McDonalds is the only restaurant I enjoy eating at with my 2 and 3 year olds. Every other restaurant is a slog to get through the meal. Honestly I'd eat there more often if it weren't for the social stigma of it. (I live in Berkeley).
I am pretty sure the cheeseburger, apple slices, and chocolate milk are not much worse, and probably better, than the typical fare on a slapped together kids meal.
When I was a kid, my dad would take me to the local McDonalds to do math, several times a week. They'd let us sit there ordering nothing but sodas in a comfy booth for hours. These are some of my fondest childhood memories.
There are some issues with McDonalds, but it is a pleasant user experience.
People finding community of some form is not just a good thing, it's an essential thing to human life. It should always be lauded. However, there is a lot of socioeconomic and sub-cultural in-group/out-group judgement in US society, all of which feels absolutely justified by those doing the judging.
In reality, it's all exactly the same sort of crap that was portrayed on Mad Men. Such prejudice is the same, whether it is enacted by tweed jacket wearing Ivy Leaguers, rural low-brow native americans, "poor white trash," urban black people, affluent Koreans, undergraduate students, "Social Justice Warriors," or Bay Area programmers. I should know, because I've been on the receiving end of it from all of the above, while also being a member of about half those groups. (Often having diametrically opposed things projected onto me!)
When it comes down to it, people should be given a chance as individuals, not summarily judged as units of a group. (Martin Luther King Jr. put it best...)
I swear, when I hear some fellow "liberals" talking about their own rural underclass or Republicans or Christians, the kind of disdain that comes across seems like something that should no longer exist in the 21st century, outside of movies about the Jim Crow south.
> Knowing, for example, that the Founding Fathers were all secular deists. Knowing that you're actually, like, 30 times more likely to shoot yourself than an intruder. Knowing that those fools out in Kansas are voting against their own self-interest and that the trouble is Kansas doesn't know any better. Knowing all the jokes that signal this knowledge.
Doesn't Vox exist to perpetuate this kind of nonsense? It's undergraduate level politics dressed up as stone tablet commandments. Isn't Vox's very reason to provide political analysis to those otherwise 'too stupid' to know what's going on?
This, from today, is another classic of the genre.
A Guardian columnist walking round one of the UK's poorest districts bewildered that white working class people do not share his opinions on the European Union:
No, that is not a fact at all. It's a guess. A projection. You have no idea what the EU is going to look like in five years, let alone twenty or thirty.
>Smugness is certainly a fact, but so is that brexit will leave the UK economically worse off in pretty much all respects. Especially the poor.
Citation needed. But not those made-up by economists, pundits and bureaucrats making money by being pro-EU and working within EU organization and with EC money...
It's like global warming. You can always find a crackpot who has a contrary opinion, but the fact that every single "neutral" economist apart from those with a monetary interest in Brexit agrees is a pretty strong indication - from the IMF over US investment banks to the Chinese government and the UK statistics authority - not to speak of stock markets and FX markets which sell off everytime the risk of Brexit rises, and rally when the risk of Brexit falls. So people put their money where their mouth is.
The top American "neutral" economists told us that everything was great in the real estate market right before 2008.
Sterling is up against USD since March. Besides, a low pound can be good for exports/manufacturing. The idea that if the pound drops against the USD it's categorically "bad" is untrue and simplistic.
When David Cameron was campaigning, he said he'd be glad to have a referendum and he thought that a Brexit might actually be better for the UK. Thanks to that he was voted in with a majority, and promptly changed his tune to saying a Brexit would be lead to a catastrophe. Funny how he changed his mind so quickly. Also funny how the "neutral" economists didn't pipe up to correct Cameron during the election.
> The top American "neutral" economists told us that everything was great in the real estate market right before 2008.
The US housing bubble collapse was widely and publicly predicted by leading independent (that is, those not working for banks or government) economists of every political stripe for many years before the collapse.
Those independent economists were not the ones being trotted out on the media talk shows back then, and there's no reason to think the independent economists would be trotted out now for this Brexit debate.
I don't really believe there are neutral economists. Not many in any case. Almost all economists are involved with government's, policy decisions, and financial institutions and interests.
And they comingle with people in power and others with large interests all the time.
It's like having a computer science professor in "databases" that's also a stakeholder in MongoDB.
>which sell off everytime the risk of Brexit rises, and rally when the risk of Brexit falls. So people put their money where their mouth is.
That's only short term assets they play with -- to make a quick buck on the uncertainty before and after a Brexit--, it doesn't show anything with regards to the medium- and long-term prospects of a Brexit.
I'm from Kansas. I grew up with these kinds of voters. The problem isn't that they "don't know any better". It's that the way the party system is aligned in the U.S., you can vote for one side that may help your economic situation but is pretty much in favor of everything you abhor socially, or you can vote for the other side that won't do much for you economically, but at least pretends to care about the same things you do.
If the Republicans made themselves more like the Lib Dems in Australia, or the Christian Dems in Germany they'd have a clean sweep. But then they'd also lose Wall Street, large chunks of the Libertarian wing of Silicon Valley, and would probably end up having to fracture first.
Probably. Still figuring some of these parties out. All I know here is that many of the issues like healthcare, gun control, smoking regulations, etc. are mostly supported by both the left-leaning and right-leaning parties here. But support for any one of these issues would be enough to get you kicked out of the Republicans in the U.S.
The point being, you could likely make a party in the U.S. that kept most of the socially conservative stuff from the GOP and still picked up more of the economically "liberal" issues in the U.S., many of which are moderate in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere, and make it work.
That's exactly what Trump has tapped into (ie anti-free trade like the left; anti-immigration, pro-life, pro-guns like the right). It's the same populism underlying early 20th century European movements.
You can find deeply troubling things about all cultures. White, black, brown, rich, poor, middle class, young, old, doctors, brick layers, or welfare recipients. Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists all have beliefs that seem wrong to people both inside and outside of those groups.
Pretending groups are somehow above criticism is more about manners than fact.
PS: I have watched several people become more and sometimes less racist after moving to DC. This has far more about cultural friction than the people involved.
People need to be aware of the distinction between criticizing cultural/sub-cultural mores/ideologies and criticizing individuals. In the US, the two seem to get very often confused.
Individuals are individuals. Sub-cultural mores are products (distortions) of the media. The two are not the same. However, the latter seems to have tremendous power in framing public debate.
Cultures are frameworks for viewing the world. Some early anti drug adds actually backfired and promoted drug use as some people started to associate 'cool kids' and drugs. Some groups associate 'Long hours' with hard work and dedication, others view them as a sign your not working hard enough.
Not that everyone in a group identifies with every assumption of that group, but these things are more complex than simply being shaped by the all powerful media.
these things are more complex than simply being shaped by the all powerful media.
This notion itself is becoming more nebulous with the rise of social media. Traditional media has lost much of its power, and much of that power has been taken over by social media. When the media merges with and to a large extent becomes us, what happens? I'm not so sure.
That some have and others have not become more racist after moving to DC means it's primarily about the people involved. If it can't be generalized on "moving to DC," then the distinctions have to be evaluated on finer data.
Your criticism isn't internally consistent. For the sake of argument, let's say that racism is quantifiable. It probably isn't, but saying people get more or less racist pretty much implied that it is, so just run with it for a second. Say that after moving to DC, everyone's racism level gradually moves towards 75. That obviously means it's about DC, not the people. But some people started at 30 and some people started at 90. So some people get less racist and some get more racist.
The statement I was responding to was, "This has far more about cultural friction than the people involved."
Your reply supports this: whether they do or don't (and to what degree) is an individual matter. I wasn't disputing that experience can change a person's attachment to racism.
It's not that a specific person does a specific things that's bad. It's that cultures have different takes on accepted behaviors. Some behavior that seems more or less ok in culture A, is going to piss people off from culture B. Do you stand on the left or right side of a hallway when talking down it?
At the same time you will find people going against type regularly. Which has a moderating effect. It's hard to think X are bums when you see hard working people from X.
I think my contrived example implies the exact opposite. If their new level is largely determined by where they live and work, why wouldn't you expect the same of the old one? Perhaps the 30 moved from New York, while the 90 moved from San Francisco.
Don't assume everyone is starting from the same point. There are many successful people from all walks of life in DC, but you also see people imposing on others in public. Sure, it's only the worst 5% that's causing problems but get enough people together and that 5% can get really annoying.
I also often see people complain about their own ethic group a lot, though this is more about class than race.
I have noticed a strange flip-flop over the last 30 years or so. While the most prominent in and out groups have changed, the folks who used to talk the most trash about outsiders are now much more reticent. Now many of the folks who used to complain about getting put down are now the ones (mostly in private, but many times in public) with all the trash talk, i.e., acting like they always thought all the other guys did. (This was never actually the case, though.)
I hear friends talking about their neighbors and community in terms I know for a fact are not reciprocated -- and it goes far beyond just condescending. It's a bitter, desolate, and spiteful thing. You'd think they were marooned living in a cave with Stone Age man, waiting for the next human sacrifice to occur.
Very strange. I wonder if they know how they sound to others? We need a name for these guys. "Redneck Liberals" comes to mind. Perhaps "Faux Progressives"
Political jargon already has a term for this. When someone claims to be a member of political demographic A, but his ideals are more closely aligned with, or he secretly supports political demographic B, he is said to be a crypto-B.
For example, liberals might hyperbolicly call Trump a crypto-fascist, and Sanders supporters might call Clinton a crypto-Conservative, or a crypto-neoliberal. Granted, it's not used in mainstream political discourse much, but I hear it more on the fringes, and it probably has some academic use.
People in the US need to be more aware of the Authoritarian <-> Anti-Authoritarian spectrum in politics. There are some people on the left who are very authoritarian, while there are others who instead prioritize individual rights. In the us, the term "Libertarian" has been placed on the political right, while the "left" is a mishmash of very Authoritarian and Anti-Authoritarian views.
It used to be that the left was anti-authoritarian and the right was authoritarian. Libertarians were extremely anti-authoritarian. What has evolved, however, was that "soft" libertarianism got co-opted by the right. The left also co-opted libertarians, but not to the degree the right did. As the right gained more libertarians, it gave up some of its boardroom elitism. The result here was that the right's base become less elite while the left's base became more elite. (Because in the disparity of how both sides appealed to the libertarian center. In addition the left was naturally filled with smaller, more organized and fervent groups around a single cause, while the right had a broader base)
Then both the right and left became more and more authoritarian (along with the associated in-and-out clanning behavior) What with endless wars and the security state, I think we're seeing the end of the ride for the natural libertarians on the right. Perhaps the left too. Remains to be seen.
It will be interesting to see if the coming election involves a split in either/both major parties, and if so, along what fault line that split occurs.
>It used to be that the left was anti-authoritarian and the right was authoritarian. Libertarians were extremely anti-authoritarian. What has evolved, however, was that "soft" libertarianism got co-opted by the right. The left also co-opted libertarians, but not to the degree the right did.
Since the "right" as we know it remains, as ever, in favor of banning gay marriage, recreational marijuana, and alcohol sales on certain days of the week, I'm very skeptical that this story happened as described.
Insert standard parable of the blind men talking funny about elephant parts. Like it or not, there's at least five "right" wings and its like herding cats. The Christians were dominant maybe two decades ago, neocons were dominant for awhile, not so much recently. You can guess who's on the rise and the progs don't like it very much.
1) Neocon / megacorporate lackey. Never seen an eternal war their defense contractors who pay their re-election funds don't love. Koch Bros. Loves immigration; the middle/lower classes and the whites are to be eliminated. Thinks "Brazil" and "1984" and "brave new world" are instruction manuals. Loves income inequality. Globalist Imperialists. Basically they embrace their inner "bad guy James Bond villain" rather than suppress it. Some women (and men) really like the bad boys. Popularity in the population was much higher in the recent past. Have more money than they know what to do with, none the less struggle to get votes. These guys buy ads on social media and run campaigns.
2) Evangelical progressive Christian. If your church has electric guitars and spotlights and a projection TV and glitter as part of ceremonies you are here. Also see prosperity gospel and theological concept of "buddy jesus". This is where small local businessmen chill. Foreign policy is turn the other cheek. Weakest nominal attachment to the R party. Can't get these people to stop social signalling on facebook ("like and share this prayer" etc)
3) Bible belt southerners. If your church hates gays you are here. Strange alliance with Utah churches. Doesn't like alcohol, caffeine, or weed. Mostly a group defined by who and what they don't like. Like abortion, for example. These guys don't use computers or social media because those and Dungeons and Dragons are a tool of the devil.
4) Establishment / conventional wisdom / co-opted psuedo controlled opposition. These are the guys you see on TV and in congress. Maybe if we steal the platform of the progs from 20 years ago they'll love us. Cut to chase, no, the progs still hate them. Generally don't care about anything but gaining power. Kind of like neocons but less spine and much lower energy. Thinks about morals and ethics in terms of voting poll percentages. These guys buy ads on social media.
5) Alt right / 1488 / Libertarian crowd. Explosively growing. Trump. Average age is about half the above groups or lower. Smokes weed but calls it degenerate when others smoke up. Looks at gays the same way. Build a wall. Abortion is OK but to be avoided. This wing is meme central. Some memes: An alt right is a libertarian who finally noticed the worlds average IQ is below 120. Another meme: A 1488 is a guy who figured out the dominant belief of progs is they are anti-white people. The only group with a sense of humor, which is unfortunately (or entertainingly?) caustic and corrosive and so dark its like blacker than black humor. Foreign policy is non-interventionist, anti-imperialist and anti-globalist. Generally broadly speaking anti-corporate and anti-social media.
Prosperity gospel types are turn the other cheek on foreign policy?
Bible belt southerners _don't_ use projectors and bands? What do they use then? I would have thought choir and organ churches were the more left/liberal - they are in Europe.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but this sounds very odd to me.
Ok, I'm no expert on streams of right-wing ideology, but grouping together, "1488" and the "libertarian crowd" is just unfair to libertarians. Like, sure, libertarians believe in an insane liberal-capitalist ideology, but they don't use jocular-sounding memes as code for "Heil Hitler" (http://he.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=1488).
>For example, liberals might hyperbolicly call Trump a crypto-fascist, and Sanders supporters might call Clinton a crypto-Conservative, or a crypto-neoliberal. Granted, it's not used in mainstream political discourse much, but I hear it more on the fringes, and it probably has some academic use.
I don't think that there's anything particularly crypto about Clinton's neoliberalism. She helped create the New Democrats. She may not use the term "neoliberal" on the campaign trail, but the house intellectuals of her own movement applied it to themselves.
I've seen the use of "illiberal left" by social psychologists like Jonathan Haidt (disclosure, I'm a big fan of Haidt), and I find it more appropriate, especially as there are progressive leftists espousing illiberal ideals.
Of course, the gotcha with all such labels is that there are many liberal leftists who hear the term illiberal left and reflexively assume it applies tangentially to them, leading them to deny the existence altogether.
Anecdotally, a friend of mine in California is a huge Bernie Sanders supporter. Has attended rallies, fund-raised, and even designed T-shirts to promote Bernie's messages. A few weeks ago he apparently attended a private party of Bernie Sanders supporters, then messaged me back with "Wow, you'd been saying people like this existed, and I didn't believe it. These guys made me feel much more moderate than I once did."
I don't think people realize just what a late group this really is. Often times they're more under the Libertarian umbrella, though, but still... there's more shades of purple than there are red or blue.
Houston. He's rabidly anti-corporate and anti-1%. he's also pretty rabidly anti-gun, yet he owns a revolver. He's totally "do as I say, not as I do" about that issue!
I think a discussion of tone is a worthwhile discussion to have, although I believe you agree that it does not constitute a valid counterargument against[0] any side. I do agree there is an unfortunate smugness amongst many liberals that is unsettling to me, but it's a little different than the "Jim Crow south." Sorry, but AGW, the economic state of Kansas after the tax cuts, the evidence behind the theory of evolution are not "opinions", they are studied facts and/or statistics, many of them in published reputable journals. However, one's opinions about "the negro" are not scientific facts, and differences between the races has been rejected by most scientists. These are not the same.
And sure, one can somewhat respect the rights of a human being who denies scientific evidence, and I do believe many liberals need to be receptive and open-minded to others' arguments even when they violate their deepest convictions. The rise of safe-spaces and vehement protests against conservative speakers shows that libs are not great in this regard either. You need not and should not make fun of their heritage, their accent or make assumptions about their personality or behavior. At the very least, if you really don't care about being fair, disregarding evidence without offering a counterargument or giving a reason[1] is bad enough of a sin that no one needs anything else to accuse an opponent of.
I do agree there is an unfortunate smugness amongst many liberals that is unsettling to me, but it's a little different than the "Jim Crow south."
It's the behavior/mental stance that I'm calling out. Being the victor doesn't entitle one to be a douchebag. Being right doesn't entitle one to be a douchebag. If one subscribes to humanism and to being humane, then it simply doesn't do to view certain people as being less than human. Just because their views are less valid in your opinion, that doesn't make them less valid.
So long as you can make this distinction, you're fine in my book.
>I swear, when I hear some fellow "liberals" talking about their own rural underclass or Republicans or Christians
It seems like intolerance follows pendulum shift every 30 years or so. Liberals have the new intolerance, its just incredible how much disdain there is for everyone who isn't to the left of Elizabeth Warren and my god, the SJW stuff is out of control.
I have no idea if we've hit a peak with this stuff yet, but its hard to imagine how much worse in can get.
Professor Stearns at CMU says that the definition of morality is that which the lower classes and ethnic minorities are not (it adapts over time to maintain this separation). That explains lots of what you mention. He wrote The Battleground of Desire, which tracks the development of American morality since the Victorian era.
Professor's tend to have very narrow fields of study and often their views try to bend reality to fit through their particular field. In this case, it sounds like a somewhat standard (as in common place) form of Marxism -- wherein most all societal concerns are driven by classism (and ultimately economic concerns).
Hogwash. Now, Professor Stearns almost certainly has valid, well researched points which we could use to adjust certain policies, but humans are very much more than economic creatures , though it seems like we forget this readily nowadays in the US. This also means there are many more factors influencing American societal and mores than class divides. There's many strong cultural factors driving various network effects and topologies which require more complex analysis to understand. E.g. trying to use a first level "approximation" will fail to rationally understand our society. Besides in places like California even the idea of a white/Caucasian majority isn't even valid anymore.
Its quite refreshing to hear you say that last sentence. Being labelled a bigot, self righteous or any of several other generalisations, because I believe Jesus was who he said he was, is a little hard to understand at times.
> When I was a kid, my dad would take me to the local McDonalds to do math, several times a week. They'd let us sit there ordering nothing but sodas in a comfy booth for hours. These are some of my fondest childhood memories.
This made me smile, as my dad and I did the exact same thing. He would get coffee and I would get eggs and hashbrowns before we set out on the days errands, and I remember doing long division problems with crayons for fun. I hadn't thought of those days in a very long time, thank you :)
If they have them available in your area Chic-fil-a's are also great for kids. Their service is top notch and their stores are almost always spotless. Also they seem to have really great kids areas, every time I see one I am so jealous of the crap kids areas I had available as a child..
I've heard that many people like the store and the food, but I've also heard that the owner (and main profit taker) has some distressingly reprehensible views about taking freedoms and liberty from others so I've never eaten there and actively refrain from doing so.
I 2nd that for Chick-fil-a being good for kids. They give out a quality kids book with the meal and the book can be turned in for an ice cream cone. Chick-fil-a has playplaces, too, but they are not quite as big as the ones at McD.
The founder of CfA had controversial conservative views, but he is dead now, so you don't have to let that stop you anymore. Personally I wish they had stay out of politics altogether.
I was hoping this was true. The original owner died, but his son, the current owner, was the one in the news and that actively supports the controversial groups
Not stating support one way or the other, just an alternative perspective to this situation. While they may not be in support of aspects of certain lifestyles, they do seem to be in support of the individuals and community around it:
It sounds like you had a great childhood. My parents weren't really active with my academics, so that carried over with until it was time for college. Luckily I'll be a first generation college graduate in December.
Thanks. I've been told that before. It kind of feels like I just woke up one day and knew how to program and was about to graduate from a 4 year University majoring in CS (state school). If I have kids, I want them to have many options when it comes to college time.
Congratulations! Please do more with that accomplishment than my Dad did, which was apparently to think, "I did it on my own, so you should be able to, too." Please try to pass your college-graduation skills to the next generation and your peers. :)
I can vouch for that. Our McDonalds cleaned them every night-thoroughly. Our restaurant was also really quite clean. Even the 'icky' bits got a thorough cleaning at least once a week-our maintenance guy would break down the fryers and grill area and polish them to a shine.
It's easy to keep clean nowadays now that, for most hours of the day, nothing but fries are actually cooked in real time -- just reheated and assembled.
It's not like the old days, where you could get any sandwich fresh as a custom order, and otherwise a maximum of 10 minutes post-wrap hold time.
Oddly, several Jack-in-the-Boxes here are the most clean, with Carl's Jr. being worst -- a complete inversion from 20 years ago.
Another one you might want to try: Buffalo Wild Wings. We have 3 little kids and it's so loud in there that when they act up, nobody notices. Kids meals are probably no worse than McDonalds.
Oh, and free Android tablets! You can really bask in the judgement of others :)
In our town, it is the local Chili's that is full of loud kids. It is quite relaxing to take your own kids someplace where you don't have to worry too much about their behavior b/c nobody will really notice.
Yup. If there were more eateries that made as much effort to be kid-friendly as McDonald's (and I'm not talking about the food, I'm talking about the toys and the playplace) I'd get out more.
It's actually quite frustrating because my kids and I are vegetarians and while the wrap suits me just fine, my kids get stuck with their mediocre grilled cheese sandwiches (vegetarian children are still children - they think the wrap is weird).
It's not that I need every place to go to the lengths the clown does. I don't expect Pita Pit or my local felafel place to build playgrounds. I just wish there was a second chain providing this kind of product.
Oh wow. Those options are not available in the US, I wish they were. However, all day breakfast is available now and egg McMuffin sans ham is a good option for me.
Yeah, the all-day breakfast thing isn't being done here. The grilled cheese they have is just another option for kids' meals like mcnuggets and burgers - they don't really advertise it but it's good for my family.
Did they have that brief experiment with the Santa Fe wrap and the Mediterranean Vegetable vegetarian wraps? The latter involved feta cheese, and you can imagine how wonderous McDonald's feta cheese was. In the end they killed the Santa Fe wrap but they made the Mediterranean wrap better, and so now that's my go-to McFood.
I mostly take the kids to McDonalds when the weather's bad, personally. The play place is a good way to get out of the house and do something energetic despite the rain or snow.
Interesting I don't think any McDo have play areas in the UK - sometimes there's a little corner with a TV and some colouring stuff, or I used to see them at least. Some of the larger chain pubs have play areas but they're usually outside. Do the restaurants charge for the play area, are their age limits?
They don't charge, but there are age limits. The play areas here are this dense structure of interconnecting cubic sections they climb up inside, with a couple of slides, bubble-windows, and inlaid rotating kaleidoscope things to play with.
> I am pretty sure the cheeseburger, apple slices, and chocolate milk are not much worse, and probably better, than the typical fare on a slapped together kids meal.
Sounds like a false dichotomy. Why not prepare actual healthy food, and not 'slapped together kids meal' ?
Have you looked at the ingredient labels? They are still crap. Salad is Iceberg lettuce, may as well eat cardboard. Salad dressings are high sugar highly processed fat free crap. Wraps are made with HFCS and a bunch of preservatives.
(Not saying most fast food is better, but McDonalds is about a 10/10 on the crap-o-meter).
You're wrong. The salad is a mixture of kale, romaine lettuce, and other ingredients. Looks like you haven't looked at the ingredient labels.
Southwest Grilled Chicken Salad:
Ingredients: Romaine Lettuce, Baby Spinach, Carrots, Baby Kale, Lollo Rossa Lettuce, Red Leaf Lettuce, Red Oak Lettuce, Red Tango Lettuce, Red Romaine Lettuce, Red Butter Lettuce. Ingredients May Vary.
I should hope so. Chicken is not listed there, in any form!
Speaking of which, a general note: never, ever buy anything with Mechanically Processed poultry or pork... or at least read about exactly what that means first.
What is your objection to mechanically processed meat? Sure, the process doesn't sound appetizing, but it's a way to ensure that all the meat on an animal is used, which IMHO is a good thing.
Also, for what it's worth, neither chicken nuggets nor the beef patties at McDonalds are made with mechanically separated meat anymore.
It seems like MSM is awesome, from a quick Googling. Humans really should be eating bone marrow, organs, etc. to get full nutrition from our meals - and the process reduces waste, which means less animals can be slaughtered.
I totally get why cow MSM is banned, considering mad cow disease.
Products are standardized not by the franchise, but by the company. Franchise owners cannot use anyone but McDonald's suppliers. In your country they probably haven't rolled out the new menu items, when was the last time you checked?
It is odd how people are pretending everyone has the same health goals. Some people need extra calories most of us do not. Don't want too many calories or sugars? Order an egg mcmuffin with no muffin.
I can't believe there is people who have the audacity to chastise strangers for sometimes feeding their kids a cheeseburger, apple slices, and chocolate milk.
why do you not? it's a very strongly ingrained part of human nature, and a lot of civilisation depends on it. in particular, the whole notion of a social contract would likely collapse if no one cared what other people thought; neither empathy nor game-theory-style rationality are strong enough as universal motivating factors.
Anyone who has ever said out-loud, "I don't care what anyone thinks," by virtue of their public pronouncement, is hoping that someone cares that they don't care what anyone thinks.
A: "I don't care what people think. People suck, and are so
judgmental!"
I've said something to that effect to people I'm with because their actions in caring overly much what people think directly inconvenience me.
So suggesting that they don't care so much about something that doesn't matter hopefully makes them think about whether caring what people think is worth the effort.
I care about things that matter. I don't give a shit if someone else dislikes McDonald's or Walmart, I'll eat or shop there if I myself choose to. If they care, that's their problem, and if they bother me about it, they're meddling in things that are none of their business and I wouldn't associate with them anymore.
I'm not sure we've eaten at any other fast food restaurants with them! McDonald's tends to be very convenient on road trips.
In general, though they're adventurous eaters at home, they don't eat well in restaurants because they prefer that we are all eating the same thing. And booths are much easier to contain them in than tables.
Living in Seattle, with kids about the same age as yours, I love that my local mcdonalds has an indoor play area. Great for rainy days where the playgrounds are too wet and cold.
There are a couple other places in town to grab a meal and let the kids run around and play indoors, but often they're often more crowded, more expensive, and the food isn't any healthier.
I don't know if this is sad or not but I remember several birthdays when I was very young at McDonalds and Burger King. They had playgrounds and some fun simple games for us to play. I don't believe they charged us for it other than the food we purchased.
What's sad is that this culture shames people into questioning whether they ought to depreciate their own precious happy childhood memories, simply because they took place at a now-stigmatized restaurant.
You were a kid then, you had no role in choosing the venue, and you certainly don't bear some kind of moral responsibility for the putative evils of McDonald's as an institution just because you ate a hamburger there when you were six.
Be happy that you got to have fun on a playground with your friends! It is not tainted.
Take your kids to McDonalds if it makes sense to you. If you base your decisions on how to raise kids based on social norms/stigmas, you're going to make sub-par decisions.
If you base your decisions on how to raise kids based on social norms/stigmas, you're going to make sub-par decisions.
Just like most of the parents in all of history. People all throughout our history have made "sub-par" decisions. You could say it's the "human condition."
> There are some issues with McDonalds, but it is a pleasant user experience.
That's interesting, given that McDonalds purposefully designs it's restaurants to get customers in and out as quick as possible. The chairs are hard, uncomfortable plastic, the music is annoying, and the dining room is always set to some arctic temperature.
They just remodeled the one in my town to be pretty comfortable. (Not quite as nice as that one in the photo someone else replied with-- no carpet for one-- but it's quite nice and much nicer than the other fast food places in town.)
Yes I realize McDonalds is attempting to go upmarket with their interior redesign, but so far this is only implemented in major cities, which I think the sample of HN readers live in large cities, especially SF and NY area, where the vast majority of McDonalds are not located. I used to drive up and down 85 from FL to NY a couple years back. Most McDonalds are as I describe. It doesn't surprise me that the few in the larger cities are nicer and have amenities. I stopped by the one in Charlotte one time and it even had a fireplace and a piano. Those are few and far in-between. Changing? I don't doubt it, they have to try something, they are losing relevancy quickly. Of course, instead of focusing on interior gimmicks and tried to actually make their food good it would do miles more for them than stylistic upgrades. Take In-n-Out burger as the canonical example. Interior is horrible, but most are packed out because the burgers and fries are simply good.
Hey I like going to McDonalds with the kids now and then too. But if this is the only nice place to go where you live I find that truly sad. I love taking my kids out eating but my favorite places are different Italian restaurants. Some area really good at making thin Italian pizza and other are really good with the pasta.
Probably better than a real meal made at an restaraunt ? Are you trolling ? Do you know how much preservatives and sugar goes into the food at McDonalds ?
See this video for an idea how long the food at McDonalds takes to rot because of these artificial ingredients:
Also have fun time knowing that each time you visit McDonalds, you are supporting the slavery and killing of intelligent animals just to slap together a cheap as possible meal.
Your kids are your kids and it's your choice how to raise them given your financial and time constraints, but teaching a 3-year-old to associate comfort and happiness with unhealthy food doesn't strike me as the wisest decision. When they are old enough and responsible enough for their bodies, they might decide on their own that they enjoy nicotine, corn syrup, salt, starch, and fry oil - but why bias them towards suboptimal choices so early on?
You are pretty much describing the liberal guilt trip that is keeping him from occasionally taking his kids to McDonalds. It's pretty clear it's not the healthiest thing you can eat. It's also probably true that you should teach your kids that if, once in a while, they eat something that is not optimally nutritious (say, on a road trip or as a special treat) they are not going to die.
Maybe twice a month. We typically stop there only when traveling now. We might stroll to the one a half mile from our house for dinner once in awhile otherwise.
McDonald's isn't a large part of our mostly wholesome diet. I feel good about what my kids eat on a day to day basis.
Also, I'm the mother. It's not really germane to the issue, but everyone in this thread assumed otherwise.
It crossed my mind that you didn't specify gender. I just copied what the previous poster had used assuming that they knew from other threads. Sorry for making that assumption.
I'm curious about how the stigma actually plays out - do people you know actually say things to you about it? Would you actually experience more negative interactions if you just did what you want, or has it been internalized because you know people would disapprove?
It is just internalized for me enough so that we usually make another choice for dinner. Also I don't really want the kids to go to preschool and say they had McDonalds for dinner, at about the same level that I don't want to send them to preschool in a dirty shirt.
Once we hadn't been to the grocery store in unusually long, and spent the weekend eating the things in the freezer and the back of the cupboards. We mentioned to the kids that we were out of food. My son went to preschool the next day and congratulated his teachers on always having food available.
I understand why it seemed that way but in this case the charitable interpretation, that zepto was genuinely curious about what the OP meant about stigma, seems also to be the correct one.
> Your kids are your kids and it's your choice how to raise them.
Full stop. No need to continue with the rest of your judgements.
Parenting is a very hard job, and it's only made worse by all the parents (and even worse--non-parents) that want to make judgements.
Being a parent, I now have a profound respect and appreciation for my parents (especially my mother). Things weren't always great, but they did the best they could.
Is parenting some sacred thing, immune from analysis or criticism? Does parenting happen outside the realm of logic or reason, where all decisions are good, and any attempt at measurement or objectivity is worthless?
Keep your criticism relevant to the topic, which was: McDonald's used as a community center in poor neighborhoods. Not, how to teach your kids good eating habits.
> Is parenting some sacred thing, immune from analysis or criticism?
Maybe because most parents, especially new parents, already get enough of that "friendly advice" from strangers on the street, in the shops, at the park, and everywhere else.
No, not full stop. Just because raising kids, being a police officer, digging a ditch is "hard work" doesn't free someone from having that work criticized.
Actually everyone should be free from being criticized, except for the people with the authority to do so. That goes double for people doing hard work and triple for people doing work that every joe shmoe on the internet thinks himself an expert on.
In other words, my spouse can criticize my parenting everyone else can go frack themselves. Full stop.
No one is free from criticism, what they're free from is being forced to listen to it. No one's making anyone else here participate in the discussion.
Performing hard work doesn't make you immune from doing that work poorly, and it's kind of alarming to me that this insular attitude is so popular on HN.
> they're free from is being forced to listen to it
That's what I've called 'free from being critisized' so yeah. Not sure what you mean by "No one is free from criticism". If you refer to rights of other people to express their critical opinion - sure, let them run their mouths in their own space.
The problems begin (as usual) when A is being forced to listen to B's opinions either because A cannot move away or because Bs are too numerous. That's where I think that B should have to shut up. "Your freedom to fo X ends etc etc". Participating in hard work is an aggravating factor here, meaning B should have to shut the f up right now or be forcefully removed.
In case of doubt just imaging an idiot shouting their mouth at the working surgeon.
> Being a parent, I now have a profound respect and appreciation for my parents (especially my mother). Things weren't always great, but they did the best they could.
Dude, I was growing up in the dying days of the Soviet Union, with empty shelves and lines and ration cards, and growing vegetables on a little private plot to make it through the winter without vitamin deficiency. I know very well what it's like to try to provide the best you can for your family when the circumstances don't allow you to provide much at all.
But there's an enormous difference between going to a fast food place because the kids are hungry and the fridge is empty and that's the place which is open and nearby and affordable, and regularly bringing kids to a fast food place just because I like the ambience.
And as a general principle, if I am not open to criticism and judgment of others, I am hobbling my ability improve. In any aspect of life. Work or scholarship or raising a child.
My siblings and I all got the 'bad' happy meal as a reward. Hamburger/nuggets, fries, Coca-cola or Sprite. Oh, and it came with the happy meal box full of activities and an actual toy. None of us developed unhealthy relationships with food or even became overweight.
Fried food? Seriously? Do you believe McDonalds has a backroom in their shops where they have a bakery for their apple slices, and in their backyard they are growing apple trees and some lucky cows are wandering between the trees, so they have fresh milk for their chocolate milk?
You are purposely believing all this complete marketing BS so you don't have to feel like a junky if you eat this industrial trashfood.
And I can really not figure out for myself what could be more trashy than McDonalds food. Maybe living solely on peanut butter sandwiches and chocolate, but maybe even that would be better, as they are not full of flavor enhancer.
And actually I am not a McDonalds hater, I love to eat their hamburger. But it's like drinking beer, it's a drug, not food.
Given you basically said "what could be worse than a cheeseburger, apple and chocolate milk?" here's an easier answer - swap the cheeseburger for a double cheeseburger. There's a nice simple example of "could be worse", for you, without even thinking about different menu items available.
The apple: it's raw apple cut into slices... not fried, nor from a fictional bakery that their marketing apparently makes you think they want people to believe.
What does where the cows are milked matter, judge nutritional value between chocolate milk and sugar-filled soda. Maybe your judgement of chocolate milk is negative (sure, it's not the healthiest drink in the world) and I can't say I've ever looked up it's nutrional information, but... it's flavoured milk. It comes from cows, somewhere.
If you can't understand the logic that McDonalds serve lots of types of food and that some of them are more healthy and less healthy compared to each other then I'm not sure how to explain it better.
Sorry to disturb those dreams about fresh cut apple slices. They are not freshly cut, they are cutted and treated with chemicals in a factory, packed into plastic and might be lying around for up to two weeks before some parents give them their kids to alleviate their guilty conscience for taking their kids to a drug food shop.
Same for the chocolate milk. But I leave it up to you to find out what great inventions of the chemical industry enable this always same creamy taste without clumped together cacao.
And the argument about bigger portions has something to do with eating habits, but not with healthy food.
I feel like you're playing to the knee-jerk reaction crowd that will decide you've won the argument through buzzword bingo, the buzzword in this case being "chemicals".
Saying a foodstuff has come into contact with a chemical somewhere in the process means nothing without more information, yet you expect it to be taken as an automatic negative.
I never said the apple slices were fresh. Of course they're not, they come pre-packaged, who would think they were fresh? That doesn't change the fact that they are slices of apple, and that they're not fried or baked. I'm replying to your delusion that you can't get worse than that meal, I'm not claiming it's the best or most nutritional meal in the world.
> I'm replying to your delusion that you can't get worse than that meal,
And that is wrong, it doesn't matter what you eat at MacDonalds. You can swap the coke against "chocolate milk" to reduce sugar, therefore you get more emulsifier and more preservative. You can swap french fries for apple slices to get less fat, but therefore you get another mix of chemicals without any vitamins left. And all this discussion when the Deli around the corner sells fresh apples ...
Certainly you could do worse. But you could also do better. Teaching young kids to avoid the high-sugar, high-salt, brightly-colored food trap is hard, but I have seen first-hand families that have done it.
The thing is, if they were taking their kids to the local diner, the food would be just as unhealthy but no one would comment.
That's how you know the McDonalds hate is really about judging and not about health.
It's like people who only care about rape when there's a Muslim suspect. If they really cared about it, they would talk about it outside of the context of religion.
Bizarre how the article seems to present this as a hopeful and positive thing about McDonalds.
To me it is just another indicator of how broken American society is. A fast food place serving terrible and unhealthy food is becoming a gathering place for poor people who are probably the ones most in need of a healthier and better lifestyle.
It is also a sad reminder of how society has gone so utterly wrong when the cheapest food is the absolutely worst food.
This is of course not McDonalds fault, but society has allowed huge chains pushing cheap unhealthy food to the masses flourish. It isn't just about the food, but the sort of cultural wasteland a place like McDonalds is. Everything mass produced and equal everywhere. A country priding itself in diversity is drowning in homogeneity.
and food at other restaurants are magically healthy? Come on.
I lived in a poor neighborhood, heck I grew up in one. Our McDonalds was mostly a place to get breakfast and coffee and such and a lot of seniors spent all day or at least the morning in there reading, socializing, etc.
Meanwhile across the street you can get all a 3,000 calorie fettucine alfredo at the italian place. Or go to starbucks and get a 550 calorie frappucciono. The idea that only fast food is unhealthy is a bit much.
>but society has allowed huge chains pushing cheap unhealthy food to the masses flourish.
People will go where they want. Choice matters, you don't have to go to the mcdonalds, but it has cheap coffee and cheap breakfast. 300 calories for a McMuffin isn't the society destroying thing you seem to think. In fact, these people hang out at McDonalds because its usually the only place that won't chase them out after x amount of time after buying something. In poor neighborhoods there aren't a lot of boutique coffee shops with wifi or Paneras where hanging out is the norm. McDonalds as a hangout predates those by decades. If anything McDonalds is unusually progressive in this way. I know its un-cool to praise McDonalds, but I think Ray Kroc had his heart in the right place and sincerely cared about customer service and the experience of his customers.
I wish I could upvote this more.
I also dont blame McDonalds as a company. Like any other restaurant they're forced to strike their own line between quality of ingredients vs price. Like any other restaurant they must pander to what their customer base wants.
Their success is a reflection of what we have become as a society, gladly choosing such a faceless generic landmark as the focal point of our community. There is just something about it that feels soulless and submissive to me.
So where should the focal point of your community be? What super-sophisticated place do you socialize at? A bar? Starbucks? The mall? At home in front of the computer?
It's really not hard to find a communal gathering spot a little more high-brow than McDonald's
For example, I live in the suburbs of San Francisco. Not far from me there is a delightful and quaint organic bakery, and across from that is a gorgeous park. On weekends after my kids finish lacrosse practice, my wife and I take them there and enjoy some cheap ($9 each) chocolate croissants while they play on their tablets in the park.
People choosing to congregate in a McDonald's is as inconceivable as choosing to meet up in an outhouse or an abbatoir to me.
I can't tell if this comment is sarcastic or not. $9 croissants? I never thought I would defend McDonald's - comparing that place to an outhouse along with your croissant comment just comes across as being incredibly privileged, and not in a very nice way.
Well your comment suggests I'm a privileged and snobby type person, maybe youre right about the privileged part. I live in Maine and I wouldn't say in this town there's one focal point. Different types of folks can be found frequenting different places such as the town rec center and the locally owned coffee shop and yes there's two bars people commiserate at after work.
For the most part this community still integrates the wealthier living with the poorer in the same neighborhoods and generally speaking everyone privileged and lesser fortunate take pride in the local economy and integrate well.
Now maybe I am being snobby but I do hope everyone in a community has a unique place that defines their community to call their own. I realize that isn't always possible for everyone to put together
What makes it a cultural wasteland, exactly? Where are people supposed to be socializing, if not the place they like to eat? Mass production is what enables McDonald's to provide good food at super cheap prices. Probably the best food value for your money in the entire USA.
McDonald's food isn't unhealthy as part of a balanced diet. It's no less healthy than chipotle if you're getting a soda. I don't eat there but McDonald's is simply amazing for providing so much great food at rock-bottom prices.
Some of the elitism on this thread is absolutely astounding. And I say this as someone who is elitist to at least some degree but I would never think of making some of the comments I read here--and certainly not in public.
Yeah it's really something to see. I especially love the guy wondering why all the lower cast people can't just join him at his nice restaurant in downtown Toronto rather and just spend a few more dollors for his obviously superior food.
It's a small restaurant that sells food for a dollar or two more than McDonalds. It's a 10 minute ferry ride from downtown Toronto, and after the work day ends (very soon) it will be full of people talking and laughing.
I'm not going to judge somebody that loves McDonalds going there, but I am going to long for a society where we have less mass produced, race to the bottom, crap. I want artists and greenery and real forks and cups. I don't want to be around a bunch of unheathy food wrapped in wax paper. I don't want to be around shitty "John is gay" graffiti on poorly lit washrooms.
How is there even a discussion here? Can't we hang out in parks and eat veggie loaded wraps? Can't we get people off of transfats and sugar?
>Where are people supposed to be socializing, if not the place they like to eat?
In a lot of places, there are publicly-supported community centers equipped with kitchenettes. Even in America, there are often churches, school buildings, or (dare I say it) community centers equipped to function as community centers.
The fact that Americans think "no public place for general socialization" is the default is part of what makes Americans (and the Anglo world in-general) a little weird.
Sorry, I've never seen a "community center" and have no idea what they are. How do they even work? You just walk in and there are tables there and you sit down and play a board game or something? Do they charge admission? Do they have operating hours? Places to get/eat food?
Your style of writing doesn't warrant a reply, but anyway:
Your "argument" seems to be: Who calls McD unhealthy or bland must be "fucking brainless", also if McD food were as cheap as it is, because it's of the worst quality, that would totally make sense. But for some reason this isn't the case. Indeed, it is "better than shit."
If you enjoy tasty food, by all means, eat it. But if you think deep-frying or pickling is the best way to serve vegetables, grilling meat puree to death the appropriate way to prepare BBQ and the main ingredient in good ice-cream can be corn-sirup, then you have a lot to discover in the world of tastes.
Go out of your comfort zone and try something new!
>Who calls McD unhealthy or bland must be "fucking brainless"
Yes because it is healthier than most other "foods" that are available and tastier than most other foods in the world. The existence of healthier or tastier food proves nothing. Is spending the time and money to eat those food instead worth it? NOPE! You know how I know? Because if there was, McDonalds would make it and sell it... or their competitors would and McDonalds would go out of business.
>McD food were as cheap as it is, because it's of the worst quality, that would totally make sense
Yep, if there was excess of it and nobody wanted it, it would be cheap... which is not the case. It's cheap because they have optimized the processes in several ways and sell enough to justify doing it at scale.
McDonalds really isn't that bad. Looking at the nutritional info, 540 calories for a big mac, 230 for fries (770 calories), which is easy to fit into a 2000 calorie/day meal plan. Of course you are shot if you start ordering sodas and icecream, but at the very least this is a comparable meal to what you might normally eat. Sodium is the only major concern, I think.
I wonder if there's an international problem with this story.
McDonalds in the UK isn't particularly cheap, you can feed a family on the price of a BigMac meal (burger, fries, drink). BigMacs here are quite a sweet food, sugary bun with sweetened relish; and certainly fatty though the patties tend to be pretty dry. The fries at McDo are saltier tasting than any other food I eat except "salt chicken" [at the chinese buffet] - pretty sure they put more salt on than the nutritional info suggests. You can get a [sweet, concentrated] OJ instead of carbonated "fountain" drinks though.
It's not cheap [to me] and I've never seen anyone except teenagers hanging out in any in the UK. The seating is firmly padded benches with upright backs or uncushioned chairs. Tables are usually fixed to the floor.
Additionally McDo here tend to be in town centres or adjacent to supermarkets, not really in areas where poor people - other than youths - are hanging around.
There is a big difference between McDonalds in the US and abroad. I know them from Brazil, and there it is a relatively upscale fast food chain. In the US, they serve very low quality food and most locations are also borderline usable (only clean enough to pass inspections).
There are healthy choices at McD, but why do so many give sit down restaurants a pass? Some of the big name ones will load you down in calories, fat, and salt, and just hide it behind foodie names and portions.
Yeah McD ain't the bastion of good health but not many places are except maybe a boutique spot
A little perspective: cheap, unhealthy fast food is not ideal, but it's much better than the previous state of society -- for all of human history until approximately 50 years ago, and still the case in most of the world -- where poor people just went hungry.
On the positive side, it brings a genuine sense of community where you hang out alone, forge new bonds or maintain old ones. People come and go asking if so-and-so has been in today. Before mobiles, families would call the pub and leave messages for each other. Class lines were much less defined. You leave things behind the bar for other people to pick up later.
On the negative side, well, alcohol, and all the issues that brings.
I recently went to a McDonald's in Austria. I was blown away by how they were going exactly for the community center vibe.
There was a bar with four or five internet connected tablets a half-basketball court next to the jungle gym and patio seating like you'd find at an upscale resteraunt. It also had a dedicated coffee and desert bar. Also, the cash registers were gone and in their place were four huge touchscreens for ordering. The place was like a restaurant from 50 years in the future.
I was shocked at how nice it was and that we don't have any in the US.
There are a few in the US. They are just in select locations. I wrote software for McDs a while back and they were always coming up with high-tech initiatives. Too bad the environment was cut throat or I would have enjoyed working there.
What was the cause of the cut-throatness if I may presume to ask such a thing? Some form of performance related pay or just heavy headquarters politics?
(in UK McDonalds is a franchise operation I think, not too sure, so each restaurant is its own little enterprise with standardised training &c)
There appears to be no similarity better domestic and foreign McDonalds.
Foreign McDonalds have much fresher better tasting food. They can't cut corners like they do in the US.
I remember driving through a Native American reservation in the Southwest and stopping at a McDonald's after seeing not much of anything for miles and miles. I walked in and it was like everyone in the reservation was there hanging out it was so alive with conversation and activity. I'm not a McDonald's fan, but I'm glad they exist to serve purposes like that, because I'm not sure where else the people in that one would've gathered.
I doubt that McDonald's has put much if any particular effort toward building their restaurants into community centers. Without that, I'm not I'm comfortable calling it an achievement on their part. They just sort of fell into the role, and don't seem to have done much to expand it.
As for it being a failure of the society, I'd be tempted to argue the opposite. Lacking a suitable community center (for values of "suitable" that vary from community to community, and which I do not presume to dictate or even know), the community improvised one of its own from what was at hand. We can say that the aesthetics of the implementation are kind of bleak, but to have done it at all is a major success.
I wish the article had expanded on the unsuitability of community centers due to their bureaucracy. It just mentions it in a couple of words and never elaborates. It seems like it should be easy to provide just a simple public space with basic amenities, without even any activities (which is the low bar set by McDonald's). The big exception of course being that food isn't served, but running a little competent sandwich shop or something is far from impossible (every bus and train station I've been too manages that).
It is the bureaucracy that amazed me about the Sikh community - or should I say lack of it. As long as you obey a few simple rules (essentially just no alcohol, tobacco, or being under the influence, cover hair, no shoes) you pretty much what you will.
Notably with the Sikh's the langar hall (where langar, a free meal, is always served) is the hub of a Gurdwara - seemingly food is the great social leveller!
Yeah that is my issue with the whole thing. I don't blame McDonalds. I blame the rest of society for being such a big failure that a multinational junk food maker becomes the community center for poor people.
It doesn't feel like an effective use of space; what is it about McDonald's that makes it a better focal point than a community center or a space built specifically as a gathering point for the community?
Well yes, community centers are literally buildings, and as such, have expenses. Most US communities still have them, however, so it's probably not the money that's preventing them from existing.
McDonalds has an economic incentive for having all those qualities. Employees get fired for not cleaning the floor. A store goes out of business if people don't feel welcome there. A business wants as little in the way of customers as possible so the bureaucracy is kept to the minimum
A community center however is usually run by volunteers and is funded often as not by government money. The money comes with bureaucracy and there usually aren't enough volunteers to go around.
There are exception to both of the above of course. Some Mcdonald's are dirty and unwelcoming and some Community Centers are clean and simple.
But in the general case the above often holds true.
I don't know if this would be some kind of libertarian wet dream, but I wonder if there's value in taking some of the underlying reasons McDonald's is working for this purpose, and trying to emulate them in existing infrastructure.
A few years ago my wife and I were coming back from a road trip to visit some friends and family in Canada, and we crossed back into the US at the Detroit/Windsor crossing. We were basically running on fumes by the time we got through the border, so drove around the Detroit side a bit in search of a gas station (it took a while to find one that wasn't clearly abandoned or in complete shambles).
One thing I noticed is that among all of the boarded-up, graffiti-strewn buildings, homeless people sleeping in the gutters, abandoned houses and cars, the one shining beacon of normalcy was the McDonalds. The building was in perfect condition, the lot was clean, lights were on--it was very striking in contrast to the almost post-apocalyptic looking area of the city that surrounded it.
I can totally understand why such a place would naturally attract people as a place to congregate in a neighborhood as poor as that one. Inexpensive food plus a building that not only still functions as shelter, but has electricity, bathrooms, heat/air conditioning--all things that you may very well not have at home (assuming you even have a home).
In Brazil we have a similar effect with shopping centers/malls, that tend to be pretty, clean and safe, not just a bunch of stores (the store rent inside the mall is higher than a street store). Shopping center becomes the default place to go since there is food there, it is open on Sundays. One downside is that stores are mostly empty, which negates a bit the original idea (--> shopping <-- center, not meeting center). The only crowded place is where the food is, and the only really long line is the McDonalds ice cream.
Then some people began to complain that there were too many "ugly people" (mostly poor and young teens that went there for the very same reasons as anyone else). There were some episodes of security barring the entrance of unaccompanied teens that looked "poor". Of course it didn't last long, cooler heads prevailed and I guess that McFlurries were not selling well :)
when I lived out of my car in SoCal, I wasn't familiar with starbucks yet and so I basically used McDonalds as my table/office/wi-fi/hangout spot for the first month.
I have a soft spot for McDonalds despite what its critics may say. It's an inclusive place which accepts everyone: homeless, indigent, wealthy, kids, adults. It is cheap, unpretentious, and welcoming.
That said, this was a special McDonalds in Pasadena that was clean, had numerous power outlets, and was exceptionally well-run. The McDonalds in the rest of LA were disgusting in comparison and refused to provide outlets, presumably to keep out homeless.
I eventually switched to Starbucks because starbucks always has outlets, the coffee was slightly better (and had more options) and the wifi was significantly faster
I often work out of my neighborhood McDonald's when working from home. It's about the only non-faith based multi-generational space in town. The mix of kids, a few other freelancers, and retired folks is unique.
Coffee shops fill this role for my area. There is a Starbucks near my apartment that is a thriving multi-nationality community hub. This surprised me, since prior to experiencing this, most of the coffee shops I've been to have had a more... niche... clientele.
What astonishes me, is how often poor people go eating in a restaurant (e.g. breakfast in the first paragraph) when making breakfast at home (or lunch) is so much cheaper (as a fun exercise we often calculate the prices of our home lunch).
Although I have a nice income, 80% of the time I bring my own food to work because restaurants are too expensive in my opinion to regularly use them.
As a side note: I have the suspicion I'm addicted to fast food (McDonalds/Burger King). When I don't go there for some weeks, I have no urge and I'm fine. But as soon as I eat there, I have the urge for days to go back and have another burger.
Cooking for yourself is only cheaper if you've already spent the money to outfit your kitchen. There's a big up front investment in terms of ingredients and tools.
You can spend $50 up front, and then eat for $3/meal by cooking for yourself...
Or you can just spend $6/meal at McDonalds.
If you only have $10 in your pocket you really don't have much of a choice.
This is, I think, the most important thing to understand about poverty in a capitalist system. It is much more difficult to make good investments when you have very little liquidity.
Even with 2 people - most ingredients I purchase are assuming 3-4 eaters the "large sizes" assume 6-8. If you don't eat leftovers it can get pricey or you end up eating more than you probably should...
The other issue I run into is that most of my food goes bad before I even finish it coupled with the fact I refuse to even have "leftovers". I either buy too little of what I need (smaller amounts/sizes) and end up spending more money for not purchasing bulk, or I waste money by throwing away surplus after it has expired. It's a fine balance to try and get "just the right amount". I often find myself throwing away 1/2 a loaf of bread, several meals worth of lunch meats, rotten fruits/vegetables, etc. And that's keeping some items a while after the "use by:" date...
An example of my problem:
1 gallon of milk is often too much. ½ a gallon of milk is often too little. It is cheaper (both economically and time spent going to the store) to buy 1 gallon of milk and dump it when it goes bad than to buy ½ a gallon as I need it.
I have no problem for cooking for two people. But perhaps this is specific to Germany.
"throwing away 1/2 a loaf of bread"
I buy 1/2 not a whole bread then.
About the milk: Not sure if you buy fresh milk from the farm, otherwise milk in the fridge does not go bad for days.
Today we had a delicious lentil salad with feta and rucola and a vinaigrette of lemon and tomatoes. The base salad can easily be used 2 days in a row with different toppings with capers and olives and a different dressing. Should be around $3 per meal, whereas McDonalds is >$6 in Germany (the only way to eat cheap at McDonalds is having 3 hamburgers for $1 each).
In the US bread comes pre-sliced in a plastic bag. You can pick up this kind of bread nearly anywhere, from a convenience store to a fill-up station or a pharmacy. Bakeries which put out product that Europeans would consider bread are almost exclusively found inside grocery stores. This bread is slightly more expensive per weight. Grocery stores, like most commercial establishments in the US, can be hard to get to without a car, and public transport, if exists outside the few major cities, typically has low frequency and poor coverage of residential areas.
UHT milk does exist, but most people don't know about it, and it's expensive. Most milk sold isn't shelf-stable and needs to be refrigerated the entire time.
I don't think the OP was referring to UHT, but rather ESL milk (also known as HTST). Most milk sold in Germany is now ESL, and you can keep it in the fridge for 2-3 weeks. It's also sold in units of 1 litre (a little over a quart) and if you want more, you just buy more than one.
The 1/2 loaf probably costs 3/4 of what a full loaf does. That addition 25% is pure margin for the retailer - they thank you for your willingness to pay more for the same product.
>The 1/2 loaf probably costs 3/4 of what a full loaf does.
Correct. I'm not going to pay more for less which is why I end up throwing away surplus. I hate being wasteful of food - but I hate being wasteful of my money (and my time) even more.
In addition to that, in the U.S your size options are "buy a whole loaf" or "buy a different brand of whole loaf". Bread comes pre-packaged in a twist-tied (or clip-on) bag as a whole loaf. Unless you visit a bakery or the grocery store you visit has a bakery section.
This assumes you can work 24h a day. It could be extended to every free hour: What must your your hourly wage be, that it's worth watching TV.
Also if you are poor and have no money, and no opportunity to earn more, and perhaps already have a second job, then $3 saved a day makes a huge difference. Though I'd say savings for 3 meals (lunch and breakfast and dinner) should be around $10 not $3 (at least from my experience comparing prices for cooking and going to McDonalds)
I'd argue the up front cost is much less than $50. However, using the numbers as provided, the break-even is still less than a single week.
In the breakfast example, you can buy a single McD meal or buy a dozen eggs with a container of quick oats - both are ~$6. The latter is much better for liquidity.
Not to mention, the eggs and oats is easy to cook, requires little 'ingredients and tools', is healthier, and will last multiple days (helping w/ liquidity).
You won't get very far with one pot or pan. I live alone and cook for myself, and my kitchen probably has a dozen. For anything beyond the very basics you'll need a variety of mixing bowls, mixing spoons, measuring cups/spoons, spatulas, etc. Knives and cutting board to chop ingredients. Not to mention the need for a basic assortment of spices, butter, oil appropriate for cooking, etc.
Sure, you don't need all of that to get started cooking, but making do with a minimal kitchen is going to make cooking more difficult and is likely to also affect the quality of your food.
I guess it depends on your standards. Back in college I cooked a ton of meals in just one pot. Cook some ground pork, drain, cook rice, add pork and frozen veggies. Probably costs $10 to make 5 or 6 meals.
You're correct. It's sad there are people voting you down with no explanation. I cook every meal I eat (4 a day) in a single frying pan, a single cooking sheet, microwave, and a rice cooker. For seasoning, I have salt, pepper, and some Ms Dash. I don't know much that I can't cook with those items alone.
I think those of us with fancy kitchens don't really consider how much of that is just convenience (and which percentage of the equipment just sits there, unused, 99% of the time), and how much you can achieve with very simple tools.
To make food at home, you either need fresh, perishable ingredients and/or time to prep and cook. Even accessing fresh ingredients may be a hassle (see: food deserts), so eating off the dollar menu often feels like a better use of your money than making the trek to the grocery store to buy some perishables that you then have to cook before they go bad.
It's similar to why poor people buy poor-quality shoes more often, as opposed to one high-quality pair once a year.
EDIT: or cars. Poor people buy cars that are in poor condition because that's all they can afford, and they spend more money on it overall than if they could've gotten a better-quality car instead. It's expensive to be poor.
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."
I agree cooking for one is not supported by - at least here in Germany - most super markets. Packaging is too big. The trick when I was cooking for myself is cook larger portions and put these into the fridge. Vary them when eating and don't try to keep raw ingredients instead of cooked food.
Cooking for two is no problem though, especially if you cook the right things. Cooking for more then 2 and you really have no problems with ingredients going to waste.
And you can buy some ingredients for cheap that last, e.g. I buy Japanese rice in 5kg or 10kg sizes, easy to keep in good condition for a long time and much cheaper than 500g from the super market.
> It's similar to why poor people buy poor-quality shoes more often, as opposed to one high-quality pair once a year.
Haha man I can hardly count the number of $15 pairs of sneakers I bought at the market as a kid, with the glue visible on the sides. Eventually the soles would inevitably come off, partially cause of the crappy shoe and partially because I was always playing football (soccer) with them.
The notion of buying a decent pair of shoes and another specialised sport-shoe just never even came up as an option in my mind, to drop $250 total on two pairs of shoes.
He's agreeing with the person he's responding to and noting how the point that person made resonates with his own experience, whilst adding a little background color.
I agree if people have no time. I don't watch any TV, but many people do watch a lot of TV so the "no time" is more a prioritization issue for many, watch TV or prepare food.
"It's similar to why poor people buy poor-quality shoes more often, as opposed to one high-quality pair once a year."
On the contrary, poor people buy poor shoes because they are cheaper and they don't have enough disposable income to afford good quality shoes.
Add poor money-management habits on top of that (which eg going out for breakfast exacerbates), and it's a recipe to further entrench you in a poor lifestyle, unfortunately.
Restaurants can buy in much larger quantity and receive a discount for doing so. It is more /resource/ efficient for restaurants to make meals as they disburse labor and ingredients over many households in one day, instead of a single household's resources and labor trying to use perishable items before they expire.
The main issue that comes to my mind is of the more perishable items: greens, vegetables, fruits, and baked goods.
I can, if I like, make my own rice at home, and bring in some fish to make sushi with. By the time I factor in labor and other costs I'm not actually sure that I've come out ahead of just going somewhere. For more complex dishes I don't think I do come out ahead.
The simple dishes, like a sandwich, I would honestly like to be able to make my self, but that doesn't scale down well. A family, sharing the bread, meat, and greens, is really required to make that more economic.
It would be so much easier if there were not-for-profit (or for very limited profit) places to buy freshly made things from.
What kind of cost-effective not-for-profit "freshly made things" store do you imagine?
Bear in mind that most restaurants and similar food-production outlets are practically not-for-profits or "for very limited profits". As are most grocery stores.
>The simple dishes, like a sandwich, I would honestly like to be able to make my self, but that doesn't scale down well. A family, sharing the bread, meat, and greens, is really required to make that more economic.
Seriously? You buy a loaf of bread and some cold cuts (or rotisserie chicken or whatever), mustard, mayo. Absolutely no trouble getting a week's worth of food for one person.
Yes, you can absolutely cook at home. I admit that I don't have access to good ethnic takeout or restaurants, so I'm inclined to cook, but I'm pretty sure that I save money as well.
Dunno what sandwich shop you are going to that doesn't have any sandwich fixins or cheese. I only eat sandwiches that are full of veggies. The sandwich shop I go to bakes their bread daily. To recreate that at home I'd have to get around 10 components and chop them all. On top of that I'd have to stop by the bakery every day I wanted a sandwich.
Yes, you can cook at home, doesn't mean that by definition it is cheaper. Depends on what you eat and often how often you eat, if you have family, or if you prefer variety or stick with the same few meals.
Having been poor, its very cheap per hour as a luxury, something you saved up for. Compared to going to a movie, or a bar, its very cheap both in an absolute sense or per hour. I'm not sure where one can go out for an hour while having dinner that's cheaper.
One issue is due to income inequality most of the population is poor. Perhaps 19 in 20 of their meals are eaten at home, but that 1 in 20, multiplied by most of the population, equals very full McDonalds. Middle and upper class people have this weird idea that most poor people meals are eaten at McDonalds but some simple math about restaurant seats per sq mile just doesn't work. Even poor people like the occasional luxury, its just theirs is a hamburger as opposed to a cashmere sweater or a new car.
A second issue is the usual middle/upper class disconnect from poor people combined with a lack of prediction or creativity. Why if poor people can't afford to cook at home and thus "have to" eat at restaurants all the time because thats so much cheaper, then the restaurant business in Somalia or Haiti must really be booming. What did people eat before fast food in the 70s?
The urge that you report is sugar related. Everything is drowned in carbs, mostly HFCS. Buns today taste sweeter than Hawaiian sweet rolls did when I was a kid. I suspect Hawaii rolls are no longer sold because its impossible to add more sugar to sugar saturated regular 2016 dough. I eat pretty low carb normally, and I feel the same way about cookies or anything else sugary, suddenly three days later I gotta have another chocolate chip cookie. Sugar is addictive.
Finally its a HN trope that home cooking is too expensive and impossible and no one on the planet does it. I donno its like automobile analogies on slashdot or something. Its just a belief, and you show allegiance to the site and its mores by social signalling your agreement with it. Yes yes we all know the numbers don't add up, but like I wrote, its a belief, and nobody ever reasoned themselves either into or out of a belief.
I don't know if community centers are the right analogy though. Simply put, a business where you can get a drink or pastry and socialize for an extended amount of time is an integral part of many societies, but it was lacking in most parts of the US for many years.
As much as I love small cafes, I have to say, Starbucks has grown on me, specifically living in a nice neighbourhood. The Starbucks near me is always very clean, has a very nice interior, plenty of outlets for laptops, fast wifi, very clean washrooms, and pleasant baristas. They even have a large communal table which they allow meetups to book. And plenty of people ranging from families to students walk from their detached homes to chill. I know that not all Starbucks are like that (one NYC location had a filthy bathroom, one in San Bruno is always packed with inventory boxes and people) but I think they were able to foster a community and place of comfort for their cafe.
People hate on Starbucks but it has brought halfway decent coffee to the masses. Yes, the locally owned specialty coffee shop will be better, but Starbucks coffee is not actively offensive the way McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, or office drip coffeemaker (or worse, vending machine) coffee are. Back in the 80s, "cappuccino" was a signal of rich-toff status. These days anyone with $5 in their pocket (so perhaps excluding the absolute poorest) can have one. Plus they really put effort into making something resembling the "upscale café" experience available to the masses. Which means that small town cafés, in order to cater to young hipsters with money to burn, have had to up their game.
I think you're overestimating the number of people in the states who have $5 in their pocket on any given day to blow on coffee, having said 'perhaps excluding the absolute poorest'. :(
A few days ago, I was blown away by kids at the Starbucks probably around aged 10 (give or take a few years) teaching one another how to pay their Starbucks balance with their iPhone. In my youth I never had such an expensive piece of hardware in my pocket, nor the cash to spend on $4 drinks.
By design, yes -- when I was younger I worked at a Starbucks for a few years, and in training they talked about how they wanted to make it the 'Third Place' after Home and Work. Makes sense that would be the community center of a neighborhood.
You would think, but the internet speeds are an issue, which severly limits their ability to make them community spaces. At many starbucks in my neighborhood back home you can barely get a website to load. Those few that offer internet by Google, rather than AT&T, seem to be much better. Ive always wondered why they cant simply limit the time one can use the internet before making another purchase rather than capping the speeds.
Around here, Starbucks switched to Google (which isn't Google fiber, but whoever the cable provider is in the area) for 60-80mbs speeds. This was a HUGE improvement over the old Wayport internet that was delivered over a T1, and then DSL (3mb). I noticed that McDonalds as well as other companies all used Wayport and the slow speeds are unusable unless only a few people are on the wifi.
It's almost unusable even if you're the only one in the place.
I had figured that AT&T would quickly work to improve services, especially ones under their "attwifi" SSID because it really makes them look lousy having such awful speeds.
There's a fairly big one near where I live that allows people to reserve bits of it for small community events during the week, as well as scheduling amateur or semi-professional musicians to do low-key live performances each weekend.
This happens everywhere, with the establishment varying with the culture.
In much of Canada, the local community center is the Tim Hortons. My labor studies professor back in the day wrote his doctoral thesis on this and (unfairly, in my opinion) won an Ig Nobel for it:
Wal-Mart and McDonald's are the modern equivalent of the diner and malt shop that middle-class white people may be more familiar with (it seems this article was written with a specific readership in mind). Go to any small town or poor rural area, and these are the places people congregate. It has almost nothing to do with food, and more to do with a social space designed for people to gather comfortably.
In Italy it's the piazza. In the UK & Ireland it's the pub. In more enclosed neighborhoods in the US it may simply be your neighbor's stoop, or a certain street or alley. Access to a social space facilitates human interaction & culture.
What's interesting is that the Guardian and HN feel the need to appraise us of what happens in low-income communities.
On one hand, it's realistic - most people reading the Guardian or HN don't know (despite the fact that both are nearly as accessible in low-income communities as wealthy ones, at least via phones).
On the other, what does it say that the readers have to learn about it in a newspaper or Internet forum. It might as well be a story about culture in a foreign country instead of within a short drive for most readers.
When McDonald's opened in Moscow in the 1980's one of the things people frequently mentioned after standing in line for hours was the high quality of the food. It was normal McDonald's fair tailored to the local market. We're pretty spoiled people in the US. Some large fraction of the species can only dream of eating food as good as what McDonald's sells.
Hate to break it to you, but from what I've been told by anyone that went to US: Non-US McDonald's food is way way WAY better than what you get in US McDonald's... Also, this comment really rubbed me the wrong way. I'd say extreme superiority complex with a side of slight ignorance
To russians first McDonald's in Moscow was like Berlin wall falling to germans. It was complete antithesis of the Soviet Union.
In my experience, between McDonald's in the US and eastern Europe, the food tastes largely the same, but in Europe it is better prepared.
The meat isn't greasy and never burnt, the wrapper is pristine. The fries are fresh and crispy, never soggy. Service is usually very fast; many places have timers that show how long the order took to be fulfilled.
Overall, it's a more polished experience in Europe.
Which parts? Where I currently am I would not admit going to a McDonald's (or Burger King for that matter). There are lots of grubby independent places such as cheap, greasy kebab joints here, and even they seem to place above the chain fastfood restaurants in social acceptableness.
Not trying to be snobby, just curious what's below McDonald's if it can be considered "upmarket".
In terms of social standing, below McDonald's is not going out to eat at all. You avoid going out unless you're with friends, and instead pack your own lunch.
In Budapest, Hungary, many of the kebab vendors have little seating room, so McDonald's becomes the cheapest place to sit like you would in a Starbucks (which also exists, and is considerably more of a luxury). I've seen the same phenomenon in Slovakia, Czech Republic, Romania, and Russia as well.
In the early 1970's, after seeing the kids off to school, my mom and dad would get a cup of coffee at the McDonald's at the edge of the neighborhood, and sit and talk. The employees eventually told them that they thought mom and dad were having an affair; why else would they arrange to meet away from home?
I only tell this as an off-topic fond memory, but perhaps it also serves to support the community idea through being a safe, cheap 'third place', and through the notion that the employees and customers treat each other as relationships, not just transactions.
McDonalds is the master in orchestrating food. I love McDonalds and I think their hamburger is the best hamburger, their french fries are the best and all the other menu options have this typical McDonalds design--everything, every single piece and ingredient is meticulously thought through and the final dish has a perfect taste. The taste you get for the carb in-take is unmatched.
It's cool to hate McDonalds, I know and I don't care. All my friends would never take their kids to McDonalds. They even don't take their kids to the movies. This is our generation, all they want is 'organic', 'low fat' and 'please don't hurt' stickers on their overpriced crap food without having a clue how nutrition really works. Especially here in Europe, it's about positioning yourself as healthy and smart when educating others about McDonalds. All obesity in this world is caused by McDonalds, yes sure.
It's true that most of McDonalds' customers rather belong to the one end of the spectrum but who cares? I still think that it's in particular the lower middle class which hates McDonalds and which wants to put themselves above even lower classes. They cannot stop telling others that McDonalds is bad and they have to get now some authentic burger at an underground burger place or a healthy Bircher Muesli for their little ones. Btw, the same folks don't go to Starbucks for the same reasons--because they know a better non-franchise place for their ridiculous fair traded organic flat white.
Actually, it's not McDonalds those people don't like--it's their desperation and urge to be something better than they really are, the fear that people confuse them with being white trash instead of middle class. This is the main reason they buy overpriced organic food at 'upscale' locations. The upper classes do not care at all what others think and go from time to time to McDonalds. They don't need to pretend anything and are aware that going to McDonalds from time to time does not mean that's their daily diet. They understand that's about what you eat, that especially the total daily carb in-take and the right balance of carbs, protein and fat is crucial. McDonalds offers everything to eat well and balanced but it's often the lack of knowledge and education if people cannot manage this balance.
With kids it's even better, McDonalds is the rare example where kids are welcome and it's a pleasure with them. Kids hate long sessions in any restaurant and all money left there is wasted when all kids want is a bowl of fries with ketchup. At McDonalds they love every second and usually they eat more than just the fries. This make the total experience a good and healthy one.
For the record, I am super thin and live a healthy lifestyle as my kids do.
> Actually, it's not McDonalds those people don't like--it's their desperation and urge to be something better than they really are, the fear that people confuse them as with being white trash instead of middle class. This is the main reason they buy overpriced organic food at 'upscale' locations
Perhaps that strawman exists. I know that we don't eat at McDonald's because we believe that factory farming[1] is inhumane and that grass-fed beef and dairy from animals that weren't stressed their whole lives is likely to be healthier. Also bad: large producers of animal products have been overusing antibiotics, leading to possible major problems for the human race in the future. McDonald's is not the worst in the industry, but they're still bad by these particular measures.
I totally agree that eating a McDonald's-like meal from time-to-time isn't going to wreck anyone's health. I also know that many people don't care about the animals, or can't afford the cost of well-cared for animal products.
I guess my point boils down to "all generalizations are wrong". You love McDonald's and that's fine. But your characterization of people who don't like McDonald's and their desire to purchase "their overpriced crap food" shows that you're not seeing another side to the story.
Accusing McDonalds of Intense Animal Farming could be a bit overhasty. In Germany they clearly state being different, here is a report from 2014, check page 5, 'Best Beef' (English):
McDonalds is definitely superior to some of their peers, but I would be surprised if their actions in the US were as good as their actions in Europe. From what I've read, Western European countries have superior standards when it comes to food production.
I do like their fries--though that's about the only thing. To me, McDonalds has better fries than places like In-and-Out but their burgers are far inferior.
There are lots and lots of reasons with many types of food to prefer fresh. But it's also possible to fetishize fresh over frozen for no particular reason. (As is often the case with seafood.)
I can only report my experience, which is that I'll sometimes grab (only) some McD's fries when on a long drive and I generally avoid either In-N-Out or ShakeShack fries when getting the rare burger at those places (which I rather enjoy).
It's probably also worth noting though that the premium fast burger places are, to greater or lesser degrees, (unsurprisingly) a non-trivial uplift over McDonalds.
Fair enough. But "frozen" gets so often used as an automatic disparagement relative to fresh.
To your other point, I personally can't stand McD's burgers so would avoid them unless I were starving so In-n-Out etc. are a better value if I have a choice. (Doubt if I've had a McD's burger in more than a decade.) No judgment about people who do. Just not for me.
Are you referring to the Big Mac sauce? If so, a thousand island dressing gets you pretty close. Or just mix ketchup, mayo, and sweet relish for an easy DIY version. Balance to taste.
I don't hate McDonald's because it isn't organic or biowhatever. I'm also not concerned with elevating myself to some perceived class I don't belong in. I hate it because it tastes like garbage and is expensive compared to similar options. For a dollar or two more I can get a vastly superior burger, fries and shake at 5 Guys, Tasty Burger, Wahlburgers or whatever.
Unfortunately having once been a starving student, and also being well off financially, the only thing worse than being well off and having an awful burger for dinner, was being poor and not only having an awful burger but knowingly blowing my valuable and hard to replace $5 on it. Why now rather than saving up two more dollars to go to Culvers, I'm going to have to save up $7 ...
How middle/upper class people think poor people think, and how poor people actually think, are often two different things. Also middle/upper always confuse poor vs working class along the "everyone beneath me is a prole and they're all alike" model.
McDonalds is more a working class place than a poor people place. Working class people don't think in terms of "saving up" for $5 because they have an income stream and McD simply fits that budget. They might "save up" for and plan ahead for $20 at a sit down dinner. But not McD. Its affordably cheap for them.
I guess what I'm talking about is the difference between urge based spontaneous spending for working class or above, vs planned saving up for actual poor people.
> I love McDonalds and I think their hamburger is the best hamburger, their french fries are the best and all the other menu options have this typical McDonalds design--everything, every single piece and ingredient is meticulously thought through and the final dish has a perfect taste. The taste you get for the carb in-take is unmatched.
Really? That's surprising. I've always assumed people went to McDonald's because it's everywhere and it's just damn easy to order there, and you won't get any surprises. It's the "lazy option" for me.
Their food is subpar and their hamburgers are mediocre. Note I'm not comparing their food with gourmet food, but with hamburgers from smaller, non-franchise restaurants. I love well-made burgers; once you've tasted one that wasn't made out of a frozen patty, you can never go back. As for the actual restaurant -- the place, I mean -- all the McDonald's I know are garish, clownish, hideous places designed as if they wanted you out of there as soon as possible. Which I guess makes sense in a fast-food joint.
I'm not from the US but I know for a fact you can get awesome burgers there. Why anyone not in a hurry would stop at McDonald's is puzzling to me.
> with hamburgers from smaller, non-franchise restaurants
Sorry to disagree here. I think yes, there are definitely many non-franchise burger places doing fantastic burgers but I haven't seen any clearly superior. Yes different in taste but superior? No.
And very often, they lack the perfection level of McDonalds. You often get 'over-engineered' burgers, too thick, to much salad, too sticky whole grain non-typical burger bread, same frozen beef but from an unknown source, too much organic salad, too slow, too expensive, too much of being different. Too much of this attitude of not being McDonalds.
Maybe it's just a matter of taste but I prefer the plain vanilla type burgers McDonalds offers, I don't want the super organic rucola vegan burger with soybeans from your friend's burger in.
And again nobody matches their thin and ultra crisp fries.
Well, obviously this is a matter of taste, and by definition subjective, so I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, but...
...I'm speechless at our level of disagreement. This truly surprises me, to the point I've always assumed everyone acknowledged McDonald's food was trash, it's just that it's sometimes so damn convenient. To me, McDonald's burgers taste like cardboard. They definitely don't taste like meat. A guy I know who admits he likes McDonald's burgers says it's precisely because they don't taste like meat (in his words: "I don't like ground beef, which is why I like McDonald's: their burgers don't taste like beef.")
In my experience, almost any randomly chosen non-franchise burger place will make a superior burger (I mean, the ones using actual ground beef, and not frozen patties like McDonald's). From that basic standard, you can only go up. The ground meat is immediately superior, it doesn't look like that pre-frozen brown-grey stuff McDonald's uses. The dressings of good burger joints (sorry, I don't know the proper word in English.. toppings? dressings? you get the idea) are almost universally superior to McDonald's. You get a vast variety of sauces to go with your burger, whereas McDonald's only has a couple, and they are disgusting, something straight out of a cheap bottle.
As for fries, I also disagree. McDonald's uses, at least in the countries I know, pre-frozen fries of brands such as McCain's (if this particular brand doesn't exist in your country, I'm sure you'll get the idea anyway), instead of actual, freshly made french fries. I understand why: their logistics don't allow them to make proper fries. But almost by definition they are inferior. Again, not comparing them to other fast food burger chains -- which in my opinion fare similarly to McDonald's -- but with what I can make at home or what gets made in small, non-chain burger joints.
on mobile, so i keep it short. re the fries you are misinformed, just google, either HN or Reddit, a guy there deconstructed the recipe, their way of preparing fries (they freeze them two times) is very sophistcated, better than frying fresh potatoes and not close to the cardboard fries McCain produces.
Ok, so they are not McCain like I thought. Maybe they have a sophisticated process, but what does it matter if their fries taste bad? I assure you, it's not "better" than frying fresh potatoes. I know so: my fries taste way better, and I'm no chef!
And aside from the fries, do you agree their frozen patties taste nothing like real ground beef burgers?
I just don't like McDs because honestly the quality has gone down since I was a kid. Part of that is the whole fear of saturated fats found in beef tallow which made the fries great. But honestly, the burgers are just okay today compared to Five Guys (I'm not kidding I think they do burgers better but their fries are junk). And I tell you some folks I know make more flavorful burgers than even Five Guys, but good luck getting the recipe out of them.
> It's cool to hate McDonalds, I know and I don't care. All my friends would never take their kids to McDonalds. They even don't take their kids to the movies. This is our generation nowadays, all they want is an 'organic', 'low fat' and 'please don't hurt' sticker on their overpriced crap food without having a clue how nutrition really works. Especially here in Europe people position themselves as heathly when hating McDonalds.
It's not that it's "cool to hate"; it's simply that some people see a connection between 30%+ of the population being obese, and a certain type of nutrition, of whom McDonald is [seen as] the poster child.
Most people don't realize it, but McDonald's is not a burger-flipping restaurant chain; it is one of the world's best real estate portfolios. Franchisees flip the burgers. McDonald's simply owns the best commercial property all over the world. Think about it, every town and city in the Country and many of the world, who owns the best lot on highest traffic intersection? McDonald's.
There are corporate-owned restaurants, and there are franchises.
Stores can be on leased or owned land.
For example, something like 8 McDonald's in San Francisco have closed or are closing in the past few years, many because of lost leases, supposedly.
One rumored to be threatened location is 3rd and Townsend, a great location just one block from AT&T Park and a neighborhood institution (it was there long before the ballpark).
"We are in the real estate business, not the hamburger business." Ray Croc, Founder of McDonalds.
"If a location is good enough to buy, we want to build on it right away and be in there before the competition. Pump some money and activity into a town, and they’ll remember you for it." Ray Croc, Founder of McDonalds
McDonald's is also doing product development and managing logistics.
And thinking about the franchises around here, they are certainly in high traffic locations, but they aren't particularly in advantageous locations compared to their competitors.
It seem to me that the newly renovated McDonalds are more like Panera's so I can see the appeal to go there to hang and converse. My friends and I used to always hang out at McDonalds when we were kids because they don't care if you loiter for hours.
>It seem to me that the newly renovated McDonalds are more like Panera's
The McDonalds in my hometown used to be decorated completely in 1950's memorabilia. Lots of mint green and pink colors, old photographs of McDonalds of the time on the walls, big laminate figures of Elvis and Marilyn Monroe, models of cars of the time in a big display case, and even a working 45 record jukebox. It was a really cool place that a unique vibe to it.
A few years back they "renovated" it to look, as you say, like a generic Panera Bread and it lost all its charm and appeal, not to mention the memories I associated with the place as a kid. Until I was like 13 or 14 years old I thought ALL McDonalds looked like that.
I can understand, the McDonalds in my hometown had the ball pit and all the 1950's fixings until about 5 years ago when they ripped it all out and did the same but the real killer was that the ball pit was replaced with a bunch of gamecube stations.
When I worked for the Golden Arches in the early 80's, there was a daily group of 10 retired guys who ordered coffee, rarely a danish, and sat in a couple of tables for a few hours. They bitched about the weather, about politics, about "those damn kids" and especially when the price of a cup of coffee went up. It was a ritual in their day, and they weren't some downtrodden group; these were guys who had stories of WW2 that would chill you. They built this country and never considered Mickey D's with the disdain the current generation seems to feel.
Many younger people today find it hard to fathom, but the suburbs and fast food car culture were not (entirely) a capitalist plot executed by General Motors and McDonald's to brainwash the populace into unwitting wage-slave servitude.
The WW2 generation built and adopted all that voluntarily, because they like it and think it's a much better way of life than how they lived before the war: in densely packed, dirty cities; unable to remotely afford a car; being obligated to cook for hours every single day before you could even eat a meal, and then often going to bed hungry because there was just not enough food to go around due to the Great Depression.
They moved to the suburbs because they generally view having your very own car to drive places, and being able to pick up dinner on the way home in five minutes, as massive lifestyle improvements rather than impediments.
> Many younger people today find it hard to fathom, but the suburbs and fast food car culture were not (entirely) a capitalist plot executed by General Motors and McDonald's to brainwash the populace into unwitting wage-slave servitude.
Yeah, a significant part of it was about race rather than capitalism.
Yes, racism existed (and still exists today.) However, the degree to which racism played a part in the construction of suburban America has now been greatly distorted and exaggerated by multiple generations of leftist academic historians, as part of a much larger political and cultural program aimed at disparaging traditional society in general.
This is in turn part of the larger and extensively documented phenomenon of leftists having come to control almost all American academic discourse during the past few decades and systematically stifling any dissenting narratives, especially prevalent in the social sciences.
While some racists certainly existed, the vast, vast majority of individuals who moved from the cities to the suburbs neither knew nor cared about any racism that was going on. It was not a factor at all in their personal decisions to build or move to suburbia.
> While some racists certainly existed, the vast, vast majority of individuals who moved from the cities to the suburbs neither knew nor cared about any racism that was going on.
The people moving may or may not have known (though I think you seriously understate the degree to which they did), but what is more important is that the people designing and executing the policies (including those of banks and those of governments) which shaped the suburbs definitely and deliberately were not only aware of but actively applying race-based discrimination in so doing.
Someone at work literally gave me a speech about the health evils of my egg mcmuffin while drinking a 24 oz Starbucks milkshake^H "frap" and getting ready to crack open some frozen sausage egg and cheese sandwich from Starbucks.
It fits with Chris Arnade's other reporting on addiction, but it does seem a bit too focused on McDonald's and a bit too uniformly positive (aside from noting that readers might "sneer").
The Guardian does do native advertising [0], and I find their labeling policy unclear. This case study [1] by their native advertising division, Guardian Labs, highlights videos that are very clearly labeled [2] but also an article [3] that doesn't seem to be. Their policy on commercial content [4] seems to suggest that everything is clearly labeled, but at least in this case they either didn't follow it or ignored the distinctions in the case study.
My dad used to do all his studying at McDonalds (he was a pastor), and he worked there when I was growing up. We spent a lot of time as a family (because we were pretty poor) eating there and playing on the playgrounds.
For most of my childhood, the first time I saw my dad was when he got home, at around 11am, after working a full shift at McDonalds. The smell of McDonalds has come to be firmly associated with home for me, and when I am feeling stressed, its where I go to eat. :)
It's not just poor neighborhoods. I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. This is a mostly affluent area, but there are some homeless. There is a McDonalds at 95th street, on Broadway. I believe it is 24 hours, or at least it is open very late. Any time I walk home late at night, I notice that dozens of people are clustered around that place. It offers safety and warmth and a place people can talk to each other.
Of course, this doesn't mean it is a good thing. The most probable reason is that poor neighborhoods are so much in need of public services that even a McDonalds will alleviate their problems. In a concrete sense, private companies have largely taken over public spaces and many have no other alternatives.
I grew up in Vermont and there was a McDonalds on both sides of town. I've probably eaten at McDonalds that any other restaurant in my life. It's certainly a gathering place in my hometown. It's difficult to go and not run into someone you know.
I live in a small-ish, suburb/rural large town in central PA. I have gone to McDonald's a couple of times in the late morning, and every time it's completely full of people over 75 socializing (including half the staff).
(What follows is my own opinion, based on my own experience. It's not an intended as an attack on any one group, and shouldn't be construed as such. I'm making no value judgements, simply reporting what I saw and learned.)
I spent two years working freelance for a community centre in the UK. I was working for the Centre's voluntary management committee, who had use of the building through an convoluted arms-length agreement with the local Council who actually owned the building and paid for its upkeep. The Council used some of the Centre's space for offices and the like.
My objective was to expand the Association's programme of learning, creative, and health activities and increase the community's use of the Centre.
The two years I did the work were educational. I learned a lot in the time, not all of it good.
Several things really stuck with me.
There are some people who are genuinely passionate and willing to give over large amounts of time working, for free, to build something they believe in for the benefit of others. Working with these people was inspiring.
There are also at least the same number of people who are interested mostly in furthering their own agenda, their own pet projects, and will often act in a spiteful and overprotective fashion with that aim. Often, they'll actively work against something that has no effect whatsoever on their pet project, simply because it doesn't benefit their own pet project. Negotiating with these people, and working around the blocks they erect, was a huge challenge and not particularly enjoyable.
The local Council's policies and institutional biases actively work against a community centre in many respects. There's so much red-tape that quite a lot of activities which would be popular can't run -- the burden imposed by the bureaucracy smothers it, and grinds down the people working underneath it. One example is a drop-in youth group: these ran for nearly 30 years in the Centre to huge success, but were infeasible now due to Council regulations and requirements; the Association would have had to employ multiple youth-workers (at £20+ an hour) where previously carefully vetted volunteers ran these groups.
When working in a modern community centre with volunteers and professional community workers, 'community' usually means one of four things: the middle-class, ethnic minorities,* children, and people with special needs,* and with a heavy leaning towards females in all four of these group. (This feels like an appropriate time to remind reader that I'm not making any value judgements or attacks.)
There is some effort made to reach the very, very poor (usually in the form of at-risk teens), but almost none made to engage with lower-income/working-class people. Males are similarly not a priority. Questioning this is extremely difficult, and too easily dismissed as sexism/racism/inverse snobbery.
After my freelance work at the Centre finished, I spent nine months working in a supermarket in a poor part of town. It was pretty eye-opening. In that time, I got to know people from all walks of life, of all ages, and various nationalities.
Each day as I was working, I spent time interacting with, and supporting, a genuine, organic community. I experienced more genuine community there than I ever did at the community centre -- and I was a part of that community. I saw the same customers every day, and often speaking to me and the other staff would be their only social contact that day. I never experienced that at the community centre: there, I almost exclusively interacted with people who had a strong, well-developed base and social structure around them.
Council bureaucracy and the unquestioned biases existing within community work failed these people. Imposing a bureaucracy over a community impairs that community, unintentionally marginalises certain people, and causes community to develop unnaturally if it develops at all. When that happens, though, those who get left behind will do what humans naturally do, and develop a community of their own.
I'm saddened that for some people this community has to be their local supermarket, but I'm incredibly grateful for the people who work there who take on this extra community work naturally and without any expectation of extra reward or recognition.
* The correct term for these groups changes frequently. I'm using the ones which will be most widely understood and intend no offence.
When I was in Osaka, the McDonald's had a blockbusting line going into it.
The food was, near as I can tell, identical to the American locations -- but the place was spacious, clean, and staffed mostly by the sort of mousy-voiced girls Japan seems to produce in legion strength. And you get a Handi-Wipe to clean up with after your meal.
After getting mild food poisoning from a McDonalds, I would not return. Bad experience aside, the food is gross, unhealthy and not as cheap as a local restaurant that serves real food.
However, foreign McDonalds are very very different. I would visit one of those again, sure. The quality is a world away different.
I don't know about your city, but where I am I would struggle to find "a local restaurant that serves real food" for even 50% more than McD's. Probably 100%, if I'm going to limit it to within a block or two of where a McD's is. In a lot of places, chain restaurants are the cheapest and most reliable way to get something edible.
I'm a very health-conscious person. I'm 5'10", 155 pounds, 53 years old, and have a nicely defined body (you can see my abs!)
It's easy to count calories in McDonald. An Egg McMuffin is 310 calories. A regular hamburger is 240, a Big Mac is 563.
I can have an Egg McMuffin and black coffee for breakfast (310 calories), two regular hamburgers for lunch (480) calories, and a Big Mac for Dinner (563) and be at 1353 calories, which leaves me with 650 calories for healthy snacks (fruit, vegetables, yogurt) and be at 2,000 calories/day.
It can be an excellent way for people on a budget to get some meat several times a weak. (Buy the hamburgers, w/o buns, and eat them with rice and broccoli!)
You're being downvoted because it's cool to hate on McDonald's, but I agree with you.
From my experience in the UK, their menu is increasingly easy to find nutritional information for (the print it in big font on -all- of their packaging), and they offer alternatives for fries/sodas if you like. Much of the McDonald's menu is far healthier than 'real' restaurant equivalents, which use much more oil/salt because the international community isn't scrutinising every menu item.
I think they're being downvoted because they're a new account with no submissions and no other comments bar this one, which looks a little... ah... suspicious?
I saw your "dead" comment, thought it was valuable. Your previous comments didn't appear to be antisocial so I vouched it.
Your karma went up since then so apparently some people agree.
You're still flagged for whatever reason, so whatever you write will still be invisible until someone using showdead comes along and decides it shouldn't be hidden.
Healthy food does have something to do with the amount of calories it contains. It's not the be-all or end-all, but if you're consuming less than you use, you'll lose weight.
Weight is by far one of the largest risk factors for a huge number of medical conditions and problems, so I'd be amazed to hear how calories/nutritional content of food isn't related to health!
> It's not the be-all or end-all, but if you're consuming less than you use, you'll lose weight.
I'm not really weighing in on one side or the other in terms of the overall argument, but unfortunately metabolisms are rather sneaky. Calories in < calories out = weight loss sounds nice, but unfortunately calories out is a moving target in that your metabolism will ratchet down and be more efficient and/or consume muscle if calories in is insufficient.
I have an ideological axe to grind here, but I can't help but think of this as the end-game of libertarian "the government should enforce property rights only". Of course, currently existing social services are more like a band-aid on top of inequality than a real cure, so you end up with things like,
> In almost every franchise, there are tables with people like Betty escaping from the streets for a short bit. They prefer McDonald’s to shelters and to non-profits, because McDonald’s are safer, provide more freedom, and most importantly, the chance to be social, restoring a small amount of normalcy.
but it's really not hard to imagine something superior to both McDonald's and shelters, just real community space.
> the end-game of libertarian "the government should enforce property rights only"
The alternative is government, but this is clearly a case where they've failed. Federal, state, and local governments haven't provided any comparable services, only the private sector did, and with no government funding.
I think the liberal (or north-american libertarian) way, would include local community areas run by individuals within said community similar to a co-op. Remember that liberalism doesn't tell you HOW you have get together, only that politicians can't create a one size fits all solution and force everyone to pay for it.
The bigger issues with co-ops right now in the USA are the regulatory barriers in the way of forming one without everyone involved becoming liable for anything bad that happens.
There's something incredibly American about a multibillion dollar fast-food corporation that's unwittingly found itself as the gathering place for those abandoned by a society that has gutted and underfunded social services.
The US spends so much, that social security and medicare combined have nearly 33 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. To give you a sense of scale, that's half of the world's gdp. In terms of taxes, there are 4 payees for every beneficiary and it's estimated that by 2030 that number will be 2 to 1.
When you sift through all the propaganda, America is financially imploding because it gives so much. So feel what you wish, but to state that the services are underfunded doesn't match reality.
One issue with talking about United States social services in this manner is that there is a clear bias towards the elderly and the disabled (about 3/4 of recipients) instead of merely the impoverished (about 1/4 of recipients). Of the assistance to the impoverished, I'd wager that a huge chunk of that 25% is Medicaid.
If there is indeed a problem with our social benefit programs, it has very little to do with these poor neighborhoods with McDonalds community centers. Instead, it will have everything to do with a society that is rapidly aging (mainly due to the demographics of the "baby boom"), the pay-as-you-go setup of Social Security, and perhaps our unwillingness to control medical costs that might strangle Medicare and Medicaid.
That is a myth. I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that Americans tend to thing they spend such huge amount of money on social services and welfare. You don't okay. Look at the statistics and try to travel a bit. For people who have actually been around the world, it is blindly obvious that America isn't spending much money on its poor.
America has the highest level of inequality of any rich country. Look it up.
Ok by Indian and Chinese standard, America is probably extremely generous and that seems to be the standard which many American conservatives measure American efforts towards the poor. If it is significantly better than India or some other dirt poor third world country then it must be great.
Seriously America is one of the richest countries in the world and yet I've never been to a developed country where you see so much depravity, poverty and people struggling all in the midst of opulence. Kind of sick that people tolerate this.
>try to travel a bit. For people who have actually been around the world
I don't live in the United States, and I've done plenty of traveling. I'm giving you the facts, and you're ascribing motive and/or a viewpoint. You're saying that the only way I can possibly believe what I believe is because I haven't seen the world. Out of respect for each other and the discussion, why don't we assume that both of us have seen the world and instead stick to the facts.
> America has the highest level of inequality of any rich country. Look it up.
So what? I don't care if Elon Musk retires and plays golf on Mars for the rest of his days, not if that means reduced automotive emissions and a better life for everyone here. The better metric is how well are the poor in the US doing as compared to other countries like the ones you've mentioned.
> I've never been to a developed country where you see so much depravity
I don't know how to quantify that.
> Ok by Indian and Chinese standard, America is probably extremely generous
Exactly, and it's be cause we have a lot of rich people here that pay lots of taxes.
By community space, I assume you mean public buildings like libraries, town halls, community centres, youth clubs, etc.
In what way are they better than private spaces? The main difference is that people can use public spaces for free, but only because the cost is borne by those who don't use them.
Meanwhile, using such facilities carries a social stigma, because they are, by and large, only used by people who cannot afford to congregate in private spaces (bars, restaurants, coffee shops, gyms, clubs, classes, etc.)
This article demonstrates how it's possible for companies to provide de facto public spaces, at minimal cost (the cost of a coffee, or similar), in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
No sponsored content would mention the likelihood of readers sneering at the sponsor in the headline.
The Guardian is a reputable paper, although, barring the views of a few commentators like Aditya Chakrabortty, it tends to have a complacent middle-class outlook on things.
It's really unfortunate, because Chic-Fil-A is arguably the best fast food option in the US when it comes to user experience (depending of course on your exact definition of fast food and whether or not you include non-franchised local businesses that nevertheless operate similar to fast food places).
I'm routinely impressed with the level of customer service at Chic-Fil-A. It's frankly better than what I've gotten at many formal restaurants. On several occasions my SO and I have been given generous amounts of free food as well, and we're only semi-regulars (maybe twice a month).
One instance stands out. We ordered a frosted coffee to try it. Out of nowhere one of the employees made us a second one for free, but he made it differently from the first one with different ingredients. He gave it to us so we'd each have one and so we could decide which method of making it we thought was better. Stuff like this has happened multiple times at Chic-Fil-A for us.
I find Wendy's to be the best option. Chili instead of fries is nice in the winter. If you want the fast food is going to instantly give you a heart attack experience (admit it, sometimes you just want some horrible for you food), there is always Hardees, they get some good specialty burgers from time to time.
I had only been to a Chic-Fil-A a few times before refusing to go there after their stance, and I really do not see what is so special so I'm not feeling like I'm losing out on anything.
I'm laughing, well more smirking really, about the cleanliness of McDonalds in the thread. I stopped eating there after I got sick after getting a drink at two different ones. This was after their McCafe upgrades so it's not like it was a 50 year old restaurant.
As a side note Wendy's doesn't use frozen pre-made beef patties, instead they get fresh ground beef shipped in and they form the patties. That's another reason I like Wendy's compared to other options.
Sad to see you downvoted for expressing a great American freedom, voting with your dollars.
I too was very sad to see Chik Fil A's ownership become involved with conservative social politics, going so far as to fund anti-gay conversion camps using electro-shock therapy on depressed gay teenagers.
But as long as you're the right kind of family they are the perfect family environment, no doubt.
It was surprising to me that a few local Chic-Fil-A restaurants served food Sunday to those donating blood in Orlando. Maybe it was PR, maybe it wasn't sanctioned by corporate, but I didn't see it coming.
> The company’s new foundation also ended nearly all of its donations to anti-LGBT organizations in 2012, with $25,390 to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes as the only potential sore point.
Those are the main reasons I go there so often. It's a certain caliber of customer that seems to go there, and I really enjoy the atmosphere and the certainty that there won't be any weirdos or spiky-haired freaks while I'm trying to eat my food.
I'm not so big on the whole religion thing, but whatever. They've a right to think that.
I suspect they're being downvoted for comparing LGBT folks to "weirdos or spiky-haired freaks" moreso than having a contrary choice in fast food restaurant.
> I am pretty sure the cheeseburger, apple slices, and chocolate milk are not much worse, and probably better, than the typical fare on a slapped together kids meal.
Wow. It saddens me to see that statement. I thought it was commonly knowledge that McDonalds isn't actually "food" in the nutrition and health sense of the word any more than cotton candy and pure salt are.
That's awfully ignorant. Hating on McDonalds and the like is the trendy thing to do now, but to say that there is no nutritional or health value in their food is ridiculous.
I just looked up the nutrition facts for a kid's happy meal with a cheeseburger, apples slices and chocolate milk. In total, you've got:
450 calories
12g total fat
6g saturated fat (not that it matters)
61g Carbs
32g Sugars (22 of which come from the chocolate milk)
24g Protein
Thats about 60% carbs, 24% protein, and 12% fat. Lacking a special diet, that's about ideal (textbook anyway) macros.
Wanna talk 'health' and specific micros?
You've got 820mg of sodium. High, sure, but so is all American food. 20% of your daily Vit A, 160% of your daily Vit C, 50% of your daily Calcium, 25% of your daily Iron.
You're getting a reasonable amount of calories, with a reasonable macronutrient ratio, and a fair spattering of micronutrients for, what, $5?
Plus a toy, and a playground. Two things that plenty of people don't have trivially available to them.
But it's not organic, or free trade, or antibiotic free, or gluten free, or made exclusively by third-world war orphans, so it must be crap. I get it.
Exactly. I take my son there all the time to eat the chicken nuggets, apples, and choc milk. He plays on the playground and has a blast being social with other kids there. People just speak with the mobs instead of thinking, its absurd.
High sodium intake is not bad for you (unless you have a few very specific and unusual health conditions.) Like most late 20th century nutritional guidance, turns out that idea was totally wrong.
I'm not suggesting that you eat only McDonald's every day. Nobody is. But relative to some of the stuff that kids find palatable? It's not really much better or worse. It's saltier than I would cook at home, but a healthy kid can pass plenty of salt without a problem:
Chicken Nuggets -- pretty standard breaded chicken [1]. I don't love autolysed yeast, but it doesn't make it not "food."
Milk -- same as you can get anywhere else.
French fries -- potatoes, vegetable oil, and salt. Definitely "food."
Chicken sandwich -- again, saltier than I'd cook at home, but the major ingredient is the same chicken meat as anywhere else.
>Chicken Nuggets -- pretty standard breaded chicken //
In the UK the recipe includes "dried glucose syrup" and dextrose.
Also, just calling it autolysed yeast instead of MSG shows they're trying to hide the real contents. What else do they hide under "natural flavours (botanical source)" or whatever they use in ingredients list.
The grilled chicken sandwiches at McDonald's are actually pretty healthy.
I don't think anyone would claim that McDonald's is a healthy option, but saying that it's "common knowledge" that it's not "food" comes off simultaneously arrogant and ignorant.
For many families, McDonald's is one of only a handful of local food sources within their budget. Consider that, also.
There are plenty of "real", "local", "organic" restaurants where the kids' meal is (local) grilled cheese and (organic) fries. How could this possibly be less nutritious?
Get a couple double cheeseburgers with no bun (meat and cheese only). An extremely affordable way to get a quick bite to eat while on a ketogenic diet.
To be fair to the original commenter...
a "kid's meal" isn't typically "food" either in the nutritional sense. A lot of "food" made for "kids" is actually devoid of nutritional content in the best cases... and actually harmful in the worst cases.
The pictures look pretty sad and the mc donalds house is filled with a cloud of sugary sweetness. Kids may like it but if one is older and still likes it, i would assume that this person either got addicted to this in some form or simply has the stomach and tastebuds similar to a dog (which is nothing to be ashamed of).
No, more like dogs don't care much about taste, as long as the food is somewhat edible and contains minimal nutritional value (some dogs eat shit or rotten carcass for example).
That's why my guess is that their taste buds and stomachs are different.
I am pretty sure the cheeseburger, apple slices, and chocolate milk are not much worse, and probably better, than the typical fare on a slapped together kids meal.
When I was a kid, my dad would take me to the local McDonalds to do math, several times a week. They'd let us sit there ordering nothing but sodas in a comfy booth for hours. These are some of my fondest childhood memories.
There are some issues with McDonalds, but it is a pleasant user experience.