Re: Interesting NY Times graphic re: the cost of mcdonalds vs other option for a family of 4 with Link to graphic

Just wanted to add that McDonald's meal is closer to $194 a week if you were to eat it every night. That's almost $200 a week just for DINNER. That is just shy of $800 a month for DINNER. My entire monthly budget for household needs and food is $600. I can't see how ff is the cheaper option.

Re: Interesting NY Times graphic re: the cost of mcdonalds vs other option for a family of 4 with Link to graphic

Do people really buy FF because it's cheaper? I never got that sense.

I always thought the poverty/obesity connection was ACCESS to healthy, fresh foods in poor, urban neighborhoods as well as awareness and it's impact on learned eating behavior in a given household. It's my guess that's why they put the Brooklyn grocery store location on the graphic, and why there's all this talk of local, affordable produce at Greenmarkets in NYC, not to mention education programs in schools.

I don't think I've ever gotten FF or take-out because I couldn't afford a home-cooked meal (even when I was straight out of college and broke) but because I was too tired and overworked to make anything for myself.

Re: Interesting NY Times graphic re: the cost of mcdonalds vs other option for a family of 4 with Link to graphic

Re: Interesting NY Times graphic re: the cost of mcdonalds vs other option for a family of 4 with Link to graphic

Posted by medic6809

Posted by JennP

Posted by medic6809

Posted by JennP

Posted by headoverheels


Come on people. You're ignoring the point of this graphic. Or are you trying to make it seem like it's a better idea to eat fast food? Why so nit-picky? It's basic common sense that cooking at home is healthier and if you shop responsibly then yes, cooking at home IS cheaper unless you only shop at Whole Foods.

I am pretty sure no one at any point said that they disagree with the essential point of the comparison.

There are a lot of analytical minds on here. If something like this gets posted, it's going to be examined from all sides. I wouldn't call it nit picking; I think that's what makes for interesting discussions.

I think when those articles are posted that allege that fast food is cheaper, I think they are talking about different things. Yes, the meals are expensive, but there is an actual chicken sandwich on the dollar menu at McDonald's. Not nuggets or a mini sandwich, but a regular sandwich. Yes, I know this because I hit the place once a week as a treat and no, I don't feel guilty about it. I am not sure what kind of chicken it is, but I'm sure it's not grilled.

There is a huge socioeconomic factor too. I work in a poor neighborhood in Brooklyn and ALL there is is fast food. Not Panera or Chipotle - true, artery clogging fast food. I would love to read about a study that examines why this is. I have theories, but I'm too tired to write about them, and they'll probably p*ss someone off.

So no, I don't think it's cheaper to eat fast food, but I think it CAN be very cheap. And no, I don't think the home cooked meal posted is all that healthy. Show me some chicken breasts instead and some veggies too and then we can talk.

I respectfully disagree with you. Is the above meal the healthiest option...no, but you can't tell me chicken, lettuce, toast, and potatoes are worse then that McDonald's meal.

I never said that at all.

I believe you misunderstood the point of my post. I stated that I don't think eating at home is more expensive. My point was that fast food CAN be very cheap, especially when you don't compare apples to apples.

What I hinted at in my first post but didn't get into is that I think the issue is worth analyzing because I believe it's a public health problem.

My point with the chicken sandwich - which I didn't quote you on so sorry for any confusion - is that the perception is that there are items of substance for sale for $1. You might not like the substance itself - and I agree with you - but it's substance and can fill a person up. I work with lower income people in a poor neighborhood all day and I hear this stuff all the time. We debated Bloomberg's drink law at length in my government class. The perception is there that fast food is cheap, easy, and convenient, and the options available in these neighborhoods confirm that.

I am not saying the whole chicken meal is more expensive or less healthy then the comparison meal. I mean, I can read the numbers . My point is that it does not rock my socks as some standard of health. However, I get that it was supposed to be a direct comparison - potatoes v french fries, etc.

I understand more now what you were saying, and I think we're at 2 different places trying to say the same thing. I agree we need more education. I also agree we need to get the word out to lower income families as well. It's disgusting the way ff companies and paged food is targeted at certain groups. Just gross. In our community our local farmers market just started a new program where they except food stamps/bridge cards and for every dollar you spend up to $20 they match you. So you can get $40 worth of food for $20.

Re: Interesting NY Times graphic re: the cost of mcdonalds vs other option for a family of 4 with Link to graphic

Message edited 7/29/2012 9:20:03 PM.

Re: Interesting NY Times graphic re: the cost of mcdonalds vs other option for a family of 4 with Link to graphic

I would guess that when people regularly choose fast food over home cooking, the commodity they're trying to save is TIME, not money.

We only eat fast food once in a while. But I have the luxury of staying at home with my 2 kids. Neither one is a baby-- so I'm not sleep deprived, they can entertain themselves... it's fairly easy to get dinner cooked. On the days they have some late-afternoon/early-evening activity, I just make something earlier in the day that can be reheated. To me, this flexibility is a luxury.

Some two-career families have nannies or grandmas who are watching the kids, and either do some of the cooking for the mom and dad, or help out with other chores, leaving the mom and dad more time/energy to cook. To me, this amount of help is a luxury.

Not everyone has this luxury of time! What about the typical two-career household? Either mom or dad has to pick up the kids from daycare or aftercare or the babysitter each day. Meanwhile, once the kids are in school, there's one night that DC #1 has dance, another night that DC #2 has soccer, and so on. Some nights you or your spouse might have to stay late at work. Once you get home, there is laundry to be done, homework to be helped with, prep for the next day, maybe a quick errand. You're probably only grocery shopping either on weekends or via a weekly Peapod delivery, so maybe you just don't have the right items that night to put together something quick. It's really easy to see how grabbing fast food on the way home from work or on the way home from soccer, etc is REALLY TEMPTING. It certainly would be for me!! No prep, minimal cleanup, a little more quality time with the kids that night. People would pay MORE money for this luxury.

Message edited 6/18/2012 8:42:56 AM.

Re: Interesting NY Times graphic re: the cost of mcdonalds vs other option for a family of 4 with Link to graphic

all this graphic has shown me is that I cannot afford mcdonalds.

this dual-income, whole foods shopping organic household cannot afford McDonalds

the best thing they could do for the world would be to continue to raise their prices.

as to the rest, meh. any other argument to be made really isn't the point of this thread.

but it is utter and complete hogwash that you cannot feel a family a nutritious meal for less than a Bic Mac extra value meal.
'

ETA: as someone who grew up very poor, my mom didn't have to worry about picking us up from anywhere or from soccer or dance. we could afford TOOTHPASTE sometimes...we were not flitting about in our mini van from class to class. and again, this is about POOR people. not middle class "poor".

Message edited 6/18/2012 10:47:04 AM.

Re: Interesting NY Times graphic re: the cost of mcdonalds vs other option for a family of 4 with Link to graphic

I don't understand at ALL how they arrived at calories per person for the chicken meal...we have rotisserie chicken all the time (no skin) and a big serving of chicken is maybe 250 calories...salad can be very low if you use the right dressing (maybe 100 calories??) and a small potatoe is maybe 200 calories. No more than 550 calories for dinner. But i guess if you keep the skin on, put tons of butter and use a high fat dressing the calories could add up. Just wondering why they would choose to portray the home cooked meal as so HIGH! that makes zero sense to me!!?

Re: Interesting NY Times graphic re: the cost of mcdonalds vs other option for a family of 4 with Link to graphic

Also...we picked up fast food last week for our fam of 4 which we NEVER do. I was so surprised by what it cost us. It was $26 to feed 4 of us mcdonalds (and that is with 2 of the meals being kids meals).

A rotisserie chicken at my grocery store is $6. 4 potatoes are about $3. A bag of salad, $2 (on sale which is what i buy). So $11 to feed the family versus $26. Craziness!! (i am not factoring in drinks because we stock up on cases of stuff, but if i had to, i'd say drinks add maybe $2??)