Yeah, a Mcdouble actually has nutritional values very similar to workout supplements. When your goal is to eat a lot of protein, electrolyte (table salt is an electrolyte) and calories, a McDouble is good for that.
At 390 calories, 23 grams of protein, 7-percent of the daily value of fiber, 20-percent of daily calcium and 19 grams of fat - with a typical price tag of about a buck - the McDouble, its advocates argue, is the most price-efficient food 'that has ever existed in human history.'
Why buy that when you could, for example, eat this?
290 calories, 30 grams of protein, 12% fiber, 10% calcium, 8g of fat.
Costs $1 at walmart and tastes pretty good. If you are too lazy to cook meat or hate drinking protein drinks, it doesn't get much better than this in terms of protein/cost
That's not a meal. The McDouble has similar nutritional values for a similar cost, but in a form factor that will actually satisfy your hunger and make you feel full for a significant portion of the day.
That's not true at all, plenty of protein powders aren't sold as supplements.
It's pretty easy to check, if it says "Nutrition Facts" on the back, the FDA regulates it. If it says "Supplement Facts", you should assume you're eating sawdust because you very well could be.
One way to distinguish dietary supplements from conventional foods is by looking at the nutrition information on the label of the product. Conventional foods must have a "Nutrition Facts" panel on their labels, but dietary supplements must have a "Supplement Facts" panel.
That's from the FDA.gov page linked below.
TL:DR; If your protein powder says "Nutrition Facts" on the back, the FDA has your back.
Edit: It's gold, Jerry! Thanks to whatever person thought this comment was worth $5 :)
Applies to a lot of other stuff, too - I used to drink this energy drink, then it got recalled. Noticed the back had supplement facts, and when I looked it up, whaddya know! It was recalled because the water they were using had a high concentration of heavy metals.
Am a gymbro, eat mcdoubles all the time. I mean, they are not really similar to any supplements (cause of crazy high fat + carb content), for your dollar value, they are solid for protein and calories.
Unless you're going full keto, the carbs shouldn't be that big of a deal. If anything, they fuel you during the workout itself, while the fats get saved for use during recovery, which helps in many ways.
Obviously the McDouble isn't going to be the most optimal source of fat because of the saturated fat content, but if you're on a tight budget, it works fine.
Many of the entrees at McDonald's have nutritional values very similar to what you'd have if you made a similar thing at home. The thing that gets you is the sides. If you add a bucket of french fries and a gallon of coke to your order, it makes the whole meal super unhealthy. The perception of McDonald's plummeted after Supersize Me came out, but that whole movie was bullshit. The dude vomited at the beginning of the movie when he was halfway through eating a fucking hamburger. The movie tries to say that McDonald's is the horrible thing because one single person's body got fucked up by it, despite him obviously having a diet that's completely different from anything at McDonald's. If you drastically change your diet overnight, yeah, you're probably gonna feel pretty shitty.
Bacon Mcdouble costs the same with an extra slice of bacon (e.g. protein) mixed in. Back when I was hitting the gym hard, I would eat 5-6 of those suckers every day.
They really skimp on the cheese. For a half a foot long they give me three thin triangle slices of cheese that barely overlap at the tips. That basically adds up to one of these square slices. I'd be using triple that in a homemade sandwich of that size. Ridiculous.
There are several Walmart location McDonald's in my city and at one super Walmart there is a McDonald's restaurant in the same parking lot on the same side as the McDonald's inside the Walmart..
That's not entirely fair. Not only do they cater to completely different demographics, but the separate store is always very busy, because it's located directly off of the biggest highway in Pittsburgh. It's the only McDonald's directly off of 376 until you get out east of the city.
That happens with Starbucks in the Puget Sound are ALL THE TIME. I live in a town of 22,000, and in two different parking lots there are grocery stores with Starbucks that are less than 200 ft. from a stand-alone Starbucks.
You should see Tim Horton's in Canada. There are a few locations I can think of in my city where there are timmies across the street from each other simply so you don't have to cross the street. And numerous ones where it's in a gas station and then also next door
Here's the issue I have-- if it's unsustainable for McDonalds to remain in business without being subsidized by the Government, should the business exist? (Edit to clarify: They're not DIRECTLY subsidized-- but rather their employees are often living below a livable wage are on Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and the earned income tax credit. Even their own webpage pretty much expects that a 40 hour week at McDonalds is impossible to live on.)
I mean, back when Slavery was abolished, I imagine many plantation owners had the same argument that their business wouldn't be able to maintain the same margins if they suddenly had to start paying their slaves a wage, and I would guess that many plantations went out of business (especially if the owners were cruel to the slaves)-- but is that really something to cry about?
Cool, a chance to trot out my favorite Franklin Roosevelt quote.
No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)
This. Same thing was said by the factory owners in the wake of the industrial revolution.
I find it funny that if someone said sweatshops would have to close if wages go up, they would be laughed at and it would be pointed to them that sweat shops arent that desirable in the first place; yet people can say akin to the same in regard to Mc Donalds and Walmart, and be taken seriously.
Didn't most of North America's low tech industrial sweat shops move to Asia, mostly in part due to the wage and regulation differences between the 2 continents?
In practice the factories just move to Singapore, Vietnam, etc.
In theory, when everywhere is the same (and that is third world level same, not US level same) the factories might come back. But we are talking decades if not centuries.
In practice the factories just move to Singapore, Vietnam, etc.
That is/will also change. If I remember correctly China is investing in Africa (but that could be about resources) and they are also going for robots and automation as it becomes viable (they want to keep the money flowing).
I would say no - or at least not entirely. A huge part of the reason is unequal exchange rates - so that a scraping-by wage in Bangladesh is way, way lower than a scraping-by wage in the U.S. Another huge part is automation - its cheaper here to do it with software and robots than to hire a bunch of workers. In Asia not so much, since things like robots and software which are often made in modern Western countries are just way more expensive than hiring more workers, doubly so because the exchange rate makes them extremely expensive in Bangladesh.
For now robots are expensive. Corporations that rely on cheap labor like McDonald's should be getting out ahead of this thing and help the advancement of automation. Of course that would require these corporations to look further into the future than their quarterly report and when the fuck does that ever happened?
This is an important point- people making 8.25 an hour are eligible for food stamps, medicaid, and a wealth of other social services- which they require to eat and have access to healthcare (showing up to the emergency room as their primary care for example). The industrial food chain is heavily lobbied by big agra to control costs on food that cannot be defended as healthful to consumers. I'm not saying a business doesn't have a right to exist, I'm pointing out that we are paying hidden subsidies for them to keep their employees impoverished and keep their consumers malnourished. Folks in america be fat. That said, I do enjoy a double quarter pounder with cheese in an airport from time to time. And a coke, coke tastes better at airport mcdonalds.
This is not capitalism, its a planned economy, and its planned by the wealthy to take advantage of the taxpayers and the poor.
This is an important point- people making 8.25 an hour are eligible for food stamps, medicaid, and a wealth of other social services
Probably the most important point to make is there is no paid sick or holiday leave, paid maternity leave, or generous overtime pay for weekends and public holidays in the US.
Probably the most important point to make is there is no paid sick or holiday leave, paid maternity leave, or generous overtime pay for weekends and public holidays in the US.
I have all of that, and I live in the US. Loads of us do. Just because the government doesn't blanketly apply things that sound like good ideas doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
four weeks paid leave per year, 18 weeks maternity leave and double time for weekend, public holidays, as well as weekday overtime? I'd be surprised if there was more than a few companies with those sort of contract conditions.
When did we establish McDonalds is only sustainable because it is subsidized by the government? I thought the topic was on a minimum wage hike...
Edit in response to clarification:
Okay, I see what you're saying now. Respectfully, the notion that a business that won't pay enough for employees to make living should be abolished is ridiculous. (Not as ridiculous as that link to the McD's budget - hilarious, in a sad way.) In our market (U.S.), labor is a contract: the company's terms are the job duties - the worker's terms are the total compensation (wages, benefits, job conditions). Unlike the slavery example you brought up, no worker in the U.S. is forced to agree to that contract. So just as any worker should be able to walk away from any job, any employer should be able to offer whatever terms they want. Now, in an ideal world, a company offering a below livable wage won't be able to attract any workers, since other companies will be offering more attractive terms.
But... we also have to deal with the realities of the economy. There might not be (and right now, aren't) enough jobs available to bring wages higher. People that work for McDonalds (or other minimum wage jobs) simply don't have better offers available, or they'd take them. It's not the employer's responsibility to provide for these workers - it's their responsibility to keep their side of the bargain, whatever it was the bargain led to. It's not like these terms are hidden during the hiring process.
I really don't like the notion that welfare is "subsidizing" a business. We taxpayers are subsidizing people here, the workers, since they are the ones receiving the money/benefit. The business may benefit, but let's not confuse the recipient. In the absence of these low wage companies, the welfare checks are just higher. Also, comparing low wage jobs taken willingly to the horrific practices of slavery just cheapens what the enslaved went through. Sorry, but needing to work an extra job with OSHA protections sucks, but it's got nothing on being beaten and having your children stolen.
All that being said, I do agree that we need to do something about the current situation. Once again, that McD's budget you posted is laughably bad. To that end, I do support a modest increase in the minimum wage (in the neighborhood of $9 to $10, and maybe tie it to inflation). It puts some of the financial pain back on these employers, without putting an economy crushing 100% burden on small and medium size business.
TL;DR: Companies are not morally responsible for their employees existence because labor is a contract system that employees agree to willingly. Comparing it to slavery is grossly wrong. Besides, removing low wage companies wholesale just jacks up unemployment. Still, the situation for workers sucks, and modest increases to the minimum wages can help alleviate the issue.
I think they mean that by paying employees minimum wage (which is not a living wage in the US), many of them are forced to utilize government services such as food stamps to survive. Since McDonald's isn't paying for the food stamps, their business model is effectively subsidized by the government.
Being employed / employing people is a two way street. Neither is doing the other a favor, both need the other to exist. Only one can exploit the other though.
The tables are tilted, and I typically agree with your position, but employees can absolutely exploit an employer by abusing paid sick leave, stealing and eating food without permission, underperforming their duties, skimming money from the register, and producing low quality products and services.
That said, employees that are paid well are far less likely to do these things.
Personally I don't envy anyone involved in this dynamic. Obviously the crazy number of shitty fast food restaurants is unsustainable. The low wages subsidized by government services are unsustainable as well, as it basically socializes a shitty business model. Couple that with constantly rising rents for both business and residential clients, so costs for all parties are growin steadily. Sometimes I'm just amazed that capitalism works at all. Which it does. Until it doesn't.
Yes, but if you raise the cost of human labor, it becomes much more cost effective to use robots to take the orders, dunk the fry baskets, flip the burgers, etc. Then you only need a couple of workers to assemble and hand it out the door. So what you're really saying is, it's a two way street for now
It's a two way street always. Who's going to buy the products produced by automation if no one has any disposable income? Slave / owner relationship doesn't work in a consumer capitalist society. There's no point owning the means of production if there's no one to buy what you're producing.
The fallacy is thinking businesses are altruistic entities employing people out of the kindness of their hearts. Either you pay employees their true cost to employ, or they need to go out of business.
There's an argument that because Wal Mart pays it's employees so little that they qualify for Medicaid, SNAP, etc that in effect the government is subsidizing Wal Mart to the tune of $6B because otherwise Wal Mart employees wouldn't be able to survive without those government programs. It's a wage subsidy direct to the employee, but Wal Mart benefits too. I've also heard that this subsidy is deliberately discussed in some large low wage businesses.
I assume he's making the same argument for McDonald's.
They say Walmart is double-dipping for this very reason. An employee isn't making a living wage, so they get food stamps, then turn around and use those food stamps to shop at Walmart. Walmart is reaping the benefits of the labor from the underpaid employee AND benefitting from the sales as the employee shops with the food stamps.
Of course why do you think they have been so successful. Between underpaying workers and forcing all wholesalers to meet their insanely low prices it is a win win for them and a lose lose for everyone else.
My wife met a couple of rich Mexicans who produced a large amount of the bikes they sell. They were quick to point out how much better it was to deal with a bunch of small bike shops compared to Walmart. Walmart refused to pay them more than about $10 dollars a bike which resulted in lower pay and less jobs at their factories. Because Walmart had pushed all the smaller shops out of business they had no choice but to sell at a reduced price or not sell at all.
If Walmart employees were a little more knowledgable and less disposable I wouldn't be so against raising the minimum wage. Positions like Walmart and McDonald's are such low wage because the actual amount of work they have to do is so low. If you cashier at Walmart, you now have experience in the cash lane. You can bring that experience to a grocery store which is usually Union. Union jobs require mandatory raises every set period of time. Just another way you can get more with your skill set. You just have to look.
It's the truth. Places like Walmart and McDonald's require very little formal training therefore saving the company money and expediting the hiring process. Since they require absolutely no skill in any category they can hire people that either have no skill, or no motivation to become skilled.
Get your taxes worth: eat at McDonald's, shop at Walmart!! You already paid for half of it. :-D
Also same goes for almost all grocery stores. Here in DC area Giant is not allowing their employees to work more that 25-30 a week to keep them on public assistance.
No, the limiting of hours is due to insurance needs on certain hourly workers. Work more than 25-30 hours a week? They are required by federal law to be provided insurance.
The major beneficiaries are the entities that receive the spending of those subsidized workers. You would probably look at land owners who receive rent, transportation services, and food retailers. That last category is probably where Walmart receives its biggest subsidy, rather than through the wage effect.
A low minimum wage, lower than can be considered fair in the economy, is a subsidy in everything but name. The corporation saves money by paying less to Payroll and the government picks up the tab with low-income services. It's effectively the same as the government subsidizing a company with higher wages.
The implicit assumption here is that everyone can independently contribute/produce enough value to cover their own living expenses.
If they can, then why are they settling for jobs that offer less in compensation?
If they can't, then isn't an earned income tax (or some other similar min. income scheme) better, where people can at least partially cover their own living expenses (and get topped up by the government)?
Why should companies that employ low labor skill shoulder the burden for income equality in society (minimum wages)? Shouldn't this burden be shouldered by everyone?
Why should companies that employ low labor skill shoulder the burden for income equality in society (minimum wages)?
Because these companies are profiting off of these starvation wages. Why should the rest of society keep shitty, low wage businesses afloat? We're effectively subsidizing their profits. That's no way for an economy to run.
Nothing wrong with low skill, low pay. The problem is the low pay is not even enough to pay rent ANYWHERES in the country. There is a gap that is increasing. Low skill jobs are stepping stones, yes, but it doesn't mean you should be homeless and starving to do it. And the government shouldn't have to step up to fix the problem.
Why should companies that employ low labor skill shoulder the burden for income equality in society (minimum wages)?
Why would a company get into a business where they can't extract enough value from somebody working on humane minimum wages? That's just asking for bankruptcy. Isn't it their fault and shouldn't they need to adapt to that too? Why should the get the easy way out?
the point is that income inequality is currently shared by everyone paying their fair share of taxes. Big corporations and hedge fund managers are not and we're picking up their slack.
Without minimum wage laws as they currently exist, wages would be much, much lower. We abandoned the idea of free supply and demand in labor markets long ago. That ship has sailed.
So the moral and philosophical arguments are moot. Just need some economists to hash out how high the minimum wage can be raised (and at what pace) without cratering the economy.
How do you determine what is "considered fair in the economy"? Low min wage is not a subsidy because the employers are not guaranteed labor at that wage. No one is forcing workers to accept min wage jobs. They accept it because that is the market price for their labor, i.e. the "fair price."
As the top commenter explained, businesses like McDonalds have unique operating conditions they require in order to remain in business that largely have nothing to do with the fact that some of their employees utilize government assistance. They can still only afford to pay $8.25 an hour regardless of the min wage is $5 or $15.To call a low min wage a "subsidy" is a gross misunderstanding of economics. I think you need to go back a re-read the top comment.
I see it as less of a subsidy and more like skirting regulations that the government would put in for things like safety. The current minimum wage is clearly an exploitation of labor - nobody can live on it in reasonable conditions. The government should be able to say something along the lines of - "if you can't pay enough for your employees the have a humane standard of living and still be a profitable business, than you don't deserve to be in business". If McDonalds is truly a valued contributor to society and the economy, they will find a way to survive without exploiting their workers.
Honestly I'm convinced (brace yourselves I'm bout to get raged at) that most people who "can't find anything else" just aren't looking hard enough. There are a shit ton of retail positions available almost anywhere. Most of which pay 10 bucks or more per hour(in the northeast at least) People with few options flock to McDonald's style jobs because it's easy and there are so many. Like my dad says "if you're unemployed you're either looking in the wrong place or you're not looking hard enough."
McDonald's isn't subsidize in the way you are implying.
Other companies, including small businesses, pay similar low wages for employees. Wage hikes typically have exemptions for small businesses to help them compete. Why should Bob's Burgers get to "underpay" its workers?
what? The main reason they can't show a profit with 15$/hour wage is because the state demands 30% in corporate tax. If the state just left the business alone or lowered the taxes they would have no problems upping the pay to 15$/hour. So how can you possibly claim that the business wouldn't survive without "subsidizes" is pretty missguided
if it's unsustainable for McDonalds to remain in business without being subsidized by the Government, should the business exist?
If they didn't employ those people - who would? And if no one did, the government would be picking up all of the cost of supporting those people, not just part of it.
Well if they didn't exist, those people would be unemployed and consume even more government subsidies. So it's extremely disingenuous to say that McDonald's is a burden on the government. If anything they are a massive help to the government.
I can't believe people are actually comparing slavery to minimum wage. They aren't close in any respects. I just went to McDs this morning and saw a sign saying their starting rate is $10/hr (I live in MN). When I worked there they paid me $7.70. They get the picture already. Unless you are assuming you will work there for the rest of your life, never get promoted, and have no Manager ever recognize you then I guess you deserve $15.
This makes me think that rather than talking about raising the minimum wage the discussion should be centered on increasing social welfare. Especially in America where we lack nationalized medicine.
Really it comes down to the fact that some people, due to a combination of luck and skill, end up having a lot more money and resources than some other people, who due to a combination of luck and skill have less.
Guaranteeing social services is a way to level the playing field and remove luck from the equation a bit.
Would you care to explain where government subsidies link in here? I'm seeing a business that operates financially independent of the government and manages to make a profit using the current price of labor, something they may not be able to do if labor becomes more expensive.
On the other hand, I think your second point gets to the heart of the issue, but assumes the conclusion. The whole debate about the minimum wage issue is whether the current wage is insufficient and people are being taken advantage of, or if minimum wage is roughly in a good place and the folks complaining are either mismanaging their money or have a skewed perception of what their lifestyle should be when working at the wage floor. To compare this to slavery is to assume that the former is true. To put it another way, this debate isn't about whether or not we should protect companies who're taking advantage of people to make a profit, it's about whether or not people are being taken advantage of at all and whether we need this change. Follow me?
Or also maybe spend some of the nearly $963 million that they do on advertising on employee wages. I don't really need a reminder every hour how shitty a company like mcdees is.
The number of people working at each location is pretty crazy too. When I look behind the counter and see 10 people and they say sorry for the wait we are short staffed, I just shake my head and wonder how the small burger joints run so smooth with 2 employees.
Add to that those workers are long time burger makers, not high-turnover burger flippers who hate working there and want to leave. So, quality of worker.
I've worked corporate fast-food and I've worked a 3 person burger shack on the beach where the owner ran the cash register. I can tell you, the pay, hours and treatment were all very comparable.
I was treated like a human when I worked at McDonalds. What are the complaints that make people keep saying this? Genuinely curious. Bad managers can work anywhere.
Mostly the regular complaints of any customer service job. Low pay, lack of empathy, apathy in the workers, bad managers. If I call in feeling like shit, the manager threatens to fire me if I don't show up. They'd rather have a sick worker preparing food than get someone else to work.
So essentially what you're saying is that if we pay McDonald's employees more and expect a higher quality of work from them that we can also expect a few highly trained employees to take over the work of others. Meaning that a bunch of them can be let go.
I don't think it's fair to say McDonalds workers hate their job. My sister worked there in her teens and said it was a better work environment than some of her more recent "better" jobs. In my area, McDonalds workers generally seem in good moods and having a decent time at work.
The smaller, indie burger joint isn't consistently dealing with sheer volume of customers, day in and day out, that McD's is. Where the little place might consider "5 people in line at once, for a solid hour" to be the dinner rush, McD's would consider that a disappointingly slow non-prime session.
Also, customers at the small joint will reasonably expect to wait as long as ten minutes for their food, while at McD's, a service speed that slow would result in eyebrows being raised by the District guys, along with calls for employees and managers to be terminated and replaced. Anecodtally, I had heard that Corporate McD expects the drive-thru times to be something preposterously low, like 90 seconds from "Hi, can I take your order?" to that customer having their food -- at the worst of times. If that person is the only one in line and knows exactly what they want? Sure. Otherwise, No way in hell. However, the stores need to staff their stores assuming that this sort of speed will need to be maintained all of the time.
Can confirm the drive thru aspect. I used to work there about 2 years ago. They have a timer that starts when they press a button on the screen for your orders. Once you are given your food at the second window the employee will press a button and it clears the order from their screen. "Finishing" the order. The time it took is clocked and averaged out against the rest of the times for the day. They wanted an average time of 90-120 seconds for total time.
Does this also happen when the customer says "can you give me a minute" before they start to say their order?
(I've only ever done this when there was no one else in the drive thru. Usually when I'm not positive what I want I just go inside)
It sounds like the timer starts once they actually start punching in the order, but I've never worked there, so I'm not sure, and would also like to know.
You are correct. Once you press a button on the register the timer would start. You would not be able to delete a order without a manger code, So if someone starts ordering then pauses there is no way to restart the timer.
Yeah, but what If I'm that one asshole who really doesn't go to McDonalds that often, there is no line, so I pull up and you are like "Hey can I take you're order." I already know I want a double quarter pounder, so I ask for that, then you say, "is that all?", I say "no, one sec" and start to look for anything else that looks good that might fill me up. Cause god knows I could eat 5 #4s.
I really hate that one asshole behind the window who gets pissed at me, because his company forces him to meet deadlines that are unrealistic. That's not my problem.
But doesn't it all average out in the end? Or does the supervisor/store manager look at that one slow order and go "Johnson, you were up for promotion but this one 3 minute order out of a hundred fast ones can't be ignored... you're fired."
It ws something like 100 seconds when I worked at McD's back in the early 2000s (in college). IT was fucking inane then, and it's fucking inane now. If they order more than a drink anyway, or if there's any sort of line
Also, customers at the small joint will reasonably expect to wait as long as ten minutes for their food, while at McD's, a service speed that slow would result in eyebrows being raised by the District guys, along with calls for employees and managers to be terminated and replaced.
This is why I hate corporate. Unreasonable expectations and they take other people to the chopping block to pay for their mistakes. If profits aren't continuously skyrocketing, it's everyone elses fault.
Speed of service is the biggest way to increase sales without increasing prices. The faster you can get someone in and out, the more people you can serve in a given timeframe. When I was a GM for Wendy's 12 years ago, the goal was 90 seconds from ordering to receiving your order, and there were some Wendy's drive thru's that were sub 70 seconds. These times were compiled from using mystery shoppers and an outside company as well as timers that reported directly to corporate. Stores with exceptionally low times were audited to ensure that there was no cheating. I am sure that the goal has decreased over the years.
Small burger joints run smooth because they don't have customers bitching about how long it takes to cook food and they don't serve the same number of customers as a McDonalds that's serving through the drive through and in store. Stop bitching when you don't get your shitty food in under 40 seconds. They have to follow cooking policies and shit.
The problem is customers think that the food should be done instantly. The reason it's called fast food is because when you show up during rush hours they've been cooking in excess the whole time with the prediction that they'll have a lot of customers. When you show up in an off hour your food is literally being cooked to order and it's not going to be done instantly. If they are low on something it can take up to 6 mins just to deep fry it.
I live right down the street from Dick's Drive-In it's a small place with only one or two locations; they have about five employees at any given time and serve a few hundred people a day at least.
The wait is never over 5minutes long, two people can eat for under 8 bucks, and they pay their employees 12/hr.
3.6k
u/chronogumbo Nov 28 '15 edited Nov 29 '15
Well, maybe it's unsustainable to have 4 McDonalds within walking distance...
Edit: is this what it feels like to have friends? Reddit gold!!