Business
McDonald’s is losing its low-income customers. Economists call it a symptom of the stark wealth divide
In the early 2000s, after a severe slump, McDonald’s orchestrated a major turnaround, with the introduction of its Dollar Menu.
The menu, where all items cost $1, illustrated just how important it was to market to low-income consumers — who value getting the most bang for their buck.
Coming at a time of flagging growth, tumbling stock and the company’s first report of a quarterly loss, the Dollar Menu reversed the fast food giant’s bad fortune. It paved the way for three years of sales growth at stores open at least a year and ballooned revenue by 33%, news outlets reported at the time.
But no longer.
Prices have risen so high at the iconic fast food chain that traffic from one of its core customer bases, low-income households, has dropped by double digits, McDonald’s chief executive Christopher Kempczinski told investors last week. Meanwhile, traffic from higher-earners increased by nearly as much, he said.
The struggle of the Golden Arches — long synonymous with cheap food for the masses — reflects a larger trend upending the consumer economy and making “affordability” a hot policy topic.
McDonald’s executives say the higher costs of restaurant essentials, such as beef and salaries, have pushed food prices up and driven away lower-income customers who are already being squeezed by the rising cost of groceries, clothes, rent and child care.
With prices for everything rising, consumer companies concerned about the pressures on low-income Americans include food, automotive and airline businesses, among others, said analyst Adam Josephson. “The list goes on and on,” he said.
“Happy Meals at McDonald’s are prohibitively expensive for some people, because there’s been so much inflation,” Josephson said.
Josephson and other economists say the shrinking traffic of low-income consumers is emblematic of a larger trend of Americans diverging in their spending, with wealthier customers flexing their purchasing power and lower-income shoppers pulling back — what some call a “K-shaped economy.”
A recent earnings report from Delta offers yet another illustration. While Delta’s main cabin revenue fell 5% for the June quarter compared to a year ago, premium ticket sales rose 5%, highlighting the divide between affluent customers and those forced to be more economical.
At hotel chains, luxury brands are holding up better than low budget options. Revenue at brands including Four Seasons, Ritz-Carlton and St. Regis is up 2.9% so far this year, while economy hotels saw a 3.1% decline for the same period, according to industry tracker CoStar.
“There are examples everywhere you look,” Josephson said.
Consumer credit delinquency rates show just how much low-income households are hurting, with households that make less than $45,000 annually seeing “huge year-over-year increases,” even as delinquency rates for high- and middle-income households have flattened and stabilized, said Rikard Bandebo, chief strategy officer and chief economist at VantageScore.
After COVID-19-related stimulus programs ended, these households were the first to see dramatically increased delinquency rates, and haven’t seen a dip in delinquencies since 2022, according to data from VantageScore on 60-day past-due delinquencies from January 2020 to September 2025. And although inflation has come down from its peak in 2022, people are still struggling with relatively higher prices and “astronomical” rent increases, Bandebo said.
A report released this year by researchers with Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University found that half of all renters, 22.6 million people, were cost-burdened in 2023, meaning they spent more than 30% of their income on housing and utilities, up 3.2 percentage points since 2019 and 9 percentage points since 2001. Twenty-seven percent of renters are severely burdened, spending more than 50% of their income on housing.
As rents have grown, the amount families have left over after paying for housing and utilities has fallen to record lows. In 2023, renters with annual household incomes under $30,000 had a median of just $250 per month in residual income to spend on other needs, an amount that’s fallen 55% since 2001, with the steepest declines since the pandemic, according to the Harvard study.
“It’s getting tougher and tougher every month for low-income households to make ends meet,” Bandebo said.
Prices at limited-service restaurants, which include fast-food restaurants, are up 3.2% year over year, at a rate higher than inflation “and that’s climbing” said Marisa DiNatale, an economist at Moody’s Analytics.
On top of that, price increases due to tariffs disproportionately affect lower-income households, because they spend a greater portion of their income on goods rather than services, which are not directly impacted by tariffs. Wages too, are stagnating more for these households compared to higher- and middle-income households, DiNatale said.
“It has always been the case that more well-off people have done better. But a lot of the economic and policy headwinds are disproportionately affecting lower-income households, and [McDonald’s losing low-income customers] is a reflection of that,” DiNatale said.
It makes sense, then, that any price increases would hit these consumers hard.
According to a corporate fact sheet, from 2019 to 2024, the average cost of a McDonald’s menu item rose 40%. The average price of a Big Mac in 2019, for example, was $4.39, rising in 2024 to $5.29, according to the company. A 10-piece McNuggets Meal rose from $7.19 to $9.19 in the same time period.
The company says these increases are in line with the costs of running a restaurant — including soaring labor costs and high prices of beef and other goods.
Beef prices have skyrocketed, with inventory of the U.S. cattle herd at the lowest in 75 years due to the toll of drought and parasites. And exports of beef bound to the U.S. are down because of Trump’s trade war and tariffs. As a result, the prices of ground beef sold in supermarkets is up 13% in September, year over year.
McDonald’s has also placed blame on the meat-packing industry, accusing it of maneuvering to artificially inflate prices in a lawsuit filed last year against the industry’s “Big Four” companies — Tyson, JBS, Cargill and the National Beef Packing Company.
The companies have denied wrongdoing, and paid tens of millions of dollars to settle multiple lawsuits alleging price-fixing.
However, McDonald’s chief financial officer Ian Borden said on the recent earnings call that the company has managed to keep expenses from getting out of control.
“I think the strength of our supply chain means our beef costs are, I think, certainly up less than most,” he said.
McDonald’s did not disclose how the company gauges the income levels of their customers but businesses often analyze the market area they serve by estimating the background of their customers based on where they are shopping and what they are buying.
In California, the debate around fast food prices has centered on labor costs, with legislation going into effect last year raising the minimum wage for fast-food workers at chains with more than 60 locations nationwide.
But more than a year after fast-food wages were boosted, the impact is still being debated, with economists divided and the fast-food industry and unions sparring over its impact.
Fast-food restaurant owners as well as trade associations like the International Franchise Assn., which spearheaded an effort to block the minimum wage boost, have said businesses have been forced to trim employee hours, institute hiring freezes or lay people off to offset the cost of higher wages.
Meanwhile, an analysis by researchers at UC Berkeley’s Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics of some 2,000 restaurants found the $20 wage did not reduce fast-food employment, and “led to minimal menu price increases” of about 8 cents on a $4 burger.”
Labor groups have also argued that minimum wage increases give workers more purchasing power, helping to stimulate the economy.
McDonald’s said last year that spending by the company on restaurant worker salaries had grown around 40% since 2019, while costs for food, paper and other goods were up 35%.
The success of its Dollar Menu in the early 2000s was remarkable because it had come amid complaints of the chain’s highly processed, high-calorie and high-fat products, food safety concerns and worker exploitation.
As the company marketed the Dollar Menu, which included the double cheeseburger, the McChicken sandwich, french fries, a hot fudge sundae and a 16-ounce soda, it also added healthier options to its regular menu, including salads and fruit.
But the healthier menu items did not drive the turnaround. The $1 double cheeseburgers brought in far more revenue than salads or the chicken sandwiches, which were priced in the $3 to $4.50 range.
“The Dollar Menu appeals to lower-income, ethnic consumers,” said Steve Levigne, vice president for United States business research at McDonald’s, told the New York Times in 2006. “It’s people who don’t always have $6 in their pocket.”
The Dollar Menu eventually became unsustainable, however. With inflation driving up prices, McDonald’s stores, particularly franchisee locations, struggled to afford it, and by November 2013 rebranded it as the “Dollar Menu & More” with prices up to $5.
Last year, McDonald’s took a stab at appealing to cash-stretched customers with a $5 deal for a McDouble or McChicken sandwich, small fries, small soft drink and four-piece McNuggets. And in January it rolled out a deal offering a $1 menu item alongside an item bought for full price, with an ad starring John Cena, and launched Extra Value Meals in early September — offering combos costing 15% less than ordering each of the items separately.
The marketing didn’t seem to immediately cut through to customers, with McDonald’s in May reporting U.S. same-store sales in the recent quarter declined 3.6% from the year before. However, in its recent third-quarter earnings, the company reported a 2.4% lift in sales, even as its chief executive sounded the alarm about the increasingly two-tiered economy.
That other businesses, too, are reviving deals is a sign of the times. San Francisco-based burger chain Super Duper promoted its “recession combo” on social media. For $10, customers get fries, a drink and a “recession burger” at one of the chain’s 19 California locations.
What’s clear is companies are wary of passing along higher costs to customers, said DiNatale, of Moody’s Analytics.
“A lot of businesses are saying, we just don’t think consumers will stand for this,” DiNatale said. “[Consumers] have been through years of higher prices, and there’s just very little tolerance for higher prices going forward.”
Robotaxis could be turning into robocops.
A self-driving Waymo reported two teens to San Mateo, Calif., police on Monday after they were found drinking alcohol and shooting toy guns in the back of the vehicle.
According to a social media post from the San Mateo Police Department, officers detained two 15-year-olds after the Waymo they were riding in contacted the department and stopped in a parking lot until law enforcement arrived.
“Parents do you know where your teens are?” the San Mateo Police Department wrote on Facebook following the incident. “Waymo does!”
Officers removed both teens from the vehicle and determined they were using toy guns to shoot Orbeez out the windows. Orbeez are small, water-absorbing beads sold at toy stores.
“Toy guns, water guns, and BB guns all pose real dangers, especially to an untrained eye,” the Police Department said. “The simple handling of them can cause fear in [passersby].” “
A video posted on Facebook shows at least five officers and a police dog responding to the scene and approaching the Waymo with their weapons raised.
Waymo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Waymo vehicles have internal cameras and microphones that may be used in an emergency or to “promote safety and security,” according to Waymo’s online support page.
The cameras are also used to ensure the vehicles are clean and to help find lost items, according to the support page.
The company said it does not use facial recognition or other biometric identification technologies to identify individuals.
“In more urgent circumstances, support may access live video during a trip,” the Waymo page said.
The San Mateo Police Department’s Facebook post has garnered nearly 60 comments, with one user accusing Waymo of “snitching.”
“At least they got a designated driver?!” one user commented.
Business
Commentary: How right-wing anti-transgender attacks led to a Supreme Court ruling upholding sex discrimination
At the Supreme Court, the unfounded fear of boys masquerading as girls in youth sports rolled the clock back on gender equality.
On the surface, the Supreme Court’s June 30 opinion upholding state laws barring transgender girls from women’s and girl’s sports teams looks like a victory for women’s rights.
The 6-3 opinion by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh certainly presents itself that way. “Females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Therefore, in contact sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males can create significant safety risks.” He also asserted that “forcing female athletes to compete against males can undermine competitive fairness.”
The ruling applied to prohibitions enacted in Idaho and West Virginia against “biological” males’ participation on women’s teams in public schools. Federal judges in both states overturned the bans. The Supreme Court majority restored them. The ruling essentially upholds similar bans enacted in 25 other states.
There was no record of any transgender person participating in school sports in the State, let alone any ‘problem’ with transgender students … creating unfair competition or unsafe conditions.
— Justice Sonia Sotomayor, demolishing the Supreme Court’s argument in favor of banning transgender girls from girl’s sports
Kavanaugh, like Donald Trump and others in the anti-transgender camp, maintained that one’s gender is an immutable fact of life, established even before birth.
Anything else, Trump stated in an executive order he issued on inauguration day 2025, could only be the product of “gender ideology extremism.” The U.S., his order stated, recognizes “two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” That’s a “biological truth,” he declared.
In his own version of this overconfident and factually insupportable conclusion, Kavanaugh wrote: “As all agree, females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance.”
Science recognizes that some people are “born with sex traits that don’t fit into typical male or female patterns,” to cite a discussion on the Cleveland Clinic web page on the topic “intersex.” The condition “may involve chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs or genitals.”
From a psychological standpoint, medical science recognizes “gender dysphoria” as a real condition often requiring counseling and medical intervention such as the use of puberty blockers and hormones to stave off the development of secondary sex characteristics until the condition can be resolved.
No one disputes that there are physical differences between the sexes. Few would dispute that on average or even at the median, males may be bigger and more powerful than females, or that in certain contact sports the difference may be telling and on occasion dangerous.
But that’s not the same as asserting that the physical differences between males and females invariably mean that men will invariably prevail over women in all competitions or that their participation will endanger women.
The International Olympic Committee — in a policy statement Kavanaugh cited incompletely — says that in “most running and swimming events,” males have a 10% to 12% advantage over women. That’s a range that would accommodate the full spectrum of outcomes — transgender females win, cisfemales win, they tie. (The “cis” prefix denotes those living consistent with their birth gender.)
West Virginia and Idaho addressed this ambiguity by banning transgender women from all girls’ teams. So under their rules transgender girls can’t play football or soccer with cisgirls. But what’s the argument in favor of banning them from the 100-yard dash, or cross-country track, or diving, or archery?
But something else is going on here. The Supreme Court’s ruling was almost preordained, given the years-long campaign by conservatives to demonize transgender individuals as if they’re members of an alien species.
It will be recalled that during his presidential campaign, Trump spun a despicable fantasy in which children were kidnapped in school and secretly subjected to sex-change operations.
Trump’s executive order wiped out policies aimed at protecting transgender adults from discrimination. He moved to outlaw gender-affirming medical therapies for anyone under 19 by cutting off federal funding for healthcare institutions that provide such care.
He banned transgender individuals from serving in the military and ordered federal prison officials to move transgender inmates into the general populations consistent with their birth genders, which exposes them to physical assault. (Federal Judge Royce Lamberth of Washington, D.C., has blocked the government from transferring three transgender women into the male prison population or terminating their hormone treatments.)
I wrote during Trump’s first term, when his anti-transgender policies were still gestating, that the goal was to show that “one can target any community, as long as it doesn’t have a strong political voice or political power. These are the actions of bullies and cowards, pretending to be strong.”
Last year, the Supreme Court struck its first blow against transgender rights by upholding a Tennessee law banning transgender care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for minors. Similar laws have been enacted in 25 other states. The majority in that ruling by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was identical to the one in the June 30 ruling — Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
Who are the targets of this ideological campaign? They number only about 1.6 million U.S. adults, or one-half of 1% of the U.S. population. About 300,000 adolescents ages 13 to 17, or 1.4%, identify as transgender, according to a study by UCLA School of Law.
In West Virginia, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in her dissenting opinion, “there was no record of any transgender person participating in school sports in the State, let along any ‘problem’ with transgender students … creating unfair competition or unsafe conditions.”
In endorsing the flat bans directed at transgender women in Idaho and West Virginia, Kavanaugh argued that any attempt to implement case-by-case judgments of students’ requests to join sports teams inconsistent with their biological gender would create “an enormous practical and administrability problem.”
Is that so? That wasn’t the case in Maine, where the annual K-12 population is more than 170,000. There, a committee was charged with determining whether a student’s participation in a sport consistent with their gender identity but inconsistent with their biological sex would “result in an unfair athletic advantage” or present a risk of injury to others. The committee held 56 hearings from 2013 through 2021, or an average of seven per year. During the entire time span, only four involved transgender girls. (The outcome of those hearings couldn’t be learned.)
It was Maine’s policy, one might recall, that provoked a confrontation between Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills at the White House last year, when Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from the state unless it barred transgender students from competing on women’s sports teams. “We’ll see you in court,” Mills snapped.
Whether the Idaho and West Virginia laws genuinely protect girls from unfair competition is questionable. (The Idaho law is styled the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.”) In practice, the laws may subject women in public schools to “invasive sex verification procedures,” as educational expert George Theoharis of Syracuse University wrote after the court ruling.
They’re also based on a retrograde view of women as fragile creatures needing men’s protection, Theoharis wrote — “the same logic that has historically been used to justify excluding women from making their own healthcare decisions and girls from rigorous math and science; that physically demanding work is simply beyond them.” (There don’t appear to be any state laws barring transgender women from competing in men’s sports.)
Becky Pepper-Jackson, the plaintiff in the West Virginia case, in which she is identified only as B.P.J., is the only transgender girl who sought to join girl’s teams — track and cross-country — in the state. That was in 2021, just after West Virginia passed its law and she was about to enter sixth grade. She didn’t appear to pose any competitive risk to others on the track and cross-country teams she applied to join — her lawyers told the Supreme Court that on those no-cut teams, she “came in near the back.”
Anyway, she had not gone through male puberty, which theoretically might have endowed her with a competitive advantage, because she had been taking puberty blockers and female hormones.
Thanks to the court’s ruling, Sotomayor observed in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, West Virginia can deny Becky access to school sports “because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.”
B.P.J., Sotomayor wrote, “cannot practice on girls’ teams, even if she would not take anyone’s spot in an eventual competition, even if everyone who tries out for the team makes it, and even if having the chance to participate could aid immensely in treating B. P. J.’s gender dysphoria.”
So whose interest was really protected by the Supreme Court?
An Orange County real estate investor accused of criminally defrauding an Arizona bank of nearly $100 million pleaded not guilty Monday and remains in custody.
Mahender Makhijani, 44, of Corona del Mar — who also was ordered by an arbitrator to pay $1.34 billion in a separate civil fraud case — was arraigned in Santa Ana federal court on two charges.
He is accused of bank fraud and making a false statement to a bank in a June 8 case involving a $100 million real estate loan made by Phoenix-based Western Alliance Bank. He was taken into custody on June 10.
Makhijani is accused of providing bogus collateral for the October 2024 loan now in default. In a civil lawsuit, Western Alliance said the outstanding balance as nearly $99 million.
Prosecutors say he falsified title insurance policies that showed the bank would have a first lien on the underlying collateral if the loan went bad, when in fact it did not.
A trial was set for August 11 before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in Santa Ana.
Michael Schachter, his criminal defense attorney, did not respond to messages seeking comment.
In the civil case, an arbitrator in May ordered Makhijani to pay Laguna Beach real estate mogul Mohammad Honarkar $1.34 billion after ruling he had fraudulently induced him into a 2021 joint venture — and then wrested control and lost to creditors more than two dozen properties Honarkar had owned.
Makhijani has not been criminally charged in that case, but prosecutors alleged in an affidavit in support of the bank fraud charges that he used “force and threats” in his dealings with Honarkar and others — including taking over the landmark Hotel Laguna in 2023 that Honarkar was renovating.
Prosecutors sought to hold Makhijani without bail after his arrest.
The affidavit noted he is a legal Indian immigrant with a home and bank accounts in that country, has access to private jets and threatened to “run away” if caught in a difficult situation.
The request was denied and he was granted $500,000 bail.
However, Makhijani remains in custody after a hearing sought by prosecutors last month before Magistrate Judge Autumn Spaeth.
The judge declined to accept a $450,000 cashier’s check submitted by a Makhijani associate for the bail, finding insufficient proof the source of the funds was legitimate, according to court records.
Makhijani is not prominent outside Orange County real estate circles, but he established a thriving distressed-assets business over the last decade that attracted prominent Southern California real estate investors.
Prosecutors said it paid for a lifestyle that included two multimillion-dollar homes in Corona del Mar, a luxury apartment in Newport Beach and various luxury vehicles.
As of last month, prosecutors had not fully traced his assets, which they believe are not held in his name and some of which may be in India.
The businessman employed an array of shell companies and strawmen to sign documents on his behalf, and to stand in for him as operators of his companies, according to the affidavit.
Makhijani told an associate he took extra precautions because wanted to insulate himself from litigation and that “they were sharks in the distressed world who took advantage of people,” the affidavit stated.
-
Missouri4 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 winning numbers for July 7, 2026
-
Montana11 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Mega Millions, Big Sky Bonus results for July 7, 2026
-
Nebraska14 minutes agoNebraska Rep. Mike Flood faces frustrated constituents at second town hall of year
-
Nevada19 minutes agoThe Best Summer County Fairs In Nevada
-
New Hampshire26 minutes agoDozens Arrested During Fourth Of July Holiday Weekend Enforcement: New Hampshire State Police Roundup
-
New Jersey29 minutes agoWater rescue in the ocean off Wildwood, New Jersey caught on video
-
New Mexico34 minutes agoWhat will it take to get the Rio Grande flowing again?
-
North Carolina41 minutes agoNorth Carolina man accused of shooting and killing another tourist inside of a Broward Airbnb, police say
