Rick Bayless and Burger King - Part 2

[SobaAddict70]

It's elitist to be an eGulleteer and not a Chowhounder.

Get over it, people.

Soba

[jbraynolds]

I got the food and cooking bug and wariness of the "value" of fast food out of necessity. Able to con my Dad into giving me a monthly food stipend rather than signing up for the meal plan while in college (divide the cost of the program by nine and send me a check for that amount at the beginning of each month) resulted in fast-food joint binges and imported beer for the first week, slices of pizza and mainstream domestic beer the second and careful shopping and cooking at home and rock-bottom domestic beer the last two weeks of each month. Those last weeks meant much time at ethnic markets and farmer's stands, lots of very seasonal (read: abundant, hence cheap) vegetables, the omnipresent pasta and cheap cuts of meat. It also meant that rather than dropping $5 at Burger King I could buy a six-pack of Piels ($1.50) and make dinner for two for the same bucks. Not sure if that's how a lesson was meant to be learned but it worked for me.

[ExtraMSG]

It also meant that rather than dropping $5 at Burger King I could buy a six-pack of Piels ($1.50) and make dinner for two for the same bucks. Not sure if that's how a lesson was meant to be learned but it worked for me.

Of course, as a college student your time is not so pre-determined like it is for a low-income family where both parents work.

This is sounding just a wee bit elitist. So those of us who can afford a good restaurant are allowed to dine out, while those who can only afford BK should stay at home and cook instead? Even low income people (and I have been there) want a meal out occasionally. Perhaps we should be complaining about the lack of quality restaurants in the BK price range?

Well, considering the rate at which restaurants die, I'd suggest that possibly the best avenue to lower the price of restaurant food would be lowering the minimum wage. Of course, then these same people wouldn't be able to eat there. But it'd make my meals cheaper.

As for quality restaurants at the BK price level... this is exactly why people shouldn't go to BK and should instead support their local businesses. The sad thing is that quality local places (burger and other) with a similar convenience/price point still lose business to the BKs of the world, because of television advertising.

Be honest here, though. Few places can reach the speed at which places like McDs and BK and Taco Hell deliver the goods. They are very fast. I've been in long lines at In-n-Out Burger while half or fewer the customers are being served. "Your way" is only half the BK tagline, the follow up, and just as important to people is the "Right away".

[bloviatrix]

While I agree that it is cheaper to eat at home-cooked meals instead of going to BK or McD's everynight, I would like to point out, that eating these overpriced foods are all part of the cycle of poverty.

Barbara Ehrenreich, in her book Nickled and Dimed in America: On (Not) Getting By in America discusses this. Many of these people live in accomodations where they don't have stoves or refrigerators. At the most, maybe they have an illegal hot plate. Additionally, many of the neighborhoods where they live don't have supermarkets, so the only place to purchase groceries are bodegas with very high mark-ups. So, they end up spending $20/day on dinner plus who knows what else for the other meals. Another way of looking at it is that such a substantial portion of their small salaries are going to food, and they can't save any money to get into better accomodations where they might actually have facilities on which to cook.

I'm sure some of these people would welcome a chance to cook wholesome meals for their families if they lived in better equipped accomodations.

[Squeat Mungry]

While I agree that it is cheaper to eat at home-cooked meals instead of going to BK or McD's everynight, I would like to point out, that eating these overpriced foods are all part of the cycle of poverty. 

Barbara Ehrenreich, in her book Nickled and Dimed in America: On (Not) Getting By in America discusses this.  Many of these people live in accomodations where they don't have stoves or refrigerators.  At the most, maybe they have an illegal hot plate.  Additionally, many of the neighborhoods where they live don't have supermarkets, so the only place to purchase groceries are bodegas with very high mark-ups.  So, they end up spending $20/day on dinner plus who knows what else for the other meals.  Another way of looking at it is that such a substantial portion of their small salaries are going to food, and they can't save any money to get into better accomodations where they might actually have facilities on which to cook.

I'm sure some of these people would welcome a chance to cook wholesome meals for their families if they lived in better equipped accomodations.

Bloviatrix, I'm glad you mentioned the Ehrenreich book. I think everyone should read both that and Fast Food Nation to understand what's up with the corporate chains and poverty and health issues in this country. I won't bring up my opinions on Bayless again, as I have decided to shut up until I can put up, but I did want to add my endorsement for this book.

Editted fer speling.

Edited October 20, 2003 by Squeat Mungry (log)

[hjshorter]

While I agree that it is cheaper to eat at home-cooked meals instead of going to BK or McD's everynight, I would like to point out, that eating these overpriced foods are all part of the cycle of poverty. 

Barbara Ehrenreich, in her book Nickled and Dimed in America: On (Not) Getting By in America discusses this.  Many of these people live in accomodations where they don't have stoves or refrigerators.  At the most, maybe they have an illegal hot plate.  Additionally, many of the neighborhoods where they live don't have supermarkets, so the only place to purchase groceries are bodegas with very high mark-ups.  So, they end up spending $20/day on dinner plus who knows what else for the other meals.  Another way of looking at it is that such a substantial portion of their small salaries are going to food, and they can't save any money to get into better accomodations where they might actually have facilities on which to cook.

I'm sure some of these people would welcome a chance to cook wholesome meals for their families if they lived in better equipped accomodations.

Thank you. That was a far more eloquent version of what I was getting at. When most of your income is spent trying to survive, good food is not a priority. Enough food is a bigger concern, along with diapers, rent, and now (mostly substandard) childcare, since mothers are being forced to find jobs. Food stamp eligibilty is being cut. It's a much more complicated issue than this thread is acknowledging. If you're existing on government cheese BK is most likely a step up. It has also occured to me that that some of the low-income people being pontificated about on this thread are probably working at BK, not just eating there.

And I wouldn't weep for the mom and pops being squeezed out in poor neighborhoods. Most of them are equally crappy and charge high prices.

[Fat Guy]

Both Ehrenreich and Schlosser are brilliant, tireless investigative journalists and talented writers who get derailed by their overtly political agendas. Nonetheless, the facts they've gathered are extremely useful in this discussion, and of course Bayless -- who has in the past subscribed to the Ehrenreich/Schlosser agenda -- should be particularly ashamed of himself for doing this ad for Burger King and for his follow-up whoring in the press. Could you imagine Schlosser or Ehrenreich doing a Burger King ad and having the nerve to call this crapola chicken sandwich a "step in the right direction"? Ehrenreich and Schlosser have principles. They, like Michel Nischan and Tony Bourdain, are people I can disagree with but still respect more than I respect plenty of people I do agree with. Bayless's audacity and disingenuousness, on the other hand, boggle the mind.

To reiterate, I don't think the conversation about people being forced to go to Burger King can be productive until such time as we define the groups we're talking about and focus on their specific plights. Various groups in various circumstances are going to have different problems that push them into the arms of the fast-food giants. There's plenty of blame to go around, but as long as we jump from category to category we won't really get down to the real arguments.

I've only read selections from Ehrenreich, but the general impression I get from her work is that part of the problem among the working poor is a near-complete lack of knowledge about what they can do to improve their situations. All the desire for improvement in the world won't help them if they don't have information, protection, security, or any kind of sense of empowerment. I think the same point can be made with respect to their dietary choices: the lack of choice may be partly a time issue and partly a money issue, but it is also in large part a lack of information, enfranchisement, and hope.

Certainly, anybody in that situation does not deserve to be judged for reliance on fast food. Those people deserve sympathy and help. But middle class suburbanites who should know better and have the ability to make choices unrestricted by any of these considerations? They should be taken out back and slapped silly. And I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of Burger King's habitual customers do have real choices.

[SobaAddict70]

It's a much more complicated issue than this thread is acknowledging.  If you're existing on government cheese BK is most likely a step up.  It has also occured to me that that some of the low-income people being pontificated about on this thread are probably working at BK, not just eating there.

Um, excuse me, but I am a product of one of those "low-income"persons.

When we came to the United States, my mother had barely enough income to support ourselves that she was on welfare for a brief period of time before we climbed out of that hole.

And I would also like to add that I worked for Burger King when I was a teenager in high school.

At present, neither of us belongs to that category of being in a low-income bracket.

Any way, my mother did what she had to do to get us going through that period in life. Whatever she did, none of it had to do with fast food, and she even managed to provide good food along the way. She was a single parent with an only child, newly immigrated to the United States, living in an apartment in Jersey City, working long hours at an investment banking firm in New York, commuting day to day in what was then a high crime environment (NYC in the late 1970s wasn't exactly a walk in the park), and doing what she had to do to raise a kid and survive. Weekends, she cooked for the week. One-pot meals, which could be reheated when necessary, etc.

She did it with an eye towards providing enough to eat, having food on the table when she got home because quite frequently she was tired after having been up since 5:30 am every single day. Try putting yourselves in my mother's shoes -- up at 5:30 am, be at work by 8:30 am till 4:30, be home by 6, in bed by 10, and do that 5 days a week, for the next 10+ years of your life with hardly any support from your immediate family while raising a kid.

I just wanted to say that *some* low-income people have the gumption to pull up their bootstraps and get through what needs to be done in life.

Soba

PS. Yes, this is a complicated topic, but not what the focus of this thread is about, which I believe had to do with Bayless' endorsement of a supposedly inferior product from a supposedly "inferior" fast-food establishment.

[Fat Guy]

Thanks for that, Soba. I've often found that those who grew up poor and emerged middle class are the least sympathetic to the excuses that other middle class people make for the poor.

eGullet's demographic tends to be too narrowly middle class and white, but even those of us who are descended from European ancestors and take our condition for granted probably had grandparents or great grandparents who faced exactly the same kinds of challenges as your mother. And they too dealt with those challenges without resort to Burger King or any dumbed down anything.

At the same time, I can't help thinking that the underclass today has less hope than at any time in the past half a century. Something has gone wrong: the educational opportunities are not the same, drugs are more prevalent, and the culture doesn't support an atmosphere of achievement. It's a big challenge, too big for this thread, but certainly someone like Bayless should know better than to try to address the problem by doing Burger King ads.

[slowday]

A very interesting article on eating trends on MSNBC.com

http://msnbc.com/news/957214.asp

"IRI, which tracks supermarket sales data, notes that while traditional snacks, such as a bag of pretzels, are showing moderate growth, consumers are really hot for traditional items made easy — like oatmeal in a cup. And we’re willing to pay two or three times the price for convenience."

[SobaAddict70]

At the same time, I can't help thinking that the underclass today has less hope than at any time in the past half a century.

Less hope than when? The era of the Great Society? The late 70s in the era of high crime, riots and blackouts? The roaring 80s and the era of greed? The equally greedy 90s and the era of the "me" generation?

Which era is it Steven?

The underclass will always pull through. They have no choice, because no one else is gonna pull through and save them. It's a swim or sink world out there.

Soba

[vengroff]

We've gone pretty far down this road already, so maybe I missed it, but is there evidence that a lot of low-income people eat a substantial number of meals at BK and other big chains and contribute substantially to their bottom line? I was under the impression that their biggest market for frequent repeat customers was single middle class men between 18 and 30. Sorry I don't have citations, but I recall reading this several places in the last few years.

[SobaAddict70]

I'd be interested to know what are the particular location demographics of Burger King operations -- where they are located throughout the U.S., proportion of cities to suburbs, concentration of operations in any given city -- for instance, more BKs in downtown or midtown or inner city areas or semi-residential/semi-industrial areas, things of that nature. (by the by, if McD's is the Starbucks of the fast food industry, then BK is the equivalent of Pasqua Coffee.)

This is a follow-up question to vengroff's post.

The answer to this would go a long way, or at least part of the way, to determining who or what comprises BK's target audience.

Friedclams, any help?

Soba

Edited October 20, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[hjshorter]

I just wanted to say that *some* low-income people have the gumption to pull up their bootstraps and get through what needs to be done in life.

I don't recall saying that wasn't the case.

My family was lower middle class. There was just enough to eat, period. No snacks, no seconds on dinner. Every scrap left over was recycled for another meal. I worked in the school cafeteria in Jr. High to qualify for free lunches. If there was any spare money for a meal out it was most likely McDonald's. And yes, it was a treat to go there.

And my fast food stint was at KFC, to earn money while attending college. I know it can be done.

Edited October 20, 2003 by hjshorter (log)

[hjshorter]

We've gone pretty far down this road already, so maybe I missed it, but is there evidence that a lot of low-income people eat a substantial number of meals at BK and other big chains and contribute substantially to their bottom line?

That was the point I was trying to make here

It has also occured to me that some of the low-income people being pontificated about on this thread are probably working at BK, not just eating there.

[woodburner]

I'd be interested to know what are the particular location demographics of Burger King operations -- where they are located throughout the U.S., proportion of cities to suburbs, concentration of operations in any given city -- for instance, more BKs in downtown or midtown or inner city areas or semi-residential/semi-industrial areas, things of that nature.  (by the by, if McD's is the Starbucks of the fast food industry, then BK is the equivalent of Pasqua Coffee.)

Whew, that remark just woke me up. I very seldom if ever, visit a burger fast food place, maybe once or twice a year would be my guess.

As I read your remarks about demographics, a visual went through my mind, decpicting many fast food places in some large cities, located in lower income area's.

I also have refused to enter into this frey, so far, because of my limited knowledge concerning Rick Bayless in general. But I am finding and reading as much information that I can find, so as to form an opinion.

Thanks to all posters for passing along book titles and web links to help me learn.

A special thanks to the Fatguy, for taking a stand, and trying to educate me with his writings, in this thread.

woodburner

[Fat Guy]

At the same time, I can't help thinking that the underclass today has less hope than at any time in the past half a century.

Less hope than when? The era of the Great Society? The late 70s in the era of high crime, riots and blackouts? The roaring 80s and the era of greed? The equally greedy 90s and the era of the "me" generation?

Yes, yes. As I walked away from the computer and realized I had said something stupid, I decided to go for dinner rather than make an edit. I was hungry. So sue me.

[Jinmyo]

At the same time, I can't help thinking that the underclass today has less hope than at any time in the past half a century.

Less hope than when? The era of the Great Society? The late 70s in the era of high crime, riots and blackouts? The roaring 80s and the era of greed? The equally greedy 90s and the era of the "me" generation?

Yes, yes. As I walked away from the computer and realized I had said something stupid, I decided to go for dinner rather than make an edit. I was hungry. So sue me.

How was the Sante Fe Chicken Sandwich?

[Fat Guy]

Actually I went to a new place in my neighborhood, an offshoot of the Ottomanelli's mini-empire of butchers and gourmet shops, called Ottomanelli's New York Grill. It's a take-out restaurant on Lexington and 93rd. For $5.95 you can get a 1/2 pound burger on a toasted brioche bun with lettuce, tomato, and pickle. The burger is ground on premises from high-quality beef and cooked to order on a gas-fired grill. It's $1 extra for a sizeable pile of waffle fries. These sandwiches are also available as chicken breast (not compressed) sandwiches for the same price. Somehow $5.49 for a large Whopper Value Meal just doesn't seem particularly compelling in light of what Ottomanelli's offers.

[hjshorter]

You're lucky to have so many quality options in your neighborhood.

[SobaAddict70]

I don't recall saying that wasn't the case.

No, but you did say:

When most of your income is spent trying to survive, good food is not a priority.

(my emphasis)

and you also said:

If you're existing on government cheese BK is most likely a step up.

However, in your defense, you also said:

Enough food is a bigger concern, along with diapers, rent, and now (mostly substandard) childcare, since mothers are being forced to find jobs.

I wanted to show an instance of a "low-income" family that actually had good food on the table, with circumstances similar to that being painted throughout much of this thread.

There seems to be this "poor people or low-income people have nothing better to eat than fast food because they don't have the time, the money, the wherewithal or they don't want to expend any effort" crap (or something close to it) that's somehow being injected into this debate, so I decided to inject a dose of reality.

Soba

Edited October 21, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[fresco]

I do find it interesting that so much energy is expended speculating about or proposing food (and other) choices for people of limited means. To the very best of my recollection, I don't recall any such unbridled speculation or proposals regarding people of unlimited means in any eGullet forum.

[hjshorter]

Soba, you're right. I expressed myself poorly.

My mother was a good cook, and always concerned with getting as much into us nutritionally as she could on her limited budget. I still don't know how she did it for so many years.

That being said, it was a treat to go out, even if only for fast food because it's what normal (ie, not poor) people do*. When you have very little, it important to feel that you have what everyone else has. I'm not in those circumstances now, but that feeling will never ever go away. Even if you enjoy cooking, it can be a chore if you don't have the choice not to*.

*Edited to say that fast food and convenience food manufacturers probably make a mint off of these two perceptions.

Edited October 21, 2003 by hjshorter (log)

[SobaAddict70]

Whew, that remark just woke me up.  I very seldom if ever, visit a  burger fast food place, maybe once or twice a year would be my guess.

As I read your remarks about demographics, a visual went through my mind, decpicting many fast food places in some large cities, located in lower income area's. 

I also have refused to enter into this frey, so far, because of my limited knowledge  concerning Rick Bayless in general.  But I am finding and reading as much information that I can find, so as to form an opinion.

Thanks to all posters for passing along book titles and web links to help me learn.

A special thanks to the Fatguy, for taking a stand, and trying to educate me with his writings, in this thread.

woodburner

Well, I don't know about you, but for some reason there seems to be more McD's than there are BKs or Wendy's, White Castles, Popeye's, Pizza Huts, etc. For instance, there seem to be more McDonald's franchises per square block in Manhattan, and which seem to be located in places with a higher visibility factor than their equivalents. There's a Burger King located on side street between Whitehall and Broad, yet there's a McDonald's on Water Street between Whitehall and Broad. Of the McD's that I've seen, these tend to be multi-level locations, whereas I've never seen a BK with that kind of layout. In Chelsea, a neighborhood I frequent, there's a stretch of Sixth Avenue with at two McDonald's within a 10 block stretch of each other. There's a Wendy's on the corner of 33rd and Fifth Avenue, a high-profile location if ever there was one since it's right across the street from the Empire State Building, but I'd be hard pressed to name another location within Manhattan. Ditto for Roy Rogers franchises, or Arby's.

Location/distribution demographics is an important part of this debate, because you can determine

a) who your primary customer base are,

b) the makeup of your employees,

c) the economic composition of potential future customers

among other things, and market to them accordingly.

For example, why is it that McDonald's seems to identify more with a white/middle-class socio-economic group while Burger King seems to identify more with a black or minority/lower-middle class to lower-income class socio-economic group?

Maybe it's just me.

Soba

Edited October 21, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[Jinmyo]

For example, why is it that McDonald's seems to identify more with a white/middle-class socio-economic group while Burger King seems to identify more with a black or minority/lower-middle class to lower-income class socio-economic group?

Hm. Interesting if true.