McDonalds profits off weak

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:48 am UTC

hunsak wrote:Is it really businesses responsiblity to make certain that you never use their product in a way harmful to society? Do we really need more warnings on deoderant to 'not apply to eyes'? Products sold should be taken at face value.


Right. But proper use of deoderant does not involve applying it to the eyes. And defining misuse of a product as 'using it more than once a week' is a little, uh, disingenuous. Also, let's try to keep in mind that we do hold companies culpable for knowingly profiting from misuse of their product--and modifying the product to capitalize on that misuse. For instance, cigarette companies putting cartoon characters on their cartons as a way of attracting children (but they totally don't expect children to buy these, no sirree! Wink wink).

So, uh, yeah. Wrong, actually.

User avatar
hunsak
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:56 pm UTC
Location: Iraq

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby hunsak » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:53 am UTC

Dream wrote:They aren't firing them for opposing the company. They are firing them for assembling and associating at all. That's an infringement of rights, not a business PR decision.


Fired because you attended a party with a co worker?
Fired because of the company picnic?

No fired because you are forming to take power over the business.

Further more it is not an infringment of rights. These people have the same rights as anyone. No one will put them in jail for forming a union. No one will beat them when they say down with walmart. They will just lose their job. Employees sign agreements to this before they are accepted. This would be a problem if there was no where else for them to go.

Its simple power retention. They stop employees from overhauling the company. The buisness will retain that power. And constitutionally, no one has a way to stop it.Thats simple capitalistic business.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Dream » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:38 am UTC

hunsak wrote:No fired because you are forming to take power over the business.

If the union charter actually said that, then that might hold water, although I'd disagree with it on principle. But if the charter said that the union was formed to defend the basic rights of the members, and didn't have as a core principle "take power from the business" then that is a BS excuse. IF they just want to secure maternity leave, and fight constructive dismissals and sexual harassment, then the company shouldn't be able to stop them at all, let alone pre-emptively.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
hunsak
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:56 pm UTC
Location: Iraq

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby hunsak » Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:26 am UTC

Dream wrote:If the union charter actually said that, then that might hold water, although I'd disagree with it on principle. But if the charter said that the union was formed to defend the basic rights of the members, and didn't have as a core principle "take power from the business" then that is a BS excuse. IF they just want to secure maternity leave, and fight constructive dismissals and sexual harassment, then the company shouldn't be able to stop them at all, let alone pre-emptively.


No union charter has ever proclaimed to 'take power away from the business'. That doesn't mean thats not whats happening. Unions were formed because business was violating the rights of workers. It was there only one recourse. Government had turned a blind eye, having its mind on the money the businesses were making. Getting jobs elsewhere wasn't an option because you couldn't find a business where you'd be given decient treatment. All of these problems have since been solved (thanks to unions). I'm not anti Union, but I completely understand someone not wanting to give controling power to the employee.

The Great Hippo wrote:Right. But proper use of deoderant does not involve applying it to the eyes. And defining misuse of a product as 'using it more than once a week' is a little, uh, disingenuous. Also, let's try to keep in mind that we do hold companies culpable for knowingly profiting from misuse of their product--and modifying the product to capitalize on that misuse. For instance, cigarette companies putting cartoon characters on their cartons as a way of attracting children (but they totally don't expect children to buy these, no sirree! Wink wink).


So if McD's puts up a sign that says dont eat here more than once a week, and excersize when you do. Everythings great?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:11 am UTC

hunsak wrote:So if McD's puts up a sign that says dont eat here more than once a week, and excersize when you do. Everythings great?


Nope. Because McDonald's food is harmful when used normally. It'd be nice of them to put up warning signs pointing to links between their food and diabetes, heart conditions, so on; but they'd still be sleazeballs.

hunsak wrote:Getting jobs elsewhere wasn't an option because you couldn't find a business where you'd be given decient treatment. All of these problems have since been solved (thanks to unions).


I would not say "All of these problems have been since solved" unless you are intimately familiar with the subject. I do have a great number of issues with the way that unions are run these days; nevertheless, claiming that all the problems unions were created to solve have been addressed is... Very, very naive.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Malice » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:45 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
hunsak wrote:So if McD's puts up a sign that says dont eat here more than once a week, and excersize when you do. Everythings great?


Nope. Because McDonald's food is harmful when used normally. It'd be nice of them to put up warning signs pointing to links between their food and diabetes, heart conditions, so on; but they'd still be sleazeballs.


But it's my goddamn choice. I can make a perfectly informed choice to do something that harms me if I want. McDonald's isn't sleazy to offer a product people want.
Image

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Dream » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:49 am UTC

Malice wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
hunsak wrote:So if McD's puts up a sign that says dont eat here more than once a week, and excersize when you do. Everythings great?


Nope. Because McDonald's food is harmful when used normally. It'd be nice of them to put up warning signs pointing to links between their food and diabetes, heart conditions, so on; but they'd still be sleazeballs.


But it's my goddamn choice. I can make a perfectly informed choice to do something that harms me if I want. McDonald's isn't sleazy to offer a product people want.

I'd argue that many people aren't perfectly informed about hte damage a McDonald's heavy diet can do. And even then, health hazard warnings are par for the course for many obvious activities and products.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:43 am UTC

Dream wrote:
Malice wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
hunsak wrote:So if McD's puts up a sign that says dont eat here more than once a week, and excersize when you do. Everythings great?


Nope. Because McDonald's food is harmful when used normally. It'd be nice of them to put up warning signs pointing to links between their food and diabetes, heart conditions, so on; but they'd still be sleazeballs.


But it's my goddamn choice. I can make a perfectly informed choice to do something that harms me if I want. McDonald's isn't sleazy to offer a product people want.

I'd argue that many people aren't perfectly informed about hte damage a McDonald's heavy diet can do. And even then, health hazard warnings are par for the course for many obvious activities and products.


A heavy anything diet causes lots of damage... Anyway - Malice was specifically taking issue with Hippo's claim that Maccas would still be sleazy if they perfectly informed their customers for the reason that "Their food is harmful".

Anyway - I'm not sure what Maccas is like in the US but having some McDonalds once every now and then is in no way harmful anyway. It's not like they're poison or something.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby frezik » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:12 am UTC

hunsak wrote:Every business will do some harm and help to the economy. Point is to do more help than harm. These businesses fall into that category. We would be much worse off economically if Walmart and Mcdonalds had gone under.


Walmart hoarding out smaller competitors by simply outlasting them in a price cutting war is not helpful to the economy. It results in manufacturers having to constantly slash their own costs faster than technology (in the economic sense of the term) would normally allow. These price cuts will usually come from making either a substandard product, or through overseas manufacturing (often both).
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Pizzashark
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:04 am UTC
Location: Fayetteville, AR, USA
Contact:

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Pizzashark » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:00 pm UTC

I shop and eat wherever it's cheapest. I avoid McDonald's, because their food is vile beyond compare; I go to Wendy's or Burger King if I want a burger from a fast food joint.

I regularly shop at Wal-Mart, and haven't had any problems with the quality of the products they sell. I'm able to eat fairly healthy by eating a lot of canned vegetables; I frequently make three-bean chili (and typically add grilled chicken or beef chunks to it) that's high in protein, fiber, potassium, and magnesium, low in calories, low in fat, and both tasty and filling. I can make enough for a week (about five or six servings) for about $6-$8. Yes, it's possible to eat healthy on the cheap - you just have to look beyond the produce aisles and beyond the "health food" and "organic food" craze (tip: low fat is meaningless if the lowered fat comes at a cost of higher calories and sugar.)

The apartment I'm moving to tomorrow is closer to a regional chain (Harp's) than the nearest Wal-Mart, so I imagine I'll shop less at Wal-Mart, even though Harp's is a little more expensive (and their selection is smaller.) Amusing thing is, I live in the heart of Wal-Mart Land (their home office is based out of Bentonville and is the size of a large airport), and yet Harp's posts significant profits every year. I have worked for both companies before. Harp's treated us well, paying us on time and paying us for any overtime accrued (though like any good business they tried their damndest to cheat us out of it.)

Wal-Mart tried us like cattle. Working as a stocker, they would instruct us to stay until we were done zoning (zoning is the process of pulling all the products to the front of the shelves and lining them all up so it's all nice and pretty... wander into the grocery section at about 0650-0710 local time and you'll see what I mean), which could potentially take a while, especially if people were shopping while we were doing it. Of course, they steadfastly refused to pay overtime under any circumstances - I always arrived and left at the times I was scheduled (2230-0700), but I heard stories about people who actually did stay behind to do their zoning and found that their overtime was just shuffled around paychecks as a means of cheating them out of it.

Also, Steak n Shake is a fucking amazing restaurant and you should eat there every day if there's one near you. They've got this combo that's like $8... double cheeseburger, fries, milkshake, and drink. Mmm, mmm, good.
UDSA inspected, FDA approved.
Everyone wants a slice.™

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:25 pm UTC

Some Asshole wrote:I shop and eat wherever it's cheapest. I avoid McDonald's, because their food is vile beyond compare; I go to Wendy's or Burger King if I want a burger from a fast food joint.


Man, maybe I'm just really stupid and "weak". But the Maccas I go to have food that is EASILY more healthy and less "vile" than Wendy's or Burger King (Or rather Hungry Jack's). Although, they recently changed to "fresh ingredients, made when you order it" (or something like that) - sometime last year I think (might be wrong there, I don't go out much) and before that Hungry Jack's probably beat them easily, but after that they make Hungry Jack's burgers look like shitpiles in terms of health quality.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Chen
Posts: 5565
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Chen » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:19 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:
Some Asshole wrote:I shop and eat wherever it's cheapest. I avoid McDonald's, because their food is vile beyond compare; I go to Wendy's or Burger King if I want a burger from a fast food joint.


Man, maybe I'm just really stupid and "weak". But the Maccas I go to have food that is EASILY more healthy and less "vile" than Wendy's or Burger King (Or rather Hungry Jack's). Although, they recently changed to "fresh ingredients, made when you order it" (or something like that) - sometime last year I think (might be wrong there, I don't go out much) and before that Hungry Jack's probably beat them easily, but after that they make Hungry Jack's burgers look like shitpiles in terms of health quality.


The McDonalds I've been to in Australia were a lot better than a good number I've been to in the US. I don't know if its an individual restaurant basis or something else (perhaps in the standards allowed by each country). Here in Quebec the differences in McDonalds themselves can actually be pretty significant too (e.g., the one in the suburbs is like 10x better than the one right in the middle of the downtown core).

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Garm » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:45 pm UTC

Some Asshole wrote:Of course, they steadfastly refused to pay overtime under any circumstances - I always arrived and left at the times I was scheduled (2230-0700), but I heard stories about people who actually did stay behind to do their zoning and found that their overtime was just shuffled around paychecks as a means of cheating them out of it.


This used to happen to me when I worked at Toys R Us. So I quit. Which I could do cuz I was a teenager and lived at home. These are the problems that unions are supposed to be able to address. Conservatives love to bash unions. The automaker bailout discussed earlier this year became a flashpoint for Republican lawmakers eager to gut the UAW. Sure, unions have their problems, many of them created in reaction to governmental interference (Reagan breaking the air traffic controllers union is a good example of Republican approach to small, hands-off governance). But to blame so many of our economies endemic problems on the unions is just scapegoating them for fun and profit.

If you look at the Heritage Foundations rankings of economic freedom, you'll see that we're sixth on the list. Everyone in the top ten, from the dictatorial city state of Hong Kong to the tiny U.K. has a higher density of unionization than we do. This sort of belies the idea that unions hamper the free market. They're part of it and to actively discourage them by firing workers who organize is, as I said before, unethical and unamerican. I think Dream made a very good argument for that case (thanks).

Walmart doesn't have to be so super greedy. Sam's Club is going to shit cuz Costco is kicking its ass. Costco pays a good wage and gives good benefits. People are happy to work there so people are happier shopping there. I used to work at Target and was in there today buying some snack food. I thought about how they paid me a decent wage, would have given me benefits if I had continued to work there (I was 2 or 3 months away from full bennies) and overall, tried to treat me like a human being. There was no urge to unionize at Target. The thought seems silly almost. Maybe Target gets away with paying their employees a little less than if there were a union but since there's no cause to organize they get away with it. All in all, considering the volume of business done by these super stores I think that treating employees with a little dignity at the cost of a modicum of margin could only increase business and not drive it away.

Edit: While I'm at it... here's another plug for unions
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:57 pm UTC

Malice wrote:But it's my goddamn choice. I can make a perfectly informed choice to do something that harms me if I want. McDonald's isn't sleazy to offer a product people want.
Keep this in mind:
The Great Hippo wrote:It is pretty sleazy, so long as we're defining sleazy as 'willing to profit off of other people's suffering'.
I'm operating under a very specific definition of 'sleaze' over here. Also, I'd be willing to exempt restaurants that specialized in horribly fatty foods that celebrate their unhealthiness; I think what really makes McDonald's feel so filthy to me is that they produce vile shit and then try to shill it as not all that bad.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:58 pm UTC

It's like the Johnny Cash song about being in debt to the company.
Eating at McDonalds (which I do occasionally, love me those fries) is not an economic saver, it's a time saver. You want to pinch pennies, you should buy from a small local grocer and eat lots of rice and beans. Meal for under 4 bucks? I can feed myself for a week on 8.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:59 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Eating at McDonalds (which I do occasionally, love me those fries) is not an economic saver, it's a time saver. You want to pinch pennies, you should buy from a small local grocer and eat lots of rice and beans. Meal for under 4 bucks? I can feed myself for a week on 8.
Not everyone has the privilege of living near a farmer's market. As someone who really enjoys buying from local farmer's markets (food is better and cheaper), I can attest to this.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:23 pm UTC

Sure, fair enough, but even in the inner slums of a destitute city there exists bodega's or foodmarts that sell pounds of cheap rice and beans. Ramen noodles are what, 15 cents a pack? You can't live off the shit, but we're narrowing our definition of poor here.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Sure, fair enough, but even in the inner slums of a destitute city there exists bodega's or foodmarts that sell pounds of cheap rice and beans. Ramen noodles are what, 15 cents a pack? You can't live off the shit, but we're narrowing our definition of poor here.


Bodega!

Ramen noodles are not even vaguely good for you. They do not qualify as 'healthy food'; Jesus, no. I'm no dietitian but I don't think that a bundle of fried noodles spiked with sodium and every flavor-enhancing preservative known to man is anywhere near the same continental plate as the word 'nutritious'.

But, yes. They sell bags of rice at foodmarts, cans of beans--so on. These aren't really 'good' for you; they're cheap, you can eat them for extended periods of time, they'll provide you with energy and sustenance--but they're no replacement for vegetables, fruits, and meats.

One of the core unappreciated problems with education in America is with diet. Coke machines in the cafeteria; Pizza Hut and McDonald's setting up shop and hocking their wares, roping kids into shitty dietary patterns early on. Kids hyped up on cheap sugars, burning out all their energy in thirty minutes and having none to spare for the task of learning. Sacrificed for long-term fast-food and soft drink business strategies. And yeah, diet has immense impact on behavior.

Again: I consider this shit to be sleazy as fuck.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm UTC

I agree, and enjoyed SuperSize Me. There is a lot of sleazy shit that happens with fastfood, I'm not denying that, nor am I positing that beans and rice are what people should eat to save money. The point I'm trying to make is that McDonalds doesn't represent people's 'only option' and hasn't twisted anyone's arm to eat there. They aren't spiking their food with crack. That moron who sued McDonalds after becoming obese was full of shit.

The only point I was making with the ramen noodles is that if nutrition isn't your primary concern, just calories/sustenance, McDonalds isn't a bodies only option pertaining to cost. Obviously, if you want to even use phrases like 'balanced meal' you'll have to get your food from places other then repackaged dehydrated noodles, or McDonalds.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby segmentation fault » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:07 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Bodega!


this is fantastic. made my day.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby 22/7 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:11 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:But, yes. They sell bags of rice at foodmarts, cans of beans--so on. These aren't really 'good' for you; they're cheap, you can eat them for extended periods of time, they'll provide you with energy and sustenance--but they're no replacement for vegetables, fruits, and meats.
Uh, no. Beans are some of the highest nutritional density foods you can eat. You can certainly live on them essentially indefinitely, and add some fruit on a regular basis and you've got yourself a fairly healthy meal. Also, if I remember correctly, beans are considered vegetables, are they not?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1889
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby natraj » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:19 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:Uh, no. Beans are some of the highest nutritional density foods you can eat. You can certainly live on them essentially indefinitely, and add some fruit on a regular basis and you've got yourself a fairly healthy meal. Also, if I remember correctly, beans are considered vegetables, are they not?


Yeah, rice+beans are a pretty healthy/nutritious combination (though should definitely be paired with fruits+veggies.)

Also, beans are seeds, which I think generally aren't considered vegetables.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby 22/7 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:29 pm UTC

Ah, well, fair enough.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Jebobek » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:40 pm UTC

Wait what is corn again? Is that still a veggie cause we're eating more than seeds?
Image

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1889
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby natraj » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:43 pm UTC

Jebobek wrote:Wait what is corn again? Is that still a veggie cause we're eating more than seeds?


Corn is a cereal/grain.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Jebobek » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:47 pm UTC

Oh, if only I knew that when my parents told me to eat all my veggies before ice cream. Fortunately, one day Mr. Corn met Mrs. Mashed Potatoes and we all lived happily ever after.
Image

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Indon » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:17 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:McDonald's isn't breaking the law; they aren't running with do-it-yourself surgery kits and jamming our arteries full of gobs grease when we aren't looking. They're just selling us cheap, horrible food, and then shrugging their shoulders and going "Hey! It's not our fault you enjoy cheap, horrible food!". No, it isn't their fault, but they're still a bunch of sleazeballs and if I were a God-fearing sort of man I'd assume there's a special place waiting for them in the hereafter.


That's silly. Why should the food industry be obliged to follow any ethical standard regarding the quality of their food? Clearly the industry can self-regulate food quality and we'll all be happier for it.

But speaking as devil's advocate, the article does seem to imply that McDonalds has improved the health quality of its' foods to a degree. Sure, they could do better, but probably at greater expense. It seems to me that eventually we'll have to run into the capitalist (and somewhat true) saying of 'you get what you pay for', in this case in terms of nutritional quality.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Dream » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:22 pm UTC

Indon wrote:But speaking as devil's advocate, the article does seem to imply that McDonalds has improved the health quality of its' foods to a degree. Sure, they could do better, but probably at greater expense. It seems to me that eventually we'll have to run into the capitalist (and somewhat true) saying of 'you get what you pay for', in this case in terms of nutritional quality.

So they haven't stopped beating their wife, they've just stopped using a stick. The capitalist argument against quality is bunk for McDonalds, who could double the cost of ingredients in many of their foods without even approaching the profit margins of any other restaurant, let alone a break even. It's all so mechanised and automated, and the production is so centralised that upping the cost of the fries, for instance, wouldn't have that great an effect.

On the topic of employee rights and treatment, McDonalds was very good to me. It's very nearly a decade since I worked there, and it was in Ireland, but they treated me well, and fairly even if the pay wasn't great. When I was 16 I literally had that summer the guy talks about in American Beauty, flipping burgers after school, being paid shit, then blowing it all on grass and booze at the weekend. It was a really wonderful time. Unfortunately, I can't generalise from this as I have no experience beyond that summer in that one branch.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Malice » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:26 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Malice wrote:But it's my goddamn choice. I can make a perfectly informed choice to do something that harms me if I want. McDonald's isn't sleazy to offer a product people want.
Keep this in mind:
The Great Hippo wrote:It is pretty sleazy, so long as we're defining sleazy as 'willing to profit off of other people's suffering'.
I'm operating under a very specific definition of 'sleaze' over here. Also, I'd be willing to exempt restaurants that specialized in horribly fatty foods that celebrate their unhealthiness; I think what really makes McDonald's feel so filthy to me is that they produce vile shit and then try to shill it as not all that bad.


Willing to profit off of other people's suffering? Like... doctors? Those sleazy fucks in white coats.

When I go to McDonald's, they aren't profiting off my suffering. They're profiting off my enjoyment of their food. There's nothing ignoble about providing something unhealthy or dangerous as long as I want it and can make an informed decision about it. Most restaurants have unhealthy options; even Italian food isn't something you should eat every day. McDonald's isn't like cigarettes or crack, where the consumer can't be trusted to avoid them entirely for their whole lives; people have the responsibility to eat there in moderation, to inform themselves, to understand how to negotiate between what they want and what they need. I applaud McDonald's for trying to make their food healthier and more palatable. And can you really blame them for trying to entice people to eat there? Every business on earth advertises.
Image

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 am UTC

I don't hate McDonald's. SuperSize Me was a load of crap, and in one of Chuck Klosterman's books he ate nothing but chicken mcnuggets for a week. He actually lost weight and his blood pressure lowered. Then again, he didn't deliberately overeat every fucking day.

Also, McDonald's in Germany is really tasty, and they serve beer. And in India, the BigMac is made with chicken instead of beef, and has a curry flavour. It was actually quite nice :). I can't really remember much about McDonald's in America, except that the fries didn't taste as good as in Australia.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

almightyze
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:06 am UTC

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby almightyze » Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:50 am UTC

hunsak wrote:Its simple power retention. They stop employees from overhauling the company. The buisness will retain that power. And constitutionally, no one has a way to stop it.Thats simple capitalistic business.


Which is the basic problem with capitalism: It's always, ALWAYS about power. Eventually, you collapse because you become so focused with acquiring and maintaining power that you forget to figure out ways to sustain yourself when you considerably grow. And that's when either
A. You make mistake after mistake, bad idea after bad idea, in order to maintain growth rather than stability.
B. You begin fighting innovation or change on the grounds that it takes profit off your back, choosing short-term interests over long-term goals.
But are unions to blame? No. By basically assuming that all unions are in it for is power, you are misunderstanding their purpose entirely (and makes me wonder if you're one of those that believe that the mob still has a stake in them...).

I could go with the music industry as an example of this, or even the arms industry (and, to a lesser extent, the military), but because we're on the subject of unions, let's go with the auto industry.

By your logic, the UAW and other auto unions should have been exploiting the collapse of the American auto industry of recent months to reshape the companies to their benefit, NOT join hands with the Big 3 in asking for a bailout (and there's very little evidence to suggest they are doing so for exploitative purposes, either). By your logic, the unions would have a seat on the board of directors in each of these companies, which they don't. By your logic, factory workers would have a stake in company assets through the access of company stocks, stock options, or the like; of which there is no evidence to suggest that. By your logic, the unions' existence, as a whole, would be equivalent to the shareholders, which it really isn't. By your logic, the development of automobiles would be at least partially influenced by the unions, which they aren't.

With all the unions have barely if any say on all I mentioned above, or having at least a supportive stance to the companies they work under, how can you say they are seeking power?
01010011 01110100 01101111 01110000 00100000
01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 01101001
01101110 01100111 00100000 01100010 01101001
01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101110

Allah o akbar! Azadi!

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Garm » Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:58 am UTC

This is taken from a comment left on the forum Balloon Juice. I think Hunsak might agree with the sentiment expressed by Mitt Romney.

THE TRAGEDY OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
A Play in Three Acts

Dramatis Personae

BIG THREE, a manufacturer of automobiles
UAW, Big Three’s employee
MITT ROMNEY, an idiot

ACT ONE

BIG THREE: I have plans to build automobiles, but I need labor to do so!
UAW: I will labor for you if you will pay me $40 per hour.
BIG THREE: I will not pay you $40 per hour.
UAW: But I need to save for my inevitible retirement, and any health concerns that may arise.
BIG THREE: I will pay you $30 per hour, plus a generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care upon your retirement.
UAW: Then I agree to work for you!

ACT TWO

UAW: I am building cars for you, as I have promised to do!
BIG THREE: I am designing terrible cars that few people want to buy! Also, rather than save for UAW’s inevitible retirement when I will have to pay him the generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care that I promised, I am spending that money under the dubious assumption that my future revenues will be sufficient to meet those obligations.

ACT THREE

UAW: I have fulfilled my end of the deal by building the automobiles that you have asked me to build.
BIG THREE: Oh no! I am undone! My automobiles are no longer competitive due to my years of poor planning and poor judgment!
MITT ROMNEY: This is all UAW’s fault!
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Pizzashark
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:04 am UTC
Location: Fayetteville, AR, USA
Contact:

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Pizzashark » Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:23 am UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:I don't hate McDonald's. SuperSize Me was a load of crap, and in one of Chuck Klosterman's books he ate nothing but chicken mcnuggets for a week. He actually lost weight and his blood pressure lowered. Then again, he didn't deliberately overeat every fucking day.

Also, McDonald's in Germany is really tasty, and they serve beer. And in India, the BigMac is made with chicken instead of beef, and has a curry flavour. It was actually quite nice :). I can't really remember much about McDonald's in America, except that the fries didn't taste as good as in Australia.



Supersize Me and the book about it (forget its name) struck me as being overly alarmist. Morgan Spurlock's a cool enough guy, but I think his girlfriend's corrupted his mind :P
UDSA inspected, FDA approved.
Everyone wants a slice.™

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Gelsamel » Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:32 am UTC

I'm going to have to take a picture of the food next time I go to Maccas because I swear you guys aren't describing the fast food chain I occasionally visit for lunch at University.

I usually get one of those chicken burgers (don't remember the name) and they always have really nice fresh and fluffy buns, really nice cheese slices, fresh and crispy lettuce and fresh mayo...the meat isn't really greasy, in fact the chicken is especially nice - better in terms of quality/health than every other takeaway place... At least that is as far as I can tell - but then maybe I'm stupid and weak and thats why I buy food there sometimes.

They not only look aesthetically nice and healthy but the ones I have (which aren't even the "healthy" type menu or what ever, don't ask me what it's called I hardly ever go) but also taste healthier than 90% of the other take away options that aren't more expensive (ie. Subway tastes healthier but is more expensive) and it's slightly more expensive than some of the other options (which are definitely lower quality and less healthy, but maybe taste slightly better) like random Asian take out places.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Dream » Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:08 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:I'm going to have to take a picture of the food next time I go to Maccas because I swear you guys aren't describing the fast food chain I occasionally visit for lunch at University.

I usually get one of those chicken burgers (don't remember the name) and they always have really nice fresh and fluffy buns, really nice cheese slices, fresh and crispy lettuce and fresh mayo...the meat isn't really greasy, in fact the chicken is especially nice - better in terms of quality/health than every other takeaway place... At least that is as far as I can tell - but then maybe I'm stupid and weak and thats why I buy food there sometimes.

They not only look aesthetically nice and healthy but the ones I have (which aren't even the "healthy" type menu or what ever, don't ask me what it's called I hardly ever go) but also taste healthier than 90% of the other take away options that aren't more expensive (ie. Subway tastes healthier but is more expensive) and it's slightly more expensive than some of the other options (which are definitely lower quality and less healthy, but maybe taste slightly better) like random Asian take out places.

Then you embody what several people here are worried about. You think "looks healthy" is in some way important. It is not, except that it proves that there are people who will go into a McDonalds and who won't think they're in a place where 90% of the menu is really bad for you. So McDonalds does indeed succeed in convincing people that it shouldn't be considered unhealhty, which for people who eat there more often than you do is a dangerous misconception.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Gelsamel » Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:12 am UTC

I guess I am stupid and weak - I also regularly eat food from the same companies that supply Australia's McDonalds :-(.


Edit: Although, Wiki seems to suggest that everything I've ever liked at McDonalds (which is that change in food quality I was talking about) is Australia exclusive; here
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
wisnij
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm UTC
Location: a planet called Erp
Contact:

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby wisnij » Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:02 am UTC

natraj wrote:
22/7 wrote:Uh, no. Beans are some of the highest nutritional density foods you can eat. You can certainly live on them essentially indefinitely, and add some fruit on a regular basis and you've got yourself a fairly healthy meal. Also, if I remember correctly, beans are considered vegetables, are they not?

Yeah, rice+beans are a pretty healthy/nutritious combination (though should definitely be paired with fruits+veggies.)

Also, beans are seeds, which I think generally aren't considered vegetables.

It depends on context. Botanically, beans are legumes and therefore fruits, but culinarily they are treated as vegetables much as tomatoes and corn are (which are also both botanically fruits).

Nutritionally and historically, pairing beans with rice is a win because that produces a complete protein without needing to include meat, which is typically more expensive.
I burn the cheese. It does not burn me.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Dream » Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:17 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Edit: Although, Wiki seems to suggest that everything I've ever liked at McDonalds (which is that change in food quality I was talking about) is Australia exclusive; here

Yeah, I'd heard that about Starbucks too. Opened in Melbourne, everyone hated the coffee because it was shit, so they had to change to better ingredients. I suppose Australia just has higher standards than everywhere else :)
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:58 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:Edit: Although, Wiki seems to suggest that everything I've ever liked at McDonalds (which is that change in food quality I was talking about) is Australia exclusive; here

Yeah, I'd heard that about Starbucks too. Opened in Melbourne, everyone hated the coffee because it was shit, so they had to change to better ingredients. I suppose Australia just has higher standards than everywhere else :)


I think we just have higher standards than America, which really isn't hard. I mean, I think British people would complain our cereal is too American/sugary, considering there's a lot more sugary cereals available now then the cocoa-pops/fruit-loops/nutri-grain trifecta of the nineties.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
hunsak
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:56 pm UTC
Location: Iraq

Re: McDonalds profits off weak

Postby hunsak » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:19 am UTC

almightyze wrote:
hunsak wrote:Its simple power retention. They stop employees from overhauling the company. The buisness will retain that power. And constitutionally, no one has a way to stop it.Thats simple capitalistic business.


Which is the basic problem with capitalism: It's always, ALWAYS about power.... they are seeking power?


Cool dude we can have the commie vs top hat arguement when i have a joint to smoke.

I come off with the aura of preaching against 'evil mobish unions'. I'm not here to fight which one works best. I'm pointing out that some unions do terrible things to businesses. I dont doubt that many do wonderful things not only for the workers, but also for the company.

But whether or not a company has a union or not has no bearing on whether its 'evil'. Good companies can and will exist with or without unions.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests