logo
Trump, Harris and the Enduring Symbolism of McDonald's

Trump, Harris and the Enduring Symbolism of McDonald's

New York Times21-10-2024

In presidential politics, you have to meet potential voters where they are. So every four years, churches, college campuses and even barbershops become the mainstays of the presidential campaign circuit. But, this year, the contenders have added the McDonald's fry station. On Sunday, Donald Trump walked into a Bucks County, Pa., McDonald's and told the store owner that he was looking for a job, explaining that 'I've always wanted to work at McDonald's.'
The public's image of the typical McDonald's employee has overlapped with the elusive voter both parties are hoping to secure in the last days of the race. The Trump and Harris campaigns have relied on the American dream of industry and unbridled capitalism to tell a story about social mobility and who can deliver it to more Americans. The story of who owns and who works at McDonald's is part of that story.
Ever since Vice President Kamala Harris mentioned in campaign ads and interviews her experience working at McDonald's as a student, the Trump campaign has accused the vice president of lying about her Big Mac bona fides. Even the Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff's revelation that he was a McDonald's Employee of the Month has not lessened the accusation that Democrats do not know or understand the Golden Arches like Mr. Trump does. Mr. Trump resurfaced his unfounded claims that Ms. Harris never worked at McDonald's in Bucks County.
When Ms. Harris and Mr. Emhoff worked at McDonald's in the early 1980s, the minimum wage never ticked higher than $3.35 per hour. This is the period that solidified the impression that the majority of its employees were like Ms. Harris and Mr. Emhoff, young people who temporarily worked to enhance allowances or put money toward tuition payments. The average age of a fast food worker in 2021 was 26 years old. In the '80s, Mr. Trump — an aficionado and frequent customer of McDonald's — was being interviewed by news programs about his ambitious pursuit of real estate in New York City. It's a long way from real estate developer to making fries and working the drive-through.
When Ms. Harris talks about McDonald's, working-class voters may see a future president who knows the fatigue of low-wage, service sector jobs. According to McDonald's most recent diversity snapshot, 20 percent of its restaurant staff is Black and 35 percent of their co-workers are Hispanic, two groups that can deliver a victory for Ms. Harris. When Mr. Trump shares what is reportedly his favorite order of two Filet-o-Fish sandwiches, two Big Macs and a shake, his fans may applaud a rich guy who doesn't turn his nose up at fast food. Much of Mr. Trump's base may not relate to working at McDonald's as much as dreaming of gaining Mr. Trump's wealth and owning one.
In the early days of McDonald's franchising in the 1950s, an array of public policies fueled a booming economy and made possible the franchising system that ushered middle-class people into business. These opportunities were often made available to white men, who had more access to capital to enter the franchise business than their Black counterparts. Additionally, McDonald's head Ray Kroc focused his early leadership on suburbs, many of which were racially exclusionary and provided a captive consumer base for McDonald's fare.
In the late 1960s, prompted by calls for racial justice after the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, McDonald's began to offer franchises to African American men, in collaboration with President Richard Nixon's Black capitalism efforts. Mr. Nixon christened an Office of Minority Business Enterprise to connect private companies with public resources that could diversify business and establish small businesses in communities that provided few options for retail and commerce.
McDonald's was an early participant in these programs. Over the course of a few years, Black diners in Chicago, Kansas City, Los Angeles and St. Louis feted the opening of the first Black McDonald's franchises with great pride. Although these operators, as they are called, struggled to get strong finance terms, maintain their business operations in economically depressed areas and have their voices heard in the predominantly white McDonald's organization, many of them persevered and expanded their holdings to other locations.
Mr. Nixon pointed to these businesses as signs of his commitment to economic justice and enlisted a new generation of Black business owners to articulate what he had made possible for them. In communities that had been calling for federal action on Black unemployment, police brutality and discrimination across all sectors, Mr. Nixon suggested those problems could be resolved with shiny new businesses, many of them fast-food restaurants. He reasoned that if he seeded economic initiatives in Black communities and grew Black prosperity that way, he would not have to confront the more vexing problems of residential and school segregation.
Mr. Nixon's approach to generating pathways to Black wealth was a way to attract Black voters. The Republican Party used their pro-business appeals more broadly to co-opt Black Power supporters who saw Black-owned businesses as a goal for building Black political and economic strength.
By the early 1980s, when Ms. Harris was donning her McDonald's uniform, the restaurant was a beacon of hope for minority entrepreneurship, but also a symbol of economic marginalization of workers of all colors. In the following decades, alarms would be sounded about the negative impact of fast food on health, especially on African Americans. Black franchisees would allege racial discrimination within the system and organizations would create campaigns to unionize fast food workers. Despite all of these critiques and conflicts, the government's early relationship to McDonald's growth in Black America and the larger sense that business would lead the way out of inequality has framed what Black voters are offered by both parties.
As the 2024 election nears, both Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris have demonstrated that the McDonaldization of our politics continues. Last week, the Harris campaign unveiled a platform for Black men which placed a promise to create a million 'forgivable loans up to $20,000 to Black entrepreneurs' at the top of the list, and included greater protection for 'cryptocurrency and other digital assets.' The inclusion of these items will not make a sizable difference in steadying the economic precarity felt by millions of Black families who have been vulnerable to not only the historical legacies of racial discrimination, but also to the current challenges of rising housing costs and inflation.
The Democrats' business-driven approach mirrors some of the ways that Mr. Trump's 2020 Platinum Plan for Black voters, which promised '500,000 new Black-owned businesses,' and 'access to capital in Black communities by almost $500 billion.' There is little evidence that the Republican Party took measures to make any of these promises real, even without Mr. Trump in the White House.
Although there are many things that Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris disagree on, like many Americans, their view of the role of McDonald's in economic mobility is something they share. Both candidates appear to be running on the idea that Black voters are enamored with promises of the free market more so than guarantees for fair wages and labor protections, something fast food workers are all too often denied.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Macron to visit Greenland to show European support for the strategic Arctic island coveted by Trump

time24 minutes ago

Macron to visit Greenland to show European support for the strategic Arctic island coveted by Trump

NUUK, Greenland -- French President Emmanuel Macron's first trip to Greenland, the strategic Arctic island coveted by U.S. President Donald Trump, is aimed at shoring up Europe's political backing for Denmark and its semiautonomous territory. Macron's visit on Sunday comes just ahead a meeting of the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations next week in Canada that will be attended by both Macron and Trump. The French president's office said the trip to Greenland is a reminder that Paris supports principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders as enshrined in the U.N. charter. Macron is also to meet with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen. Macron mentioned Greenland last week in his opening speech at the U.N. Ocean Conference, saying it isn't 'up for grabs' in remarks that appeared directed largely at Trump. 'The deep seas are not for sale, nor is Greenland up for grabs, nor are the Arctic or the high seas for sale, nor are fishing licenses in developing countries up for grabs, nor are scientific data and the security of coastal populations to be sacrificed,″ Macron said at the summit in Nice, France. Macron in recent months has sought to reinvigorate France's role as the diplomatic and economic heavyweight of the 27-nation European Union. The French president has positioned himself as a leader in Europe amid Trump's threats to pull support from Ukraine as it fights against Russia's invasion. Macron hosted a summit in Paris with other European heads of state to discuss Kyiv, as well as security issues on the continent. Sunday's visit will also be the occasion to discuss how to further enhance relations between the EU and Greenland when it comes to economic development, low-carbon energy transition and critical minerals. The leaders will also have exchanges on efforts to curb global warming, according to Macron's office. A meeting between Macron, Frederiksen and Nielsen will take place on a Danish helicopter carrier, showing France's concerns over security issues in the region, Macron's office said. Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary but refused to answer repeated questions during a hotly combative congressional hearing Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations. Hegseth's comments were the latest controversial remarks made by a member of the Trump administration about the Arctic island. The president himself has said he won't rule out military force to take over Greenland, which he considers vital to American security in the high north. The Wall Street Journal last month reported that several high-ranking officials under the U.S. director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had directed intelligence agency heads to learn more about Greenland's independence movement and sentiment about U.S. resource extraction there. Nielsen in April said that U.S. statements about the island have been disrespectful and that Greenland 'will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone.'

Individual investors invested in International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. (LON:IAG) copped the brunt of last week's UK£724m market cap decline
Individual investors invested in International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. (LON:IAG) copped the brunt of last week's UK£724m market cap decline

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Individual investors invested in International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. (LON:IAG) copped the brunt of last week's UK£724m market cap decline

The considerable ownership by individual investors in International Consolidated Airlines Group indicates that they collectively have a greater say in management and business strategy 42% of the business is held by the top 25 shareholders 15% of International Consolidated Airlines Group is held by Institutions Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. A look at the shareholders of International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. (LON:IAG) can tell us which group is most powerful. With 59% stake, individual investors possess the maximum shares in the company. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn). And following last week's 4.5% decline in share price, individual investors suffered the most losses. Let's delve deeper into each type of owner of International Consolidated Airlines Group, beginning with the chart below. Check out our latest analysis for International Consolidated Airlines Group Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices. International Consolidated Airlines Group already has institutions on the share registry. Indeed, they own a respectable stake in the company. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. If multiple institutions change their view on a stock at the same time, you could see the share price drop fast. It's therefore worth looking at International Consolidated Airlines Group's earnings history below. Of course, the future is what really matters. We note that hedge funds don't have a meaningful investment in International Consolidated Airlines Group. Qatar Airways Limited is currently the largest shareholder, with 27% of shares outstanding. With 3.6% and 3.2% of the shares outstanding respectively, BlackRock, Inc. and Capital Research and Management Company are the second and third largest shareholders. On studying our ownership data, we found that 25 of the top shareholders collectively own less than 50% of the share register, implying that no single individual has a majority interest. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too. While the precise definition of an insider can be subjective, almost everyone considers board members to be insiders. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves. I generally consider insider ownership to be a good thing. However, on some occasions it makes it more difficult for other shareholders to hold the board accountable for decisions. Our most recent data indicates that insiders own less than 1% of International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A.. We do note, however, it is possible insiders have an indirect interest through a private company or other corporate structure. Being so large, we would not expect insiders to own a large proportion of the stock. Collectively, they own UK£4.3m of stock. In this sort of situation, it can be more interesting to see if those insiders have been buying or selling. The general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, collectively holds 59% of International Consolidated Airlines Group shares. With this amount of ownership, retail investors can collectively play a role in decisions that affect shareholder returns, such as dividend policies and the appointment of directors. They can also exercise the power to vote on acquisitions or mergers that may not improve profitability. We can see that Private Companies own 27%, of the shares on issue. It might be worth looking deeper into this. If related parties, such as insiders, have an interest in one of these private companies, that should be disclosed in the annual report. Private companies may also have a strategic interest in the company. It's always worth thinking about the different groups who own shares in a company. But to understand International Consolidated Airlines Group better, we need to consider many other factors. For instance, we've identified 2 warning signs for International Consolidated Airlines Group that you should be aware of. If you would prefer discover what analysts are predicting in terms of future growth, do not miss this free report on analyst forecasts. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOGE gets failing grade
DOGE gets failing grade

Boston Globe

time33 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

DOGE gets failing grade

1: The DOGE numbers don't add up. Calculating how much DOGE has saved is difficult, but it's not at all hard to see that it didn't deliver what was promised. After Musk revised down his own early projection of DOGE savings from $2 trillion to $1 trillion, the department's website now estimates it has found more than $170 billion in taxpayer savings — Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But even that figure should be taken with a grain of salt, given that past examinations of DOGE's ' Advertisement DOGE moved to correct the error, as well as change the website to make such errors harder to find. But a Advertisement And though it may seem counterintuitive, cutting jobs doesn't actually translate to savings if it results in less productivity — if fewer IRS workers means less tax revenue is collected, for instance. An And even some Republican lawmakers have expressed unease with backing many DOGE-recommended cuts in a $9.4 billion legislative 'rescissions' package to claw back previously approved funding. House lawmakers 2: DOGE has roiled the job market. According to the latest jobs numbers, DOGE cuts contributed to a 50 percent spike in layoffs in May over the same period last year, Exacerbating the damage the firings alone have created is the chaotic way in which they were implemented. Federal agencies like the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Food and Drug Administration, National Weather Service, and the IRS are among those rushing to rehire terminated employees. That's because many of the estimated 135,000 DOGE-axed positions are for critical functions, like approving drugs and forecasting weather disasters. The layoffs' often-disorganized manner has confused dismissed workers and overtaxed remaining ones, many of whom have been asked to work overtime, volunteer to take on additional roles, or be pushed into new positions, Advertisement One former FDA worker That's not to mention the blow to communities in states where the largest percentages of federal workers are located, as well as government contractors that face secondhand profit and job losses due to the cuts. Outside of the greater Washington, D.C. region, which includes Virginia and Maryland, the hardest-hit states when it comes to canceled government contracts based on anti-DEI initiatives alone include Texas, California, North Carolina, Georgia, and Colorado — affecting politically red communities as well as blue. DOGE's harms know no partisanship. 3: The incalculable costs. On Monday a 'This was a breach of law and of trust,' wrote Judge Denise Cote in issuing the temporary injunction. 'Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs.' Whether some or all of DOGE's efforts to gain access to Americans' most sensitive information through agency databases will be declared unlawful is still uncertain. Challenges are still being litigated, and in a lawsuit involving DOGE access to Social Security data, the Advertisement According to Some DOGE staff have been granted temporary 'edit-access' to data, which means the information can be altered or deleted entirely within the federal system. That says nothing of the broader global impact, particularly through the dismantling of agencies like the United States Agency for International Development, which once provided critical life-saving humanitarian aid across the world. DOGE has The government claims that shuttering the agency saved Americans nearly $60 billion, or less than 1 percent of the federal budget. According to Advertisement Musk is already back to playing with his cars and rocket ships as the federal government picks up the pieces from his DOGE tantrum. But the global ripple effect is a reminder that some of the damage can't be undone. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store