Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 611 posts

Re: McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

#101

Post by roywiggins »

shkkmo wrote: post #67
roywiggins wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's true about wage growth, especially at the low end: https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/ > In stark contrast to prior decades, low-wage workers experienced dramatically fast real [inflation-adjusted] wage growth between 2019 and 2023

Your source lists wage growth during that period as 13.2% Meanwhile inflation over that period is significantly higher at 19.18%. So, no, low end wage growth has not kept up with inflation.

13.2% real wage growth, not nominal wage growth. Real wage growth is what you get after inflation is subtracted out of nominal wage growth. 0% real wage growth would be keeping up with inflation.

Re: McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

#102

Post by roywiggins »

pluralmonad wrote: post #27
notepad0x90 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should consume a lot less beef. Wages haven't caught up with inflation in a long while, I'd hope McDonalds paying more would trigger a nationwide increase in wages (I know, too optimistic).

Agreed. Sheep are a much more sustainable ruminant and we should all shift that way. I always heard it was spoiled cans of mutton fed to GIs that killed Americas taste for sheep. More importantly, we should stop eating food shipped in from far away. Not as easy as it sounds.

Shipping is really a tiny proportion of the environmental cost of food, especially meat.

Re: McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

#103

Post by somenameforme »

walthamstow wrote: post #81
detritus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, £4.20 for a Double Bacon & Egg McMuffin is just ... no. Why? I could swear it wasn't that long ago it was under £3. For a fiver I can get a better 'real' Bacon & Egg bap from an independent.

I paid £5.09 for a sausage and egg mcmuffin meal with coffee and a hash brown this morning. I think that's pretty reasonable, especially for London.

I have quite a lot of difficulty eating out once you start cooking at home, because think of what you are buying:

- one English muffin (is it called an English muffin in England?)

- one slice of cheese

- one egg

- one slice of ham

- one cup of coffee

- one hashbrown

£5.09 for that? Obviously when you buy from a restaurant you're paying for their labor, rent, electric, and much more so it makes sense - McDonald's franchisees tend to operate on single digit profit margins even at that cost. But mehhh, still. And then the food you end up buying is packed full of preservatives and other additives and artificial ingredients.

Re: McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

#104

Post by pseudalopex »

jameslk wrote: post #54
forgotoldacc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a nice excuse from the executives, but it doesn't align with reality. McDonald's profits have been rising every year. [1] If those dastardly minimum wage workers and their fat paychecks were putting even the slightest bit of pressure on struggling McDonald's, the expectation would be some sort of reduction in profit. But it's the total opposite. Profits are outpacing whatever losses they're (not) experiencing…

What are McDonald’s profits adjusted for inflation?

McDonald's net margin doubled from 16% to 32% in 10 years.[1]

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MCD/mcdonalds/prof...

Re: McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

#105

Post by billy99k »

stego-tech wrote: post #58
shoddydoordesk wrote: post #32

[flagged]

Both things can be true, you know. Yes, its food is abysmally unhealthy, but it’s effectively the de facto national cafeteria of the continental United States by virtue of its widespread footprint and (previously) low prices. In an ideal world, we should be challenging both, rather than throwing up our hands and pleading confusion because someone can’t hold two truths simultaneously.

"In an ideal world, we should be challenging both"

Not really. Calling food poison and then complaining that poor people can't afford it implies that you support poor people eating poison and or eating the food.

The first complaint implies that they shouldn't be eating it at all and result is that I just can't take the second complaint seriously.

It's just a way to shit on big corporations without having to take responsibility.

Re: McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

#106

Post by pseudalopex »

stego-tech wrote: post #44

These articles deliberately skew reality to fit an anti-worker narrative. All the focus is on costs of labor and materials, with not one single sentence devoted to McDonald’s own financials - like the growth of their margins, the share buybacks performed, the executive compensation, or the franchising model itself. When I was rallying for a higher minimum wage and was challenged on it driving up costs, I made it abun…

Looking at McDonald's finances would have made the article better. And it mentioned their claims about labor costs. But it cited analysis which contradicted those claims.

Re: McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

#107

Post by somenameforme »

f1shy wrote: post #48
notepad0x90 wrote: post #6

Perhaps this is a good thing? Are people eating healthier home-made foods now?

I do not think this is exactly true. People may stop eating junk outside. But having a healthy balanced diet is more expensive than buying junk and eating at home; and not only in money, but more importantly (maybe) in time. Cooking takes time and effort, which families with both working parents may struggle with. Please do not forget often those people have more exhausting and abusive jobs. I know from first hand, h…

The problem is that people don't know how to cook. Something like pressure cookers (or crock pots where appropriate) are amazing for this sort of scenario. There are endless recipes you can find online that are toss a few ingredients in, wait, eat. Easy clean up, and delicious. I increasingly think cooking should be a part of basic education for everybody.

Stuff like rice, beans, and chicken breast are extremely cheap, and most of the way towards a balanced diet by themselves. And cookers are like magic - just toss a bunch of stuff in, some spices, and it will come out amazing. I like a bit of yogurt as my fat, but you can go way cheaper - just toss some lard in there, it'll taste great.

Re: McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

#108

Post by notepad0x90 »

lysace wrote: post #79
notepad0x90 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should consume a lot less beef. Wages haven't caught up with inflation in a long while, I'd hope McDonalds paying more would trigger a nationwide increase in wages (I know, too optimistic).

Meat-based proteine is important in so many different ways. Yes, it is possible avoid meat and still have a child develop well. It was also possible to install Linux on your PC in 1991/1992. Most people couldn't, but the really smart (or special) ones could.

I meant beef specifically, not meat in general. Our ancestors didn't eat bovine meat every single day like we do now. Plus cows take up lots of grazing ground, and I'm not happy about how they're treated worse over time because we keep eating more of them, and that requires more and more cruel ways of supplying that beef.

Chicken and sheep seem to be more sustainable. But either way, I think it is good for our health to rotate the types of meat we eat and lower the portions a bit? But it's easier said than done for sure.

Re: McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

#109

Post by somenameforme »

f1shy wrote: post #97
esafak wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you lack the planning skills to soak them in the morning or the night before. Besides, hydrated canned beans are perfectly affordable.

Like if the single mum living of a minimum wage has time and energy while dressing the 2 kids to not forget such things. Sorry I know such people that I profoundly admire. I feel is just unfair such a comment. I have enough time and little stress in my life, I can plan what I’m going to cook the next week. But I could never criticize that people for not being able to.

Critique isn't necessarily just mean spirited. It's rather difficult to know what you don't know, and so many people do awful things without knowing there are alternatives.

The example he gave of beans is perfect. They can be done almost completely passively, are healthy, and dirt cheap. Add some rice, a meat, and you have a delicious dirt cheap meal that takes probably less than 5 minutes of active effort, and also has minimal cleanup time as well.

Like this article had some quote about somebody in it spending $20 at McDonalds for some drinks and bemoaning there being nothing healthier. That's simply ridiculous. And if somebody told them that and explained why - they could very possibly dramatically increase the quality of this person's life.

Re: McDonald's is losing its low-income customers

#110

Post by stego-tech »

billy99k wrote: post #105
stego-tech wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both things can be true, you know. Yes, its food is abysmally unhealthy, but it’s effectively the de facto national cafeteria of the continental United States by virtue of its widespread footprint and (previously) low prices. In an ideal world, we should be challenging both, rather than throwing up our hands and pleading confusion because someone can’t hold two truths simultaneously.

"In an ideal world, we should be challenging both" Not really. Calling food poison and then complaining that poor people can't afford it implies that you support poor people eating poison and or eating the food. The first complaint implies that they shouldn't be eating it at all and result is that I just can't take the second complaint seriously. It's just a way to shit on big corporations without having to take resp…

You’re grossly misunderstanding the broader arguments through misrepresenting the claims as tied together, rather than the standalone grievances they are. A single system can have multiple flaws that interact on each other without necessarily creating a single, larger issue.

McDonald’s food is unhealthy and should be improved. At the same time, they have become too expensive for the poorer working classes to afford. These are two different problems, with different solutions.

You’re basically arguing that because I cannot demonstrate “one easy fix” to a complex issue of nuance that I’m essentially advocating for poisoning people, and it demonstrates your complete inability to grasp simultaneous truths or discuss complex issues effectively without misrepresenting opposition to score points.

Go away.

Post reply on HN