I live in a land where hamburgers are not $1.00 each. Obviously your ‘realityland’ is one where corporations don’t raise prices a buck for each additional cent they have to pay. It must be nice to live in such a land…
OMG…you seriously can’t read what I wrote? I’m…well, sorry for your disability. Let me spell it out for the learning impaired…a hamburger, large fries and a large Dr Pepper costs me around $12 bucks today, in my fantasy land (I know it’s a buck in YOUR world…work with me here). If you force corporations to put this additional stuff on the menu, they are obviously going to pass the fun along to us. I wouldn’t be surprised if they tack on an additional buck…or two, or three. In my unfortunately unrealistic world, the fact that it only COSTS a corporation a few cents per item in realty doesn’t translate into only CHARGING the customers a few cents. In my reality, they would see this as an opportunity for PROFIT, something that is probably not in your world. You must live in a very happy place.
To be sure, in your world, it will only hurt them. In MY world, it will hurt everyone who has to pay more for a burger and fries, while (in my world) it will only ‘help’ a small minority of…well, no need to go into insults. We’ll just say it will only help a minority of ‘people’ who worry about such things, but don’t worry about them enough to actually do the research to find out. Sort of the casually concerned, I suppose.
Keep telling yourself that, mate. I’m sure it feels good (in your world) to think you are superior, ehe?
Yeah…the casually concerned. I feel for you, brother.
Assuming you, like the other unfortunates in this thread, do not have a cell phone, you could always, well, ask. It really wasn’t hard…I just asked the nice lady at the counter and she handed me a card.
The Great Southwest…a.k.a. New Mexico. I’m not sure why it would have been higher here…I’ve lived and worked in Manhattan, and you are right, it’s generally more expensive there. For all I know I was over charged…I just ordered a double cheese burger, biggie fries and the biggie drink and it was about $11.50 or so.
I love how you very carefully didn’t quote the following part of my post in your quote:
Like, if you don’t quote it, it’s like you can pretend I never said it!
As has been established, regardless of your scummy amoral desperate deceptive worthless dishonest argument techniques, I am well aware that price is disjoint from costs. What you don’t realize is, this hurts your position, not helps it. If costs don’t drive prices (not that changing the menu has a detectable cost-per-item), then McDonalds would at least have to consider raising the prices.
That’s not the case however. Prices are actually set at the point McDonalds thinks will maximize sales. More info on the menu isn’t going to raise that price. Not in reality, anyway.
See, most people aren’t so titanically stupid as to think that it costs McDonalds anything to change their menu. So, McDonalds isn’t going to see this as a good selling point to justify a price hike on. Heck, the only people who will see it as an improvement (and thus possibly meriting a higher price) are the ones who will be using the information to decide not to buy things - so raising the prices on them can’t be expected to increase profits either - it can be expected to drive people away, since they will already be less inclined to buy.
Does this mean that you are safe from the dread threat of price increases? Not really. It means that you have to worry about them all the time. Particularly if you are so nuts as to think that McDonalds will use things this irrelevent as a justification to raise prices. I mean, if adding the caloric info can justify it, then what about the next full moon? Oh no! The full moon will make them charge a buck more! Oh noes!
Your world is hallucinatory, though. There’s no rational reason for McD to think they can get away with using this as an excuse to raise prices.
:dubious:
As opposed to the hyperbolically irrationally panicked?
Hmm, and yet, as already mentioned upthread, what’s this? On a 2/$1 McDonald’s Apple Pie? Could it be Nutritional Information? The same sort of Nutrition Facts printed on the back of any product you buy in your supermarket? Why yes, yes it is!
And they’re on the fries, and the boxed sandwiches and chicken products too. Not yet, to my knowledge, on the items in plastic cups and containers (salads, yogurt/ice cream) or on the drinks, including the new and calorie-heavy coffee drinks. I’m not sure if it’s on the paper of wrapped sandwich products. But there it is.
I have no problem with having the nutritional information available on a card, or on a wall poster, or anything like that. As long as they are available in the restaurant.
I’d find this acceptable - though philosophically, in the interest of the free market (you don’t hate the free market, do you?), in an ideal world care would be taken that the information not be overlooked or missed by the consumer, lest they unwittingly make a less informed choice than they might otherwise would. But the world is not ideal and I’m willing to compromise on this matter, as long as we are not forcing people to leave the store and/or do web searches to get their info.
begbert2, I apologize for my tone in this thread. You are quite right…it won’t have a major impact on price…there is no good reason why they don’t put the information on the menus or on the products (or, perhaps they do, and I just haven’t been to a McDonald’s lately).
Did anybody in this thread realize how amazingly unhealthy movie theater popcorn is for you? I had always thought of popcorn as being one of the healthier options. And that day-glo yellow liquid lubricant they pour all over it? Well that’s got to be healthier than melted butter, right?
If that information was on the menu, I can assure you I wouldn’t ever have touched the stuff. And now that I’m informed, I am sure that I’ll never ever be tempted to buy a bag of extra-buttery triple-quarter-pounders at the movies again.
Sure, people can ask for nutritional information when they have reason to suspect that they might be overdoing it a bit, but in some cases like popcorn, people are going to stay misinformed because of the popcorn=healthy conventional wisdom.
Like having information “on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.”
Here’s what you said, to save others from scrolling up:
That’s great. But the next time you’re at Cholesterol Castle, maybe you want a Fillet o’Fish instead. Are you going to run home and do your internet research first? Or have you already downloaded all of the nutritional information for all of the fast food restaurants in your city and carry it around on a wallet card for quick reference?
If you’re one of the privileged few to have a broadband-capable phone, then you can stand in line poking around at the 2-inch screen waiting for PDF’s to load. I sure hope I’m not in line behind you.
It sounds like you should be against nutrition labeling of packaged goods in the grocery as well. I mean, Stouffer’s shouldn’t be required to slap a nutrition label on its frozen lasagna since you can do all your nutritional research at home before you go grocery shopping, right?
No. I would do one of two things: (a) behave like an adult, who realizes that we don’t always have perfect information for every decision, and make an educated guess about the nutrition of said Fillet o’ Fish; or (b) request a nutritional pamphlet, as was mentioned up-thread.
If the situations were similar, i.e., grocery stores had nutrition information on hand for all products and said information was easily accessible online, then yes, requiring the information to also be on the packaging would be a bit silly.
And if I was in favor of nutrition labels, I sure hope my primary argument wouldn’t be: “But typing ‘Stouffer’s nutrition’ into google and clicking the first link is just too hard!”
Though the post was directed to you, that parenthatical reference was directed to “the audience” - one of those interjections that’s tapped in to highlight through irony the position being addressed, so that persons who agree with me can be amused, and persons who it targets have the contraryiness of their position underscored to them. There’s seriously a tone of voice that you use when saying stuff like this that gets the point across clearly.
Yeah. Tone of voice. On the internet. I’ll go away now.
This is just fuckin’ silly. Leave it to a liberal to determine that everyone else is an idiot and we need the government to come to the rescue of the idiots.
It has been pointed out numerous times that the information is…
ALREADY AVAILABLE. Don’t overlook that. Don’t skip over it. It’s true in every single chain restaurant, especially fast food joints. You’re not enabling anyone to make better choices, because they’re already enabled.
But leave it to liberals to invent imaginary people with a particular batch of properties that conveniently justify the liberal side of an issue.
“You can just go online to look at the stats”
“But what if I don’t have the internet on my phone?”
“Then you can do it at home”
“But what if I don’t have a computer?”
“Then go to the library”
“Oh great, so now I have to go to the library to eat healthy?”
“Well, no, you could just rely on your experience to tell you what’s unhealthy”
“But what about 12-yr olds?”
“They can look at the wall, pick up a pamphlet, and/or ask the cashier for the information.”
Let me help you out here and give you the next page and a half of nanny liberal excuses:
“But what if they can’t read?”
“What about the blind and deaf that can’t read a menu?”
“But what about kids in wheelchairs that can’t wheel over to the wall to see the chart?”
“And how are we supposed to help people that are afraid of cashiers? Huh? It could be traumatic for them to talk to the employee!”
You know what is nannyism? Thinking that everyone else besides you is an idiot that needs to be coddled and shown the error of his ways.
Um…because that’s how it goes for every single other consumer good? God forbid a consumer do work.
Wow. You found nutritional information. Imagine that. So you understand now that there’s no need to ask “Who would have guessed” because no guessing is involved, right?
But surely the best option of all would be to have the best information possible, as easily accessible as possible. What is the possible benefit of omitting information?
Keep telling yourself that, mate. I’m sure it feels good (in your world) to think you are superior, ehe?
