What on earth happened to McDonalds?

Mackenzie Click-Mickelson

Chugging along the path of life
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
We do not dine in just for the fun of it but that's probably been quite a long time since we've done that. If we're dining in it's because it's a pitstop in the midst of other things and these days it's not too too often that we're doing those pitstops like that. We used to stop at this Burger King by the movie theater every now and then before going into the movies (then we would switch to Steak N Shake once they got better because they were awful for a while). The vast majority of the time we do app orders because it's easy and they incentivize with deals. A Wendy's location just opened up near us taking over a pizza place that couldn't afford the repairs to the building and the app has the deals. Burger King and McDonalds also have the deals through the apps. Sonic as well. Even Chick-fil-A we hardly go inside to eat anymore often because when we have it it's being picked up on the way home.

But I do understand how different the aesthetics are compared to year's past but that's sorta how all the places have gone. Much more neutral modern sleek look that can stay in longer than campy brightly colored decor/design. On the eyes that can be both pleasing to be more modern neutral and yet at the same time boring. I sometimes myself miss the fast food look from the 90s and early 2000s but understand why the look is what it is these days. Tech has also made it much easier to be more modern in how customers want things. I've been using McDonald's mobile ordering though since 2015/2016 so it's not really a new thing to me but that one picture a poster shared where the was a wall built up behind the register would be a shock to see at first. It may even be how things are now in some locations here and I just don't know it.
 

kymom99

DIS Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2008
I stayed at a holiday inn express in Sedona. The furniture looked like dorm furniture. Very minimalistic and very few plush surfaces, other than the bed. I’m guessing that sort of thing is easier to clean. I get it, but it sure isn’t pretty. And the room wasn’t cheap.
 

tvguy

Question anything the facts don't support.
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
I stayed at a holiday inn express in Sedona. The furniture looked like dorm furniture. Very minimalistic and very few plush surfaces, other than the bed. I’m guessing that sort of thing is easier to clean. I get it, but it sure isn’t pretty. And the room wasn’t cheap.
Love Holiday Inn Express. Yes, the newer ones are identical rooms right down to the furniture. Stayed at one in Monterey and one in San Diego that were converted from previous designs. THOSE were different. Smaller, quirky rooms. Not sure it is minimalistic. Well thought out and comfortable. Lots of storage. Coffee maker. Microwave. Fridge. Large well laid out bathrooms.
Funny thing is we stayed in a non-Holiday Inn Express hotel in October and my wife thought THAT looked odd with fancy furniture etc.
 

QueenIsabella

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Not sure how this thread veered into hotels, but we, too, are fans of Holiday Inn Express. We know what to expect, and they show up frequently on sixsuitcasetravel--a website for hotels for larger families. Which we have. Decent rooms, decent breakfast, reasonable price. There's room for all of us, and typically there's a kitchenette area--fridge, microwave. Of course, we tend to go for the larger, suite-type rooms, because there's still 5 of us, and I have adult-sized (and tall!) kids.
 

goofyernmost

Aged to Perfection
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Well, a few years back McDonalds switched from frozen beef patties to fresh locally sourced beef. I have to wonder if that prompted the grease situation. While fresh beef is better, McDonalds had complete control of the ingredients when they provided them all frozen, including the percentage of fat in the beef. Now, it can vary depending on the local beef supplier the location uses.
They better look for better quality control then. Wendy's is supposedly fresh beef and I have never had a greasy burger from them. Whatever the reason, I have gone away from McDonald's. So stockholders don't panic the amount I send with them in a years time will not make a noticable difference in their bottom line.
 

tvguy

Question anything the facts don't support.
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
They better look for better quality control then. Wendy's is supposedly fresh beef and I have never had a greasy burger from them. Whatever the reason, I have gone away from McDonald's. So stockholders don't panic the amount I send with them in a years time will not make a noticable difference in their bottom line.
My McDonalds trips are exclusively to the drive through, and almost always on the way home from the lab after an early morning blood test that required fasting. Mmmmm McMuffins.

We did stop at a McDonalds on a trip In June, which is remarkable because my wife hates McDonalds. She was amazed how good those Double Cheeseburgers were. Our burger fast food trips tend to be at Burger King, so it was a change of pace.
 

Cogswel_Cogs

DIS Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
I don't know but went there once in July or August and has the big mac size changed considerably? To the point where Big would really not be appropriate.
 

sam_gordon

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
YUP especially when they did nothing to earn it…..like work a grueling job at retail….

I think its very easy.
So they inherited the money? And it's ok to take inheritance away? If it wasn't inherited, they did EARN their money, based on whatever agreement was made at employment (just like everyone else). You might think someone is overpaid for what they do, but in all honesty, that's between them and their employer. If you own stock in a company (so therefore an owner), then take the appropriate steps to regulate how much someone is paid.
 

xipotec

Grinning Ghosts
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
So they inherited the money? And it's ok to take inheritance away? If it wasn't inherited, they did EARN their money, based on whatever agreement was made at employment (just like everyone else). You might think someone is overpaid for what they do, but in all honesty, that's between them and their employer. If you own stock in a company (so therefore an owner), then take the appropriate steps to regulate how much someone is paid.
Its cool man, you can like and defend the current Stock Market and the people who have the means and ability to invest in it and take advantage of the low wage workers who cannot afford even rent now…

its cool, you defend those poor rich people ….

I prefer to fight for those who are being taken advantage of and who wages have been stolen from them for decades to make rich people even richer..

We are clearly on different sides of the fence, believe what you want.
 

sam_gordon

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Its cool man, you can like and defend the current Stock Market and the people who have the means and ability to invest in it and take advantage of the low wage workers who cannot afford even rent now…

its cool, you defend those poor rich people ….

I prefer to fight for those who are being taken advantage of and who wages have been stolen from them for decades to make rich people even richer..

We are clearly on different sides of the fence, believe what you want.
What I believe is that what a person AGREES to accept as payment for a job should be up to them and the employer. That applies to the CEO as well as the part time janitor.

I assume you want to regulate how much someone is allowed to accept as payment. So, let's say you get your wish. How EXACTLY do you determine what someone should be paid? At what point is something "too much"?
 

GAN

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
What I believe is that what a person AGREES to accept as payment for a job should be up to them and the employer. That applies to the CEO as well as the part time janitor.

I assume you want to regulate how much someone is allowed to accept as payment. So, let's say you get your wish. How EXACTLY do you determine what someone should be paid? At what point is something "too much"?
You could start with paying full-time employees a living wage minimum. In that scenario, some companies will choose to hire primarily part-time -other businesses may decide its better(or necessary) to hire full-time at a living wage. Then, as potential employees we have a choice. I’m thinking the FT offers might be more appealing which would benefit the businesses that decide to go that route. I really haven’t given this much thought… just tossing it out there. 🤷🏻
 

goofyernmost

Aged to Perfection
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
What I believe is that what a person AGREES to accept as payment for a job should be up to them and the employer. That applies to the CEO as well as the part time janitor.

I assume you want to regulate how much someone is allowed to accept as payment. So, let's say you get your wish. How EXACTLY do you determine what someone should be paid? At what point is something "too much"?
I think that the fact that these places are having trouble filling positions would be the employee telling the employer that the years of underpaying might be close to an end. Employers have been playing a game with employees. They have cut back on hours to stay in the range of not having to offer many benefits so not only is it harder to have a living wage but not offering benefits makes it even worse. If people have another way to survive like staying at home with parents then they won't go out and get abused by entitled customer attacks.

This is the type of behavior that eventually forced the public to unionize and create a middle class making this a very vital economic nation. Now it's pure greed and it will have a huge cost to the greedy that is starting to show itself now in small ways but it will get worse. The anger that is being expressed right now is being inaccurately blamed on political parties instead of the individuals that are stuffing their pockets off the labors of others. They are the enemy of the people (some are democrats and some are republican but that is not where the problem originates). It happened in the time after WWII and it will happen again unless the rich wise up before the oppressed rise up. It even happened with our beloved Walt Disney. He underpaid and underappreciated a very talented workforce and lost some very good people. A uprising that affected him very strongly both emotionally and fiscally.
 

sam_gordon

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
I think that the fact that these places are having trouble filling positions would be the employee telling the employer that the years of underpaying might be close to an end. Employers have been playing a game with employees. They have cut back on hours to stay in the range of not having to offer many benefits so not only is it harder to have a living wage but not offering benefits makes it even worse. If people have another way to survive like staying at home with parents then they won't go out and get abused by entitled customer attacks.

This is the type of behavior that eventually forced the public to unionize and create a middle class making this a very vital economic nation. Now it's pure greed and it will have a huge cost to the greedy that is starting to show itself now in small ways but it will get worse. The anger that is being expressed right now is being inaccurately blamed on political parties instead of the individuals that are stuffing their pockets off the labors of others. They are the enemy of the people (some are democrats and some are republican but that is not where the problem originates). It happened in the time after WWII and it will happen again unless the rich wise up before the oppressed rise up. It even happened with our beloved Walt Disney. He underpaid and underappreciated a very talented workforce and lost some very good people. A uprising that affected him very strongly both emotionally and fiscally.
I'm not sure if you were trying to counter my argument, but I think you're supporting it. Some want to be able to LIMIT how much an employee gets for compensation. All I'm saying is that's an agreement between the employee and employer. If the employer doesn't want to pay enough, or has bad working conditions, the employee doesn't need to accept the job. If enough people are willing to pass on the job, the employer will need to change something. That will either be increasing pay, increasing benefits, increasing working conditions, or all of the above.

That applies from the entry level position up to the very top. People complain about businesses and their leaders being "greedy". When's the last time ANYONE at ANY level has turned down a raise saying "no, I have enough"? It's easy to point to those making more than us and say "they're greedy, they don't deserve that much money, they don't work hard", but if someone even hinted that of ourselves it would be "you don't understand the job I do". Pot, meet kettle.
 

GAN

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
I'm not sure if you were trying to counter my argument, but I think you're supporting it. Some want to be able to LIMIT how much an employee gets for compensation. All I'm saying is that's an agreement between the employee and employer. If the employer doesn't want to pay enough, or has bad working conditions, the employee doesn't need to accept the job. If enough people are willing to pass on the job, the employer will need to change something. That will either be increasing pay, increasing benefits, increasing working conditions, or all of the above.

That applies from the entry level position up to the very top. People complain about businesses and their leaders being "greedy". When's the last time ANYONE at ANY level has turned down a raise saying "no, I have enough"? It's easy to point to those making more than us and say "they're greedy, they don't deserve that much money, they don't work hard", but if someone even hinted that of ourselves it would be "you don't understand the job I do". Pot, meet kettle.
Your argument definitely works …in a vacuum. You’re either refusing to acknowledge or ignorant about what’s been occurring over the last 50-years. The bigger picture is that Executive to average employee compensation has grown from 70-to-1 in the 70’s, to 400-to-1 today. During that period, the S&P has increased 800% while executive compensation has increased to over 1200%. In a nutshell, that means that the average employee(American) is losing out on the impact of economic growth over time. I had a job in the 80’s while in school that paid me $5/hour, I was working in a restaurant. That same wage today based on inflation would be over $15/hour. I think that’s what some of the other posts here have been trying to get at -so, while on paper, saying if you don’t like the pay go get a better paying job makes sense, it doesn‘t do anything to correct the actual problem.
 
Last edited:









DISNEY DINING PROMO CARD OFFER!

The Disney Dining Promo Card is a great way for you to “Stay, Play, and Dine” at Walt Disney World this summer. This offer is available for arrivals from June 25 to September 14, 2023.

Click Here for a No-Obligation Quote!




Top