjoint policies. You can have one or the other, both, or neither.
I'm less familiar with sin tax specifics, but I believe that they are set at the state level, and the revenue is typically used for good. Since we don't have universal healthcare, I think it...
I'm less familiar with sin tax specifics, but I believe that they are set at the state level, and the revenue is typically used for good. Since we don't have universal healthcare, I think it usually goes to state level education or parks or other social programs.
Cigarettes, liquor etc. aren't necessary for survival, whereas food is. Sure, heavily processed food isn't necessary for survival, but if that is what is available to you within the constraints of...
Cigarettes, liquor etc. aren't necessary for survival, whereas food is. Sure, heavily processed food isn't necessary for survival, but if that is what is available to you within the constraints of your living circumstances, then the tax is directly going towards making your survival more difficult.
While I don't think it's your intention I have a few concerns with this type of...food moralizing? Food is just food. It's not good or bad. My grandmother often wanted a BK's frozen coke while she...
While I don't think it's your intention I have a few concerns with this type of...food moralizing? Food is just food. It's not good or bad.
My grandmother often wanted a BK's frozen coke while she was going through chemo. Does that really merit punishment because someone else views it through a moral lens that says it's "bad" just because it lacks nutritional value?
I'm not debating on the predatory behavior of fast food companies in general, but I think that merits a discussion on how companies prey on systems of poverty, food scarcity, education on nutrition and serving sizes, etc. rather than moralizing the nature of a burger. I've certainly been served salads with a higher calorie count.
Anyway, I don't think it's your intention to be the big bad food police but I wanted to offer a different perspective as someone who dealt with an eating disorder that resulted from viewing food through a "good/bad" compass.
you can eat like shit in moderation... but nobody should be eating fast food more than once a month.. if that. To say that 'food is just food. its not good or bad' is terribly misinformed. The...
you can eat like shit in moderation... but nobody should be eating fast food more than once a month.. if that. To say that 'food is just food. its not good or bad' is terribly misinformed. The processed trash that McDonalds and other fast food brands serve is so heavily processed that its barely considered food anymore.
The purpose of food is to give your body fuel, this trash doesn't do it. But like I said, its fine once in a while... same goes for eating cheesecake.
There's a reason average Americans are ~30lbs heavier than they were in the 70s and its because the food itself is bad.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'misinformed'. My comment that 'food is food' was not related to the nutritional value of different foods or how that nutrition subsequently affects...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'misinformed'. My comment that 'food is food' was not related to the nutritional value of different foods or how that nutrition subsequently affects health. My comment was on how calling things bad, shit, trash can result in people having negative relationships with food. I don't disagree with ideas of moderation, of providing your body the nutrition it needs, etc. Here's a yt short that might do a better job of explaining what I was specifically addressing.
trust in hunger cues is fine if you understand healthy eating… but if your hunger cues are going for fat and salt etc — that is not the intention of the movement.
trust in hunger cues is fine if you understand healthy eating… but if your hunger cues are going for fat and salt etc — that is not the intention of the movement.
Sometimes your body does need fat and salt, though. Not always, of course. But insisting that certain things -- especially basic nutrients like these -- are universally bad and evil to eat doesn't...
Sometimes your body does need fat and salt, though. Not always, of course. But insisting that certain things -- especially basic nutrients like these -- are universally bad and evil to eat doesn't actually help improve people's health. In fact, fucking up someone's relationship with food by moralizing too excessively is potentially far more harmful to their health, as it can absolutely itself lead to unhealthy or even disordered eating habits.
The words "saturated" and "trans" do not appear in my comment or in the comment I replied to. The idea that someone "shouldn't want" them is absurd. Your body's hunger signals and cravings are not...
The words "saturated" and "trans" do not appear in my comment or in the comment I replied to. The idea that someone "shouldn't want" them is absurd. Your body's hunger signals and cravings are not granularly distinguishing types of fats like that, and your body does actually need fats in general. Much like it also needs salt.
Also, don't tell me what I should and shouldn't want. It's not your place.
of course our bodies need fat, but this thread is all in the context of fast food like McDonalds. if you aren't commenting on that, I'm not sure why you got involved. Seems like you chirped in to...
of course our bodies need fat, but this thread is all in the context of fast food like McDonalds.
if you aren't commenting on that, I'm not sure why you got involved. Seems like you chirped in to pick an argument about something unrelated to the thread.
I won't be replying to anything after this, so feel free to get in a really scathing last word. :)
There is a country - Singapore, I think - that actually gives people free vouchers for healthy meals. That encourages their marketplace of food hawkers to not only sell the stuff that are calorie...
There is a country - Singapore, I think - that actually gives people free vouchers for healthy meals. That encourages their marketplace of food hawkers to not only sell the stuff that are calorie bombs as well as encouraging buyers to choose the healthier stuff. I wish more countries did this.
right! that's really how it should be done. I'm not all 'the government needs to step in and tell restaurants what to do' -- but programs like this are so simple. judging by this thread, it seems...
right! that's really how it should be done. I'm not all 'the government needs to step in and tell restaurants what to do' -- but programs like this are so simple.
judging by this thread, it seems like there's a lot of room for education when it comes to basic nutrition and the true cost of eating fast food.
I don't agree with restrictions like this. They should be educating folks... but that's outside of McDonalds and the others. There's a real issue with portions and the quality of food in the US...
I don't agree with restrictions like this. They should be educating folks... but that's outside of McDonalds and the others. There's a real issue with portions and the quality of food in the US that should be properly addressed; but telling EBT people what they can and can't by isn't right.
People still shouldn't be eating this stuff. It ultimately comes down to a lot of people being unaware of what is available unless its being advertised. Can't fault them on that.
It just occurred to me a few months ago I had lunch with a friend. I got a banh mi for $15 which I thought ( and still think ) was pricey. Since I haven't eaten at a McDonald's in my adult life I...
It just occurred to me a few months ago I had lunch with a friend. I got a banh mi for $15 which I thought ( and still think ) was pricey. Since I haven't eaten at a McDonald's in my adult life I had no idea Big Mac meals were in the same price range.
That would be $20.86 CAD. If the exchange rates like that stay the same I might just retire to Canada. Thing is, I can remember when a meal in one of my favorite side down restaurants was $15 USD...
That would be $20.86 CAD.
If the exchange rates like that stay the same I might just retire to Canada.
Thing is, I can remember when a meal in one of my favorite side down restaurants was $15 USD without the tip. Now it is a fast food price. I just don't eat alone that much anymore.
$20 for a banh mi better have a ten-spot tucked above the pate. the food desert thing is terrible, but it really seems like it could be moderately solved with some basic coordination… sort of like...
$20 for a banh mi better have a ten-spot tucked above the pate.
the food desert thing is terrible, but it really seems like it could be moderately solved with some basic coordination… sort of like food gangs in the 70s or whenever.
Long story short: McDonald's like other corporations have been using inflation as camouflage for price gouging. The law of physics for economics, supply and demand, finally kicked in. Demand is...
Long story short:
McDonald's like other corporations have been using inflation as camouflage for price gouging.
The law of physics for economics, supply and demand, finally kicked in. Demand is down since their prices are too high.
Rather than return their prices to normal they are only inching forward on price reductions so they can keep as much as the price gouging as possible.
I think the change is that they're now using a pricing model that pizza chains like Domino's have for years now. The menu prices are high, and the intention is that anyone price conscious will go...
I think the change is that they're now using a pricing model that pizza chains like Domino's have for years now.
The menu prices are high, and the intention is that anyone price conscious will go search out a coupon code, app deal, or similar. That way, they get maximum dollars from the people who aren't paying attention.
I refuse to download the McDonald's app and let them slurp up information about me, so effectively, this means I just never eat there anymore. It's no big loss anyway.
Inflation isn't camouflage for anything. I feel like people treat inflation as some kind of sentient force, or like a natural disaster, when inflation is the measure of something - the rate of...
Inflation isn't camouflage for anything. I feel like people treat inflation as some kind of sentient force, or like a natural disaster, when inflation is the measure of something - the rate of change of prices, in this case. "Inflation caused McDonalds to increase their prices" is like saying "Velocity caused the car to move forward".
Companies don't need any excuses or guises to raise prices. They just do. That's their right as a independent company. "Price gouging" is highly ill defined term - in practice, it just means "times when prices go up and the vibes are bad".
You're right about supply and demand. Demand may be falling, and thus Mickie D's is lowering their prices. Fast food, as an inferior good, has elastic demand and is more sensitive to price changes than other goods. That's just things running as they should.
Inflation is a force, an economic force. Price gouging is charging unreasonably high prices because you know customers have no choice. As in all your competitors doing the same thing. That becomes...
Inflation is a force, an economic force. Price gouging is charging unreasonably high prices because you know customers have no choice. As in all your competitors doing the same thing.
That becomes questionable ethically for necessities. At the start of the pandemic I paid about 95 cents for a small plastic jar of dry roasted sunflower seeds. One of the cheapest sources of vitamin E, zinc, and selenium. It now costs almost a $1.80.
Most businesses stay away from sudden and high price increases. It makes them look bad and their business suffers. Real inflation provides a reason for raising prices, so it can be used as a cover for businesses raising prices more than they have to. Price gouging.
No, that's price collusion. Price gouging is defined in the dictionary as The crux there is "unfairly". Unfairly is a subjective determination. There's no objective definition of "unfair". One...
Price gouging is charging unreasonably high prices because you know customers have no choice. As in all your competitors doing the same thing.
No, that's price collusion. Price gouging is defined in the dictionary as
Price gouging is the act of excessively increasing the price of essential goods, services, or commodities to an unfairly high level
The crux there is "unfairly". Unfairly is a subjective determination. There's no objective definition of "unfair". One man's unfair is another man's fair. It's about vibes, in the end. Prices increase in an economic boom? Good vibes, baby. Price increases in a negative time? Bad vibes, it's unfair!
Real inflation provides a reason for raising prices, so it can be used as a cover for businesses raising prices more than they have to.
I mean, this just isn't how businesses interact with consumers, especially at a grocery store level.
Did the sunflower company email you about how they didn't want to raise prices but y'know inflation and all. And then because they emailed you that, you didn't respond (how would you respond anyhow?).
Probably not. You just went to the store one day and the price was higher. And the only way you can respond, as a consumer, is change the decision of what product you buy for vitamins. Which would be the same no matter what the overall inflation rate is.
In the context of prices going up during recent inflation it's important to bear in mind that a lot of big companies were posting record profits. Many companies didn't just raise prices to keep up...
In the context of prices going up during recent inflation it's important to bear in mind that a lot of big companies were posting record profits. Many companies didn't just raise prices to keep up with inflation, they raised them well beyond that.
It's a complicated topic because so many factors are involved with inflation but I believe the consensus is that corporate profits accounted for a larger than usual share of recent inflation.
That again gets into this misconception of what inflation is, that it’s some kind of tsunami that lifts prices. Inflation is the measurement of the change of prices, it doesn’t cause anything -...
That again gets into this misconception of what inflation is, that it’s some kind of tsunami that lifts prices. Inflation is the measurement of the change of prices, it doesn’t cause anything - something else causes inflation, in the same way that a car does not move forward because of velocity but its engine.
If aggregate demand for products increases, as would be in a case, say, after large stimulus programs are passed, then prices will increase. Because demand increases, and price is the intersection of supply and demand.
It’s not that “”inflation”” happens and you’re supposed to react by increasing your price by some set amount. Some economic impact occurs that affects demand or supply, and the effects ripple out from there.
Of course it does, increases in prices cause an increase of cost of goods sold for companies, who then raise their prices to compensate. I guess you could say that inflation isn't the cause...
Inflation is the measurement of the change of prices, it doesn’t cause anything
Of course it does, increases in prices cause an increase of cost of goods sold for companies, who then raise their prices to compensate. I guess you could say that inflation isn't the cause because inflation isn't the price increase but rather the measurement, but that just seems like semantics. Inflation has been used as a blanket term for the phenomenon for a long time.
The other important thing it causes is headlines, and when the headlines start many companies see it as an opportunity to raise prices more than they need to under the assumption that consumers will accept it under the guise of inflation. It's not new, it's default corporate thinking at this point. The difference this time around is that the unnecessary price increases were bigger and more widespread than usual.
Your model of inflation is overly simplistic. There's no "origin point" where the first person raises their price and then it cascades outward, everyone waiting for their input prices to be...
Of course it does, increases in prices cause an increase of cost of goods sold for companies, who then raise their prices to compensate. I guess you could say that inflation isn't the cause because inflation isn't the price increase but rather the measurement, but that just seems like semantics. Inflation has been used as a blanket term for the phenomenon for a long time.
Your model of inflation is overly simplistic. There's no "origin point" where the first person raises their price and then it cascades outward, everyone waiting for their input prices to be affected before they raise their output prices.
If all of the sudden you can only make half the widgets you usually make because of COVID disrupting your labour force, you might raise your prices. If you have a 1.5x increase in the number of people who are buying your product thanks to a stimulus package, you might raise your prices. If you're input costs go up, you might raise your prices. If you think you can raise your prices and make more money, you might raise your prices. If you want to raise your prices for no reason at all, you might raise your prices.
It was one example of inflation (average prices going up) causing something, not a model. Is the implication that I, or anyone else, actually thinks that inflation is as simple as the example I gave?
It was one example of inflation (average prices going up) causing something, not a model. Is the implication that I, or anyone else, actually thinks that inflation is as simple as the example I gave?
I would disagree in the sense that it proposes this as though it's some unique event or that there aren't certain rules to how it works. Every day there's some suit wearing assholes somewhere out...
I would disagree in the sense that it proposes this as though it's some unique event or that there aren't certain rules to how it works. Every day there's some suit wearing assholes somewhere out there going into a meeting with their bullshit charts and sheets of metrics and other information with their primary goal to make more money and with only enough concern for how they get it that it doesn't backfire on them. If they could sell you literal shit and get away with it without consequence, they would. Regulations and regulatory bodies help mitigate that, consumer self interest and competition are the primary force. You wouldn't want to eat shit and if you knew you were, you'd likely go anywhere else that doesn't serve literal shit after that.
Inflation is actually a reason to raise prices, including uncertainty of inflation. Perception cuts in multiple ways. You can perceive it as they raised prices too much initially and are resistant to lowering, but you can also perceive other actions as businesses constantly raising prices and baiting people in with low prices to begin with, like streaming services in the last decade or so. So if you are a business selling something, raising prices slightly that don't account for what the true costs of inflation will be in the next couple years not only costs you money, but could also negatively impact perception of your business more than if you had taken the hit in perception in one go rather than repeatedly over time.
The regulatory and market forces that keep any business from just charging whatever they wanted before are still there (well regulatory forces may change depending on what dipshit gets elected). But the point being that they couldn't sell you literal shit before because it would backfire on them, and just because significant inflation is occurring still doesn't mean they can sell you literal shit as it would still backfire on them. There's still a limit to what they can get away with.
This is off topic. McDonald's in Brazil was always a luxury, and Brazilians love it. No one seems to care about the price because it is viewed as a premium brand. Somewhere you go on a special...
This is off topic.
McDonald's in Brazil was always a luxury, and Brazilians love it. No one seems to care about the price because it is viewed as a premium brand. Somewhere you go on a special day.
With the same money I spend on a satisfying meal at McDonald's, I can buy a full local meal with the best meat there is -- Brazilian picanha. Including beverage. So that's what I usually get.
Every single local burger in the country is better than McDonald's, and they are usually cheaper. Despite that, lines at McDonald's are always huge, showing the power of marketing.
When I talk to young people about this, they usually agree McDonald's is shit, but they always say, "But the fries are good!". Which is insane because that is not the main dish. It's a burger shop, and the burger feels and tastes like biting into plastic. This is like saying "the steak at that steakhouse is shit, but the mashed potatoes are awesome!". Who cares?
Gasp My shock as I read this and voted for this comment for your bravery Couldn't you just .... defrost a bag of raw McCain's and have the same experience?
Gasp
My shock as I read this and voted for this comment for your bravery
Couldn't you just .... defrost a bag of raw McCain's and have the same experience?
No, there’s something different about McD fries. I think it’s that they’re so airy (probably for price reasons). Tbf there’s a lot of actual dishes with soggy fries, like poutine and...
No, there’s something different about McD fries. I think it’s that they’re so airy (probably for price reasons).
Tbf there’s a lot of actual dishes with soggy fries, like poutine and “random-shit-on-chips”, so I think people are just in denial about enjoying texture of wilted fries.
My guess is that they really get all the starch out of them and add a bit of sugar. I prefer my poutine with gravy on the side, like a heretic. I don't even like ketchup/wet condiments on them...
My guess is that they really get all the starch out of them and add a bit of sugar.
I prefer my poutine with gravy on the side, like a heretic. I don't even like ketchup/wet condiments on them until a moment before it's to be consumed.
I've felt like McDonalds hasn't been worth getting for a long while now. When I lived in the states, I remember every time we would get it, thinking I'd been ripped off for what we paid compared...
I've felt like McDonalds hasn't been worth getting for a long while now. When I lived in the states, I remember every time we would get it, thinking I'd been ripped off for what we paid compared to what we were getting. The only aspect that was nice about it was that it was fast, but the food just wasn't worth it. Though, I think that had extended to most fast food for us. It often felt like it would make more sense to just pay the bit extra to go to a better restaurant and enjoy the experience or get something healthier.
When I first visited Malaysia, I did try the McDonalds here and remember realizing how much better it tasted than the US locations I'd been to. It felt more worth my money, and some of the regional specific things they served were delicious. Also, learning that KFC was known for having delicious rice was something I remember being shocked about.
Now that I've lived here for a few years, McDonalds has become somewhere I avoid just as much as I did in the US. It is more expensive than getting local food at a hawker center or a kopitiam, and they have also shrunk their burgers down and raised the prices over the years so every time I go (usually family members decide we should go there for something different) I'm even more disappointed that I went and suggest that if we want burgers we should go to a local chain that offers more value. One of the burgers they sell here is a Prosperity Burger (link is to a Singaporean site also they have it there) during Chinese New Year. The first time I went I thought this was great, but I got one after we had moved over here and in the ~5 years since I had tried it they had decreased the size to the point that I thought I had received teh wrong item and had to go confirm that it was the correct one.
I remember years ago taking a photo of my filet o fish1, and its diameter is the same as my credit card width. This year I went again and the audacity of them giving me half a slice of American...
I remember years ago taking a photo of my filet o fish1, and its diameter is the same as my credit card width. This year I went again and the audacity of them giving me half a slice of American processes cheesefood was so insulting I hope the memory last me the rest of my life2
1. Don't judge me too harshly. The fish burger is the normal default item one gets at a Hong Kong MCD. It's the item with the single longest fond memories of the franchise, even more so than the fries
Okay this one is firmly on me, judge away. Lifetime, or until the next time my brain somehow forgets how awful they are
Ugh McDonald's… The thing I know I should not eat, but still do sometimes out of a mix of convenience and nostalgia. I grew up in Eastern Europe. McDonald’s appears in the early 90s along with...
Ugh McDonald's… The thing I know I should not eat, but still do sometimes out of a mix of convenience and nostalgia. I grew up in Eastern Europe. McDonald’s appears in the early 90s along with other western stuff. It was awesome. Staff smiled and treated you well, and the food was new to everyone. We only saw it in movies. It was kind of surreal.
Nostalgia induced temporary amnesia is the only reason I go into one still, however infrequent. My brain remembers the restaurants looking like these nostalgic remnant locations in HK and the...
Nostalgia induced temporary amnesia is the only reason I go into one still, however infrequent. My brain remembers the restaurants looking like these nostalgic remnant locations in HK and the flavours or the experience of eating a "western" food menu.
How expensive was a happy meal or going in general in the early 90s, compared to say, going out for local style meal at a mom and pops restaurant. Did they have birthday parties for (seemingly)...
How expensive was a happy meal or going in general in the early 90s, compared to say, going out for local style meal at a mom and pops restaurant. Did they have birthday parties for (seemingly) kids from wealthy families too?
I don’t remember, and this was not a birthday party destination. Birthdays were done at home with friends and family over. I can only assume it was not too pricy given my grandparents could afford...
I don’t remember, and this was not a birthday party destination. Birthdays were done at home with friends and family over.
I can only assume it was not too pricy given my grandparents could afford taking me and my sister there.
I can't remember the last time I had lunch or dinner at McDonald's. About three years ago, I went to the McDonald's that had just opened in my little rinky dink town and had an egg McMuffin and a...
I can't remember the last time I had lunch or dinner at McDonald's. About three years ago, I went to the McDonald's that had just opened in my little rinky dink town and had an egg McMuffin and a glass of orange juice. As I recalled, that used to be one of the better choices as far as quality of the food. The price was so shocking, I haven't been back.
Why anyone would pay the high prices they are asking for the crappy food that McDonald's makes is beyond my understanding. Doing it once? Sure, learn from your mistake. Just don't repeat it.
In general I end up avoiding McDonald's for reasons already repeatedly stated. Unfortunately, my wife's pregnancy appetite has it on the short list of things that doesn't make her nauseous to even...
In general I end up avoiding McDonald's for reasons already repeatedly stated. Unfortunately, my wife's pregnancy appetite has it on the short list of things that doesn't make her nauseous to even think about. Bringing prices down to be actually affordable, and ideally even further down to bring them in line with the quality, would be nice. I guess any little bit will save me something until we can go back to not eating it though.
Pregnant wife? My dude, you have more McDonald's in your future in a few years. I hate eating at McDonald's, before kids, I hadn't set foot in one in decades. But there comes a point when you're...
Pregnant wife? My dude, you have more McDonald's in your future in a few years.
I hate eating at McDonald's, before kids, I hadn't set foot in one in decades. But there comes a point when you're parenting and it's too hot or too cold outside to go to the park. Going to one of the few indoor playgrounds that cost $30 per person ($60 just for you and baby, God forbid you have more than one) to get into and don't allow you to bring your own food to isn't an option and suddenly, a McDonald's with a PlayPlace starts to make some sense.
You can get something in to your picky kid, you can have a bite to eat (even if it's terrible) and a cup of coffee, plus some quiet time to read your book all for about $25. I'm not saying it's the best thing in the world or you want your kids to be eating it all the time, but it makes a lot of sense when you're at a certain point in your parental journey. When your kid is old enough to need to be gotten out of the house, but not old enough for school, daycare is too expensive and you just need something to do so they can get the energy out and you can have a moment to yourself.
brag, at around that age we were able to homeschool and usually went to places like the museum, art gallery, library, aquarium, science center etc with lunch room, and the kid is thoroughly...
humble brag, at around that age we were able to homeschool and usually went to places like the museum, art gallery, library, aquarium, science center etc with lunch room, and the kid is thoroughly exhausted and or adequately stimulated by lunch time. So for a while, I gritted my teeth and paid for expensive cafeteria snack plus home packed lunch. But it also means the food was always good and my kid turns their nose up at McDonalds as a kid, and especially now as a teen that it's for babies.
For play place type things Burger King has at least tolerable to quite decent fast food. Dairy Queen has no such facilities but boasts ice cream with meal. Wendy's has that cool drink machine and frosty. What else.....
We have plenty of alternatives to fill those needs that we both prefer. It's entirely just a craving thing. I don't think we've ever gone there when she wasn't pregnant. She didn't even want just...
We have plenty of alternatives to fill those needs that we both prefer. It's entirely just a craving thing. I don't think we've ever gone there when she wasn't pregnant. She didn't even want just a burger from our normally preferred places. She was just craving a big mac.
Oof yeah. I have a family member with ARFID and McD fries are one of the few foods they can actually eat without getting sick. Picky kids are one thing, kids with illnesses that only McDonald's...
Oof yeah. I have a family member with ARFID and McD fries are one of the few foods they can actually eat without getting sick. Picky kids are one thing, kids with illnesses that only McDonald's can help is absolutely awful, and I feel for the poor kid.
Funny thing is, mom and dad don't like McDonald's, nor did mom eat it while pregnant with kiddo. They figured out the fries were a safe food by pure accident and out of absolute exhaustion and desperation.
It's often the consistency of fast food/packaged foods that make them safe foods, not just for ARFID but also for other sensory/neurodivergent folks. I had found a frozen Martha Stewart "handpie"...
It's often the consistency of fast food/packaged foods that make them safe foods, not just for ARFID but also for other sensory/neurodivergent folks. I had found a frozen Martha Stewart "handpie" that I really liked and it was a go-to safe food for me, and my partner made the homemade recipe version she had online. It was good but it wasn't exactly the consistency and flavor expectation of the frozen meals. So it was fine but didn't replace the frozen. (Then of course, it was discontinued because all things I love must be. ). I'm less bound to those safe foods than others, but when I'm not hungry and need to eat, it helps to have those things around. All of which to say, it's not surprising that those fries are the hit
Am I crazy or does a 15 percent discount seem really low? Maybe combos were never as good a value as I remember they used to be
And that's only what they're doing now - meaning there was less than a 15% discount before.
The way a lot of combos seemed to work historically (anecdotally) is that you would pay the price of the main item + side, and the drink would be "free".
Meanwhile Taco Bell has the best combos by far - their Luxe Cravings Box is barely more than the cost of the "main" item, meaning the other three items are included for usually less than 50 cents. It's basically the only fast food I ever get anymore because it's the only one that hits a price/quality ratio that's reasonable.
Taco Bell has been the quiet winner of the last decade of fast food wars, starting with the Doritos taco. We love the cravings boxes in my house, there's always a burrito or something in them that makes for a good leftover snack.
This is not the part of Demolition Man I ever expected to actually come true.
Taco Bell and Little Caesars are the champs of affordable food. Taco Bell is the better of the two but feeding three people for ~$10 at Caesars is a killer deal and their quality hasn't dropped like most other chains, meaning they are now "good".
I seem to remember hearing that Little Caesar’s is privately owned, so they don’t have to worry as much about when it comes to maximizing profitability for shareholders.
I’ve always liked that they weren’t as greasy as the other national chains.
They've also got some of the healthiest (that is to say least unhealthy) options when it comes to fast food.
Additionally, they are the most vegetarian, vegan, and gluten-free friendly options.
RIP Bacon Cheddar Gordita Crunch. One of the greatest abominations ever made. Right up there with the Doubledown from KFC.
So good you could feel a few brain cells dying while you ate it.
Homemade healthier crunchwraps are one of the best things I've ever cooked: https://youtu.be/MTfyvch_0RI
So... what is the part of Demolition Man that you expected to come through... 3 seashells? Sex over wifi? Cryo-education?
The way it’s supposed to work that the drink basically costs them nothing, so it’s highly marked up when sold separately. Put it in a combo for no extra charge and now it looks like a good deal.
I think this is the real meat of the article. Don’t actually cut prices, just get rid of your expensive offerings to shape perception
I've seen a few documentaries about McDonald's. Yes, the drinks cost them almost nothing, but the same is also true of the fries too.
The Mcdouble is almost 4 dollars now, you used to be able to get one for a buck like 8 years ago. And let me tell you, nothing about the Mcdouble is worth a 400% increase in price, and it's only gotten smaller/shittier over the years... and it wasn't anything special to begin with.
It was originally itself a cost-cutting measure, as it replaced the 99¢ double cheeseburger. The savings for McDonald's: it has one less slice of cheese.
As a broke college kid it was my go-to fast food, at least in my small town. I did some calculations and it was one of the highest calorie to dollar ratio you could get in fast food, not counting things like Soda or desserts haha, now it's probably one of the worst
My guess is, combos were a good value for the first 2-3 years after whichever Fast Food place invented the concept, until people got into the habit of ordering combos (and don't forget to supersize it).
That would make their $18 Big Mac Combo Meal $15.30, a $2.70 reduction in price. Still way too much.
So for clarity is that Canadian dollars or a more expensive locale? In Central IL the Big Mac Meal is US $9.49 which would work out to about $11 at the high end of my tax estimate.
I'm not sure I can get an actual meal out for under ten bucks - maybe Taco Bell, maybe just a sandwich at a fast casual place... But a ham sandwich at Potbellies was the same price.
Hard to imagine where I'd get comparable calories for much cheaper without cooking
You can get a medium fries/drink and cheeseburger for $9.something at In n Out. FWIW.
I don't have In and Out here, but I meant "not fast food" as "actual meal". Someone else said that for the cost of a Big Mac Meal you could get a good burger and fries at a sit down restaurant. And I don't think that's particularly accurate. Idk the size of burgers at In and Out so I'm not sure if that's comparable.
But I don't know where a Big Mac Meal costs as much as claimed either.
Anyway, I can get an entree at a fast casual restaurant for the cost of a Big Mac Meal, or a medium smoothie. A taco bell meal is about equivalent. I don't eat Big Macs, when I eat McDonald's it's almost always a $2 breakfast sandwich with an app deal, but I'm just trying to price compare based on the reported price.
Ah, gotcha.
For price comparisons, here in Gilroy (cheapest town in the Bay Area to live in, which is still waaaay not cheap), a big mac meal is ~$14.50. In n Out is the only fast food chain I can think of where you can get a full meal for <$10, at least in the area.
That being said, there are about a billion different taco shops where you can get a gargantuan burrito, made with reasonably healthy rice, beans, cheese, and whatever meat you want, for well less than a $10. The franchises are all ridiculously expensive, but cheap and healthy(er) food is readily accessible if you look.
We have Mexican restaurants with lunch specials but it wouldn't be under that ten bucks, certainly not with a tip if you're eating in. Two street tacos will run like 8 bucks by themselves. I was using chains rather than local places for easy comparison, but a gyro or burger combo at a local place is 12 bucks before tax, carryout.
At one local college/dive bar it looks like you can get a 1/3 lb burger with a side for six bucks*. Drink extra but that's pretty good - I think their burgers suck, personally, and they're cash only. They do not thrive on their lunch, let me just say. That's really the only thing I can come up with that would slide under that ten bucks a meal not just an entrée.
There are a few real small local restaurants I've driven past but never been in that might match this. They're not close to me in the slightest for home or work and they're not accessible for my partner so we don't go other times. But I'd be hard pressed to get any meal, much less a good sit down one for the cost.
In the past, absolutely, in the past 2-3 years? Not a chance. Not even a giant burrito. Those are ten bucks at the lowest here. (And that's definitely at the authentic places. )
*It's possible this is inaccurate as they don't have an official menu online, I haven't been there in a while.
Yeah, that's absurd. I could have a much better burger & fries in a sit-down restaurant for that price.
this is the wrong direction. All of this junk food should have an added tax to punish people for eating like shit. McDonalds themselves should be making their shitty food healthier instead of making it smaller so they can claim a sub-600 calorie burger.
Lowering combos by 15% to lure you into drinking that terrible HFCS and eating fries is terrible, too.
Might as well just get a banh mi for cheaper with an individual salad roll on the side with a cup of water. Cheaper and healthier.
Because the poor really need another burden right now.
While I agree we need to try and encourage healthier options, idealism like this just punches people who are already struggling.
Income doesn't matter. Its not like McDonalds is cheaper than other places. This is going to sound mean or harsh -- but if you're poor, eating McDonalds is only adding more to the problem.
The blame is split, though. McDonalds should absolutely be making healthier burgers; and there's no reason they can't. Poor people absolutely need healthier food in general, since all this trash food does nothing to alleviate stress or make someone feel better.
I am absolutely not on board with RFK's ideas to prevent EBT people from buying garbage food, though. I am on board for a system that helps educate people on good diets AND I hope that creepy fuck finds a way to eliminate HFCS and take the US back to normal sugar.
I'm not American, so I have no dog in that fight. I just think their food supply is not good for the people and they're effectively killing their own tax payers, which doesn't make any sense.
Except it is? And often more importantly when doing these low income studies, it's what's actually in the neighborhood? Many of the poor communities don't actually have a wide variety of places to choose from. And as I already talked about in my other comment, cooking at home can be a privileged as well when you're juggling multiple jobs and children/school.
I mean....some of it is because it will cost more? If healthy food were just 1 to 1 cheaper, they'd do it, not even a question. The issue is it's often not (for all sorts of skewed reasons), but also that yes, unhealthy food is what your clients will choose 9/10 times. So raising prices for something that's going to be bought less (and often drive some % of your customers to competition that isn't trying, although that depends ) isn't really helping.
These are very complex problems that almost always harm the ones people claim they're trying to help when first thought approaches are applied.
They actually can very easily produce healthier burgers that are also cheaper by simply offering a non-meat version. Pound-to-pound it costs more than ten times more for beef than black beans. Tofu and gluten are also several times cheaper than beef. I have not been to McDonalds in years because they have zero healthy non-animal products to offer. They got rid of salads years ago and haven't looked back. I honestly think that, at least in the US, the management has basically just decided to coast on being the default fast food option in the country.
McDonalds has a very sophisticated product management that finely tunes its products for each market. Probably one of the most sophisticated food market research operation ever. Its products in each country are different, catering to local tastes. In India, their burgers are beefless and instead offer paneer, corn and cheese, and chicken.
They offer beef not as a conspiracy but because that's what consumers want in a free market. McDonalds withdrew its healthy options like salads and snack wraps in the US because American consumers weren't buying them. But the vegetarian McPlant burgers are offered in Europe, but they failed in the US.
If their analysis showed that Americans were willing to buy these products (at a worthwhile scale to justify the increase in logistical complexity) then they'd offer it and profit.
Most American consumers simply want beef burgers.
To be fair to the American consumer, their salads were the absolute worst and horrifically overpriced. Notice Wendy's still has salads and baked potatoes.
I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy, I'm saying that they simply have zero interest in expanding their market beyond the people who want those core menu items.
Why would McDonald's, a maximally profit-driven enterprise, have zero interest in expanding their market beyond those people?
I could give you many possibilities, but really my guess would be as good as yours. But if you wanted my extremely cynical take as to why McDonald’s isn’t trying to offer healthy food specifically it’s because healthy food isn’t as addictive as unhealthy food is. While it’s true that they haven’t made drastic improvements to their food menu, they have made drastic expansions to their drinks menu over the last decade or so, going so far as to open new restaurants that primarily focus on them.
They had healthier options. Consumers didn't buy them. They really tried.
Restaurants keep menu items around because they're popular. If items don't sell enough, why bother stocking them?
People aren't computers. They are animals with animal drives who can be rational for limited periods of time. Like you, sometimes they JUST don't want to cook. They want to grab something tasty, quick, and out. It can be a real drag living on a tight budget. They don't need people judging them when they act human like everyone else.
nobody has to cook if they dont want to --- but it feels like everybody here views McDonalds and other trash food as the only option, which it isn't.
I'm thinking that I am the only one here who lives in a city with good, inexpensive food that isn't tied to a mascot.
That may just be true.
I'm sure you have heard of the concept of "food deserts". Similar things probably apply to choices for eating out.
A big fallacy in many conversations is that people unconsciously assume that their situation is the same for everyone else.
I can think of several tourist towns where in the off season, your only viable pizza place is Dominos.
When you get outside cities, you start hitting places whether your options are "run-down italian place that failed food inspections," "random gas station," McDonalds, and Applebees. McDonalds really is the best option there.
Or drive 30 miles.
If this page is true, food deserts are also in with heavily populated areas. Seems like a relatively easy problem to solve, at least for the areas there I am familiar with.
I am very much the type to organize a group of people who take turns doing grocery runs.
There's so much shit going on, but this would be such an easy win for local governments.
I think lots of us are coming at this from an American perspective, but fast food really is the foundation of many poor households. In a lot of poorer communities there aren't other options. But I totally get where you're coming from. I think the use of behavioral scientists in food "development" is criminal.
I'd be ok with requiring something like a calorie maximum across menus, the way we do (or did) with MPG minimums across car fleets. But I'd like to see this in tandem with programs like market match programs, beyond just whats available if you're on food stamps. If we could make farmers markets subsidized, in a progressive tax sort of way with heavier subsidies for lower earners.
Anyway there are a ton of policy ideas we could come up with, but I don't see much changing. Fun to imagine though!
The calories aren't necessarily even the danger of fast food or restaurants in general. They can be, they'll happily serve up someone a 3000 calorie meal, but I've noticed a lot of fast food places have started displaying calories on their menus (on the actual menu, on a website, or in the app) but they don't quite as prominently display some of the other nutritional facts. It's easy to clear 150% DV of saturated fats without touching 2000 calories even. There may even still be some that have trans fats and very high cholesterol, and the sodium can be pretty astronomical.
I think McDonalds shows 450ish calories for a Double Cheeseburger, which honestly doesn't seem that bad, but then you look at the other nutritional facts of it and its quite a bit worse. In fact if you look at their nutritional calculator and the figures they choose to display more prominently, a double cheeseburger is 440 calories, 25g protein, 12% DV of carbs and 30% DV of total fat. Those are the numbers they want you to focus on. But if you look at the smaller numbers below that, its 11g 57% DV of saturated fat, 1.5g trans fat, 1120mg 49% DV sodium.
So take two of those and you're only at 880 calories. It's not the calories that are the killer there.
Making food at home is cheaper and healthier. Fast food is in no way good for the poor, they won't be able to afford the cost of degenerative disease later in life.
That said, GP's use of the word punish kinda sends the wrong message.
And is well documented as being something that struggling families often don't feel they have time for. The kind of family that's going to get screwed by this kind of tax is the kind that already has kids, and likely has both parents working at least 1 job. Between the shifts and the school, fast food becomes a very very attractive alternative.
When they DO shop and eat at home, it's often for quick and easy snack foods that take little prep. While it'd be nice to see more families migrate to slightly healthier and still quick to prepare frozen meals, it's often going to be a package of chips or cookies mixed with some sugary cereal because the time is a huge factor.
I wanna know how many people complaining about poor people not cooking food from scratch have ever had to juggle 2 part-time jobs without a car, walk a mile to a grocery store, and then walk back, and have the energy to spend 30+ minutes cobbling something healthy together. Particularly if you just spent 10 hours on your feet because retail workers aren't allowed to sit on their shift.
Opposed to just stealing a few burgers, nuggets, and fries at the end of the shift and saving yourself 2 hours of what precious little free time you have. This is exponentially harder with kids.
Late, but me. I was working 3 jobs after graduating BCIT. It's been long enough that I don't recall exactly how many hours I worked weekly, but 50 to 70 was normal.
I was doing keto, and the rest of my family was decidedly not - meaning I was doing all my own cooking, in addition to all the same day-to-day, "keep your adult head above water" shit I do now at 30.
I get it, it's not easy, and the simplest way for me to have enough time to get an appropriate number of calories down my neck was to do keto. But it's also just doing what needs to be done.
Hell, one job was a bakery, and it was suggested we cut small pieces and share a slice of some of the new products "So we could tell customers how it is". This didn't work on keto, and I politely declined, every time.
Tell me it's hard, it's draining, it's monotonous and'll turn into a blur - we'll agree, and how. But please don't tell me it can't be done, or can't be maintained effectively indefinitely, because I am one of those poor bastards that has been there, done that.
And applause to you for getting it done. It is admirable that you were able to.
That does not make it a moral failing for everyone else.
Because that implication is part of why suicide rates are record high.
This is only true if you have time, knowledge, and access to good grocery stores. A single mom working two jobs probably isn't making food at home that is cheaper or healthier than McDonalds. We used the microwave far more often than than the stove (when it worked).
My family was in a similar situation and the stuff we ate at home was also garbage. As a child the only meal I'd have for an entire day might simply have been doritos.
That sounds rough. But is the takeaway supposed to be that McDonalds is a good solution for overworked poor families? There's so much research about why that isn't true.
Poverty, wealth inequality, insufficent minimum wage, broken safety nets, food deserts, it all sucks and we should work to fix it. McDonalds doesn't belong anywhere in the list of solutions though.
Speaking of the US... There are numerous federal programs that provide poor people with free food, including SNAP, WIC and TEFAP. There's also the SFSF and CACFP. Many states have additional food programs for poor families. Many churches have food programs. There are all sorts of nonprofits that focus on getting food to poor families. There are food banks, food pantries. Some of the nonprofits even deliver. I say this not to imply that those programs are enough, they aren't as long as anyone is going hungry. I say it to illustrate that there are better, cheaper options than fast food which are widely available.
If people aren't finding those programs because, for example, McDonalds feels easier, that's not good. Their kids could be getting a lot more to eat, and food that is less likely to interfere with their development.
Just in case it needs to be said, I make no judgements about your Mom, I'm responding to the idea that fast food is a good option, or that people don't have a choice. They don't have a choice about being poor, but they absolutely have a choice between spending money they need for other things on fast food and programs that will effectively make them $100's to $1000's of dollars a month richer.
I volunteer at the local food bank, and the challenges members face are very numerous. Nobody is going to MCD because they can't find the programs, but we do see people going in addition to these programs because they are easier. Not everyone of course but there are some.
I know someone who works 10 hour shifts and drive considerable distance to and from home. Getting fresh groceries and taking them home with time to cook is a distant dream. They're just shoveling calories in before they fall asleep at the wheel so they can crash at home and do it over again in a few hours.
I know people whose homes have no working stoves and can't afford to replace them. Maybe there's a working toaster oven.
I know people who cannot store food at home because the fridge will be raided by housemates or randos who pass by.
Seniors who can't manage all that anymore.
Folks who never grew up with parents who cook either so they have no clue, and are blocked in by shame and cycles of wasted money getting groceries they don't know how to use. Our food bank has a "donate" back bin for dry goods and I know a lot of our produce simply gets tossed.
And that's just the folks we manage to reach. There are many who are working and can't make food bank hours : it takes money and time to be able to use programs.
I agree with you completely that fast-food isn't a good option: it's a terrible option. But I think we're all on the same page on that one, just differing angles on how much options people really have.
Oh man, I forgot about working 3rd shift in rural areas.
You get to start choosing between sleep and doing errands because nothing is open 24 hours.
I always think of threaded conversations as being about context.
In this particular sub thread I was replying to this:
That in reply to the suggestion that there should be a tax on fast food.
The only way that taxing fast food would be punching poor people would be if fast food were either a good or necessary option. It's neither.
So that was essentially my reply: it's not a good option.
Many replies, yours included, seem to be shoehorning all of the food challenges poor people face into the context of McDonalds, or fast food, where it doesn't fit as far as I can tell.
Fast food isn't helping to solve their problems, it's adding to them.
It sucks that, for example, some people don't have a working stove. That doesn't mean that fast food is their best alternative! It's one of their more expensive options.
And I suppose the shoehorning arises from the interpretation that if someone says fast food isn't good for poor people it means they don't understand how hard things are for people.
I don't believe that follows. I think it's a leap.
As far as options go, I don't believe that taking fast food out of the equation would cause anyone to starve. People are resourceful when it comes to survival, give them some credit.
On balance, fast food takes more from poor people than it gives, in the same way that industrialized, processed food does. Many of the ingredients in fast food are exactly that.
Note that I continue to not to be saying anything about what should be done about it, I'm not sure that a tax would be the right way to go, only that fast food isn't.
I see what you're saying, and yeah sorry, I think basically we agree with each other that while fast food isn't a solution, it's part of a complex state of how it current is
Sorry for the unrelated comment, but I was wondering. Why is it their Mom specifically you're not judging? They didn't mention any family members.
They did say this. It could easily be interpreted as that was their situation when they said "We", with the "we" being the children to the single mom.
Ok, I thought it as a general situation, but I can see it. Thanks.
I meant punish, though. Many countries have higher taxes on cigarettes, liquor, etc --- it should be the same for heavily processed foods.
The sad thing is that a lot of lower income families just don't have time or energy to make food at home. I can appreciate that. There just needs to be better options that aren't a 15% incentive to drink HFCS and potatoes covered with salt and heavily processed sugars.
You're referring to 'sin taxes.' Those exist in the states. Every time they get increased, a few more people quit smoking or drinking because they can't afford it anymore.
However, blanketing a similar tax on 'heavily processed foods' is far too large a blanket. Impossible beef, for example is ultra-processed.
And tackling just this aspect of the problem won't solve anything. I would say this is more like the last step. Food deserts are a real problem. Many poor areas have little to no grocery stores, and what does exist is still designed to make things worse. Quick frozen meals are really just salt-blocks, and the healthy stuff is marked up like crazy.
Contrary to the right's talking points, the majority of those struggling financially are not lazy at all. But minimum wage and the gig economy force them to work extreme hours just to make ends meet. By the time they get home, doing anything else is a massive burden.
The FDA is toothless and allows all kinds of gross ingredients to be used. They're not healthier but they are cheaper. Regardless of our income, so much of the food in the US contains literal garbage (petroleum processing byproducts for instance. Cheeze-its had/might still have that). The current administration is making the situation worse.
The US needs a massive paradigm shift where we the people get corporate money fully out of the government and spend decades electing and appointing people who have the peoples' interest at heart. Until then, it will just be more YouTube videos of Paul Hollywood complaining about how awful American Snickers bars are to British ones.
i agree with you across the board here on everything but sin tax. i’m not american, but i view sin taxes as a way to compensate the medical system for services you are likely to need more of as a result of smoking, drinking, poor diet, etc.
i don’t think this would be the case in the US with it all being private.. unless it went to Obama care, which it should.
I also think that impossible products should be taxed the same since they’re also garbage. :)
Or you know actually encourage businesses (or have government ran ones and that the Democratic candidate for NYC mayor has this as one of his platforms (obligatory fuck Cuomo)) to go into the food deserts, which is a area that does not have access to food (or affordable food for the people living that area) within a mile in a urban setting and 10 miles in rural areas, and into food swamps, areas that does have access to food, but it tends to be highly processed very cheap food, to expand the food options to be more healthier than what is being offered in those places right now. The people that are living in these areas do actually want to eat healthier foods, they literately can't because of where they live, so by imposing a fucking sin tax on food that these people are quite literately are forced to eat because of socioeconomic factors that they have no control over, is not a good move on the government's part. And because hungry people are a lot less reasonable and a lot more angrier than people that have a stomach full of food (no matter the quality), the ancient Roman politicians knew this that is how they controlled the general population.
taxes don’t have to be universal, though.
no idea what the solution is for these areas, but it seems like a good place for vertical farming (and related industries) to get in and hold an easy monopoly while benefiting the community.
on a related but absolutely off-topic tangent — all high schools should teach actual cooking skills, nutrition, etc so people can do the best with what they have.
This feels all a bit too hand-wavey. Where do these businesses “get in” from? Who pays for a vertical farming-style operation and (possibly newly constructed) buildings in a poor, rural area until, if ever, it becomes profitable? Is it guaranteed that their prices can ever match or outdo the massively-scaled existing industries?
Unfortunately, nearly everything in this topic revolves around cost (which in turn is due to American workers’ poor position), not food quality or (one may dream) even environmental impact.
Agreed on your tangent, though :-)
not the US, but this sort of thing is happening with startups trying to help food deserts — https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-indoor-farming-growing-1.7241104
Only if said sin tax are proportionally pegged to income + savings. Jeff Bezos private jet should cost him percentage-wise as much as it would cost me to take a private jet or first class flight. It'll pay for absolutely everything if we did that. A rich person smoking or drinking pop should cost as much proportionally.
Anything short is just punishing the poor.
That’s not really the point of sin taxes. Revenue is one thing, but mainly it’s to change behavior away from harmful actions. The government wants less people to get lung cancer - and you should also want to have less lung cancer.
If Bezos wants to spend his way to getting lung cancer… I mean, if you don’t like Bezos, you should cheer for him to smoke more cigarettes and eat more McDonald’s? Then he’ll be fat and have lung cancer.
Private jets have a heavy cost to our climate though. But as for people who like drinking coke and eating mcd or whatever, apparently they can do so with abandon into their eighties and still convince a decent number of Americans that they appear healthy, so....
And most Americans are obese and still at it despite rising costs. If all we're aiming for is change of behaviour, the tax needs to be one of many prongs of action.
Meanwhile I'm all for re-couping revenue (proportional to wealth) to pay for damages from collective sin.
That’s kind of apples and oranges. Flying isn’t a sin. That would go under something like a Co2 tax.
A sin tax is a tax on something that’s bad for you. Not the environment, not the world, you. Drinking, gambling, smoking are the famous examples. These harm yourself. The point isn’t to “collect damages from collective sin”, the point is to get people to stop harming themselves in a more gradual way than a straight up ban. The former is, again, more of a externality tax situation.
All that is to say, my point is that these aren’t mutually exclusive, they’re mostly unrelated and disjoint policies. You can have one or the other, both, or neither.
I'm less familiar with sin tax specifics, but I believe that they are set at the state level, and the revenue is typically used for good. Since we don't have universal healthcare, I think it usually goes to state level education or parks or other social programs.
no idea. i’m not american, but i believe NYC has its own cigarette tax that is beyond the NY state tax, though.
Cigarettes, liquor etc. aren't necessary for survival, whereas food is. Sure, heavily processed food isn't necessary for survival, but if that is what is available to you within the constraints of your living circumstances, then the tax is directly going towards making your survival more difficult.
While I don't think it's your intention I have a few concerns with this type of...food moralizing? Food is just food. It's not good or bad.
My grandmother often wanted a BK's frozen coke while she was going through chemo. Does that really merit punishment because someone else views it through a moral lens that says it's "bad" just because it lacks nutritional value?
I'm not debating on the predatory behavior of fast food companies in general, but I think that merits a discussion on how companies prey on systems of poverty, food scarcity, education on nutrition and serving sizes, etc. rather than moralizing the nature of a burger. I've certainly been served salads with a higher calorie count.
Anyway, I don't think it's your intention to be the big bad food police but I wanted to offer a different perspective as someone who dealt with an eating disorder that resulted from viewing food through a "good/bad" compass.
you can eat like shit in moderation... but nobody should be eating fast food more than once a month.. if that. To say that 'food is just food. its not good or bad' is terribly misinformed. The processed trash that McDonalds and other fast food brands serve is so heavily processed that its barely considered food anymore.
The purpose of food is to give your body fuel, this trash doesn't do it. But like I said, its fine once in a while... same goes for eating cheesecake.
There's a reason average Americans are ~30lbs heavier than they were in the 70s and its because the food itself is bad.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'misinformed'. My comment that 'food is food' was not related to the nutritional value of different foods or how that nutrition subsequently affects health. My comment was on how calling things bad, shit, trash can result in people having negative relationships with food. I don't disagree with ideas of moderation, of providing your body the nutrition it needs, etc. Here's a yt short that might do a better job of explaining what I was specifically addressing.
trust in hunger cues is fine if you understand healthy eating… but if your hunger cues are going for fat and salt etc — that is not the intention of the movement.
Sometimes your body does need fat and salt, though. Not always, of course. But insisting that certain things -- especially basic nutrients like these -- are universally bad and evil to eat doesn't actually help improve people's health. In fact, fucking up someone's relationship with food by moralizing too excessively is potentially far more harmful to their health, as it can absolutely itself lead to unhealthy or even disordered eating habits.
you don’t need and shouldn’t want saturated fats or trans fats.
The words "saturated" and "trans" do not appear in my comment or in the comment I replied to. The idea that someone "shouldn't want" them is absurd. Your body's hunger signals and cravings are not granularly distinguishing types of fats like that, and your body does actually need fats in general. Much like it also needs salt.
Also, don't tell me what I should and shouldn't want. It's not your place.
of course our bodies need fat, but this thread is all in the context of fast food like McDonalds.
if you aren't commenting on that, I'm not sure why you got involved. Seems like you chirped in to pick an argument about something unrelated to the thread.
I won't be replying to anything after this, so feel free to get in a really scathing last word. :)
There is a country - Singapore, I think - that actually gives people free vouchers for healthy meals. That encourages their marketplace of food hawkers to not only sell the stuff that are calorie bombs as well as encouraging buyers to choose the healthier stuff. I wish more countries did this.
right! that's really how it should be done. I'm not all 'the government needs to step in and tell restaurants what to do' -- but programs like this are so simple.
judging by this thread, it seems like there's a lot of room for education when it comes to basic nutrition and the true cost of eating fast food.
Isn’t this what RFK Jr is doing with not allowing EBT users to purchase processed foods
I don't agree with restrictions like this. They should be educating folks... but that's outside of McDonalds and the others. There's a real issue with portions and the quality of food in the US that should be properly addressed; but telling EBT people what they can and can't by isn't right.
People still shouldn't be eating this stuff. It ultimately comes down to a lot of people being unaware of what is available unless its being advertised. Can't fault them on that.
It just occurred to me a few months ago I had lunch with a friend. I got a banh mi for $15 which I thought ( and still think ) was pricey. Since I haven't eaten at a McDonald's in my adult life I had no idea Big Mac meals were in the same price range.
hot damn. that's an expensive banh mi, too. It should be illegal for it to be over $10CAD :)
That would be $20.86 CAD.
If the exchange rates like that stay the same I might just retire to Canada.
Thing is, I can remember when a meal in one of my favorite side down restaurants was $15 USD without the tip. Now it is a fast food price. I just don't eat alone that much anymore.
$20 for a banh mi better have a ten-spot tucked above the pate.
the food desert thing is terrible, but it really seems like it could be moderately solved with some basic coordination… sort of like food gangs in the 70s or whenever.
Used to be two different banh mi places right next to each other in Toronto's Chinatown, selling banh mi's for like 2$. $15 just seems insane.
right! i would have no will to live in a world with a fifteen dollar banh mi. it isn’t right.
Long story short:
McDonald's like other corporations have been using inflation as camouflage for price gouging.
The law of physics for economics, supply and demand, finally kicked in. Demand is down since their prices are too high.
Rather than return their prices to normal they are only inching forward on price reductions so they can keep as much as the price gouging as possible.
Would anyone disagree with that assessment?
I think the change is that they're now using a pricing model that pizza chains like Domino's have for years now.
The menu prices are high, and the intention is that anyone price conscious will go search out a coupon code, app deal, or similar. That way, they get maximum dollars from the people who aren't paying attention.
I refuse to download the McDonald's app and let them slurp up information about me, so effectively, this means I just never eat there anymore. It's no big loss anyway.
Inflation isn't camouflage for anything. I feel like people treat inflation as some kind of sentient force, or like a natural disaster, when inflation is the measure of something - the rate of change of prices, in this case. "Inflation caused McDonalds to increase their prices" is like saying "Velocity caused the car to move forward".
Companies don't need any excuses or guises to raise prices. They just do. That's their right as a independent company. "Price gouging" is highly ill defined term - in practice, it just means "times when prices go up and the vibes are bad".
You're right about supply and demand. Demand may be falling, and thus Mickie D's is lowering their prices. Fast food, as an inferior good, has elastic demand and is more sensitive to price changes than other goods. That's just things running as they should.
Inflation is a force, an economic force. Price gouging is charging unreasonably high prices because you know customers have no choice. As in all your competitors doing the same thing.
That becomes questionable ethically for necessities. At the start of the pandemic I paid about 95 cents for a small plastic jar of dry roasted sunflower seeds. One of the cheapest sources of vitamin E, zinc, and selenium. It now costs almost a $1.80.
Most businesses stay away from sudden and high price increases. It makes them look bad and their business suffers. Real inflation provides a reason for raising prices, so it can be used as a cover for businesses raising prices more than they have to. Price gouging.
No, that's price collusion. Price gouging is defined in the dictionary as
The crux there is "unfairly". Unfairly is a subjective determination. There's no objective definition of "unfair". One man's unfair is another man's fair. It's about vibes, in the end. Prices increase in an economic boom? Good vibes, baby. Price increases in a negative time? Bad vibes, it's unfair!
I mean, this just isn't how businesses interact with consumers, especially at a grocery store level.
Did the sunflower company email you about how they didn't want to raise prices but y'know inflation and all. And then because they emailed you that, you didn't respond (how would you respond anyhow?).
Probably not. You just went to the store one day and the price was higher. And the only way you can respond, as a consumer, is change the decision of what product you buy for vitamins. Which would be the same no matter what the overall inflation rate is.
In the context of prices going up during recent inflation it's important to bear in mind that a lot of big companies were posting record profits. Many companies didn't just raise prices to keep up with inflation, they raised them well beyond that.
It's a complicated topic because so many factors are involved with inflation but I believe the consensus is that corporate profits accounted for a larger than usual share of recent inflation.
Here's one take:
https://groundworkcollaborative.org/work/inflation-revelation-how-outsized-corporate-profits-drive-rising-costs/
That again gets into this misconception of what inflation is, that it’s some kind of tsunami that lifts prices. Inflation is the measurement of the change of prices, it doesn’t cause anything - something else causes inflation, in the same way that a car does not move forward because of velocity but its engine.
If aggregate demand for products increases, as would be in a case, say, after large stimulus programs are passed, then prices will increase. Because demand increases, and price is the intersection of supply and demand.
It’s not that “”inflation”” happens and you’re supposed to react by increasing your price by some set amount. Some economic impact occurs that affects demand or supply, and the effects ripple out from there.
Of course it does, increases in prices cause an increase of cost of goods sold for companies, who then raise their prices to compensate. I guess you could say that inflation isn't the cause because inflation isn't the price increase but rather the measurement, but that just seems like semantics. Inflation has been used as a blanket term for the phenomenon for a long time.
The other important thing it causes is headlines, and when the headlines start many companies see it as an opportunity to raise prices more than they need to under the assumption that consumers will accept it under the guise of inflation. It's not new, it's default corporate thinking at this point. The difference this time around is that the unnecessary price increases were bigger and more widespread than usual.
Your model of inflation is overly simplistic. There's no "origin point" where the first person raises their price and then it cascades outward, everyone waiting for their input prices to be affected before they raise their output prices.
If all of the sudden you can only make half the widgets you usually make because of COVID disrupting your labour force, you might raise your prices. If you have a 1.5x increase in the number of people who are buying your product thanks to a stimulus package, you might raise your prices. If you're input costs go up, you might raise your prices. If you think you can raise your prices and make more money, you might raise your prices. If you want to raise your prices for no reason at all, you might raise your prices.
Collectively, this is measured as inflation.
It was one example of inflation (average prices going up) causing something, not a model. Is the implication that I, or anyone else, actually thinks that inflation is as simple as the example I gave?
I would disagree in the sense that it proposes this as though it's some unique event or that there aren't certain rules to how it works. Every day there's some suit wearing assholes somewhere out there going into a meeting with their bullshit charts and sheets of metrics and other information with their primary goal to make more money and with only enough concern for how they get it that it doesn't backfire on them. If they could sell you literal shit and get away with it without consequence, they would. Regulations and regulatory bodies help mitigate that, consumer self interest and competition are the primary force. You wouldn't want to eat shit and if you knew you were, you'd likely go anywhere else that doesn't serve literal shit after that.
Inflation is actually a reason to raise prices, including uncertainty of inflation. Perception cuts in multiple ways. You can perceive it as they raised prices too much initially and are resistant to lowering, but you can also perceive other actions as businesses constantly raising prices and baiting people in with low prices to begin with, like streaming services in the last decade or so. So if you are a business selling something, raising prices slightly that don't account for what the true costs of inflation will be in the next couple years not only costs you money, but could also negatively impact perception of your business more than if you had taken the hit in perception in one go rather than repeatedly over time.
The regulatory and market forces that keep any business from just charging whatever they wanted before are still there (well regulatory forces may change depending on what dipshit gets elected). But the point being that they couldn't sell you literal shit before because it would backfire on them, and just because significant inflation is occurring still doesn't mean they can sell you literal shit as it would still backfire on them. There's still a limit to what they can get away with.
This is off topic.
McDonald's in Brazil was always a luxury, and Brazilians love it. No one seems to care about the price because it is viewed as a premium brand. Somewhere you go on a special day.
With the same money I spend on a satisfying meal at McDonald's, I can buy a full local meal with the best meat there is -- Brazilian picanha. Including beverage. So that's what I usually get.
Every single local burger in the country is better than McDonald's, and they are usually cheaper. Despite that, lines at McDonald's are always huge, showing the power of marketing.
When I talk to young people about this, they usually agree McDonald's is shit, but they always say, "But the fries are good!". Which is insane because that is not the main dish. It's a burger shop, and the burger feels and tastes like biting into plastic. This is like saying "the steak at that steakhouse is shit, but the mashed potatoes are awesome!". Who cares?
And the Fries become garbage after 5 minutes.
That's crazy to me that people knowingly pay more for less
My unpopular opinion is that soggy McDonald’s fries are better than fresh ones.
Gasp
My shock as I read this and voted for this comment for your bravery
Couldn't you just .... defrost a bag of raw McCain's and have the same experience?
No, there’s something different about McD fries. I think it’s that they’re so airy (probably for price reasons).
Tbf there’s a lot of actual dishes with soggy fries, like poutine and “random-shit-on-chips”, so I think people are just in denial about enjoying texture of wilted fries.
My guess is that they really get all the starch out of them and add a bit of sugar.
I prefer my poutine with gravy on the side, like a heretic. I don't even like ketchup/wet condiments on them until a moment before it's to be consumed.
I've felt like McDonalds hasn't been worth getting for a long while now. When I lived in the states, I remember every time we would get it, thinking I'd been ripped off for what we paid compared to what we were getting. The only aspect that was nice about it was that it was fast, but the food just wasn't worth it. Though, I think that had extended to most fast food for us. It often felt like it would make more sense to just pay the bit extra to go to a better restaurant and enjoy the experience or get something healthier.
When I first visited Malaysia, I did try the McDonalds here and remember realizing how much better it tasted than the US locations I'd been to. It felt more worth my money, and some of the regional specific things they served were delicious. Also, learning that KFC was known for having delicious rice was something I remember being shocked about.
Now that I've lived here for a few years, McDonalds has become somewhere I avoid just as much as I did in the US. It is more expensive than getting local food at a hawker center or a kopitiam, and they have also shrunk their burgers down and raised the prices over the years so every time I go (usually family members decide we should go there for something different) I'm even more disappointed that I went and suggest that if we want burgers we should go to a local chain that offers more value. One of the burgers they sell here is a Prosperity Burger (link is to a Singaporean site also they have it there) during Chinese New Year. The first time I went I thought this was great, but I got one after we had moved over here and in the ~5 years since I had tried it they had decreased the size to the point that I thought I had received teh wrong item and had to go confirm that it was the correct one.
I remember years ago taking a photo of my filet o fish1, and its diameter is the same as my credit card width. This year I went again and the audacity of them giving me half a slice of American processes cheesefood was so insulting I hope the memory last me the rest of my life2
1. Don't judge me too harshly. The fish burger is the normal default item one gets at a Hong Kong MCD. It's the item with the single longest fond memories of the franchise, even more so than the friesUgh McDonald's… The thing I know I should not eat, but still do sometimes out of a mix of convenience and nostalgia. I grew up in Eastern Europe. McDonald’s appears in the early 90s along with other western stuff. It was awesome. Staff smiled and treated you well, and the food was new to everyone. We only saw it in movies. It was kind of surreal.
Nostalgia induced temporary amnesia is the only reason I go into one still, however infrequent. My brain remembers the restaurants looking like these nostalgic remnant locations in HK and the flavours or the experience of eating a "western" food menu.
I got an old family photo with my sister and grandparents on the bench next to the clown.
How expensive was a happy meal or going in general in the early 90s, compared to say, going out for local style meal at a mom and pops restaurant. Did they have birthday parties for (seemingly) kids from wealthy families too?
I don’t remember, and this was not a birthday party destination. Birthdays were done at home with friends and family over.
I can only assume it was not too pricy given my grandparents could afford taking me and my sister there.
I can't remember the last time I had lunch or dinner at McDonald's. About three years ago, I went to the McDonald's that had just opened in my little rinky dink town and had an egg McMuffin and a glass of orange juice. As I recalled, that used to be one of the better choices as far as quality of the food. The price was so shocking, I haven't been back.
Why anyone would pay the high prices they are asking for the crappy food that McDonald's makes is beyond my understanding. Doing it once? Sure, learn from your mistake. Just don't repeat it.
In general I end up avoiding McDonald's for reasons already repeatedly stated. Unfortunately, my wife's pregnancy appetite has it on the short list of things that doesn't make her nauseous to even think about. Bringing prices down to be actually affordable, and ideally even further down to bring them in line with the quality, would be nice. I guess any little bit will save me something until we can go back to not eating it though.
Pregnant wife? My dude, you have more McDonald's in your future in a few years.
I hate eating at McDonald's, before kids, I hadn't set foot in one in decades. But there comes a point when you're parenting and it's too hot or too cold outside to go to the park. Going to one of the few indoor playgrounds that cost $30 per person ($60 just for you and baby, God forbid you have more than one) to get into and don't allow you to bring your own food to isn't an option and suddenly, a McDonald's with a PlayPlace starts to make some sense.
You can get something in to your picky kid, you can have a bite to eat (even if it's terrible) and a cup of coffee, plus some quiet time to read your book all for about $25. I'm not saying it's the best thing in the world or you want your kids to be eating it all the time, but it makes a lot of sense when you're at a certain point in your parental journey. When your kid is old enough to need to be gotten out of the house, but not old enough for school, daycare is too expensive and you just need something to do so they can get the energy out and you can have a moment to yourself.
humblebrag, at around that age we were able to homeschool and usually went to places like the museum, art gallery, library, aquarium, science center etc with lunch room, and the kid is thoroughly exhausted and or adequately stimulated by lunch time. So for a while, I gritted my teeth and paid for expensive cafeteria snack plus home packed lunch. But it also means the food was always good and my kid turns their nose up at McDonalds as a kid, and especially now as a teen that it's for babies.For play place type things Burger King has at least tolerable to quite decent fast food. Dairy Queen has no such facilities but boasts ice cream with meal. Wendy's has that cool drink machine and frosty. What else.....
We have plenty of alternatives to fill those needs that we both prefer. It's entirely just a craving thing. I don't think we've ever gone there when she wasn't pregnant. She didn't even want just a burger from our normally preferred places. She was just craving a big mac.
Oof yeah. I have a family member with ARFID and McD fries are one of the few foods they can actually eat without getting sick. Picky kids are one thing, kids with illnesses that only McDonald's can help is absolutely awful, and I feel for the poor kid.
Funny thing is, mom and dad don't like McDonald's, nor did mom eat it while pregnant with kiddo. They figured out the fries were a safe food by pure accident and out of absolute exhaustion and desperation.
It's often the consistency of fast food/packaged foods that make them safe foods, not just for ARFID but also for other sensory/neurodivergent folks. I had found a frozen Martha Stewart "handpie" that I really liked and it was a go-to safe food for me, and my partner made the homemade recipe version she had online. It was good but it wasn't exactly the consistency and flavor expectation of the frozen meals. So it was fine but didn't replace the frozen. (Then of course, it was discontinued because all things I love must be. ). I'm less bound to those safe foods than others, but when I'm not hungry and need to eat, it helps to have those things around. All of which to say, it's not surprising that those fries are the hit
/Rabbithole
100%. I've also got sensory issues related to foods and having those safe foods is such an important part of life.