3 ms·

Agreed. He clearly has a self-serving business and political agenda underlying his statements. If his business is suffering right now, it's because the America

Agreed. He clearly has a self-serving business and political agenda underlying his statements. If his business is suffering right now, it's because the American appetite has changed - people either want decent food made with quality ingredients in a friendly higher-touch environment, or dollar value menu quick calories. Much rather see crummy middle-ground fast food chains like Carl's/Hardees, Burger King, Wendy's go under and be replaced with better businesses that respect employee attention to quality and service than have them morph into automats. If fully automated dining becomes a category, I really doubt these lumbering grease factories will be the ones to dominate it anyhow

CWuestefeld 11y ago
This is easy for you to say, you can easily make the trade-off of higher quality for more money. But is it right for you to force your values onto people with less money, who will feel the pain of that trade-off more sharply? Maybe they'd also prefer to eat in a nicer place, but their circumstances simply don't allow for it. Keeping costs down isn't being miserly, it's helping to deliver a product that is within reach of the less fortunate.
- Eric_WVGG 11y ago
  keep people poor so poor people can afford to eat, got it
- rwhitman 11y ago
  You misinterpret.. My comment had a very specific list of middle-tier fast food joints that have gone to crap. McDonald's wasn't in that list. Neither was Taco Bell. Both very affordable, and still pretty consistent. But if you're going to call me out on classism, it's a fairly ironic position to take that fast food is some sort of special charity to the poor. A far more charitable approach would be embracing publicly-subsidized grocery stores in food deserts rather than letting private equity slumlords peddle sugary deep fried dog food as if it's the only game in town.

CWuestefeld 11y ago

This is easy for you to say, you can easily make the trade-off of higher quality for more money. But is it right for you to force your values onto people with less money, who will feel the pain of that trade-off more sharply? Maybe they'd also prefer to eat in a nicer place, but their circumstances simply don't allow for it. Keeping costs down isn't being miserly, it's helping to deliver a product that is within reach of the less fortunate.

Eric_WVGG 11y ago
keep people poor so poor people can afford to eat, got it
rwhitman 11y ago
You misinterpret.. My comment had a very specific list of middle-tier fast food joints that have gone to crap. McDonald's wasn't in that list. Neither was Taco Bell. Both very affordable, and still pretty consistent. But if you're going to call me out on classism, it's a fairly ironic position to take that fast food is some sort of special charity to the poor. A far more charitable approach would be embracing publicly-subsidized grocery stores in food deserts rather than letting private equity slumlords peddle sugary deep fried dog food as if it's the only game in town.