Connect with us

Published

on

McDonald’s has jacked up its menu prices by more than 100% over the course of the last decade — more than three times the rate of US inflation, according to a research report.

The Chicago-based burger giant has been slammed with customer complaints over eye-popping prices, including $18 for a Big Mac meal in Connecticut as well as $7.29 for an Egg McMuffin and $5.69 for a side of hash browns.

Now, a Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal goes for $11.99 — more than double the $5.39 it cost in 2014, according to a study by FinanceBuzz, which cited average prices nationwide.

But a spokesperson for McDonald’s told The Post that the FinanceBuzz numbers are inaccurate.

“As the report itself notes, pricing is set by individual franchisees and varies by restaurant,” the company spokesperson said.

“This is not an accurate representation of historical or current pricing at McDonald’s restaurants, and the 2024 average prices listed are significantly inflated.”

The McDouble sandwich, which in 2014 cost on average $1.19, now costs almost three times that amount — $3.19 — while a medium fries has seen its price point go from $1.59 to $3.79.

The iconic Big Mac, a staple of McDonald’s menus, has seen its average price rise by 50% in the last 10 years — from $3.99 in 2014 to $5.99 today.

The analysis by FinanceBuzz found that McDonald’s was one of 13 restaurants that have raised menu prices in the last decade by 60% on average between 2014 and 2024 — or nearly double the cumulative national rate of inflation of 31% over that period.

While McDonald’s was the worst offender — tripling the rate of inflation, according to FinanceBuzz — Popeyes, Taco Bell, Chipotle and Jimmy John’s raised the prices of their menu items at more than double the actual inflation rate, the study found.

Subway and Starbucks, meanwhile, have kept their prices relatively in line with inflation, raised the cost of their menu items by 39% on average, according to FinanceBuzz.

At McDonald’s, a 10-piece McNugget meal, the $10.99 combo which includes french fries and a drink, is now 83% more expensive than it was a decade ago, when it cost just $5.99.

An Oreo McFlurry now costs almost twice what it did 10 years ago. The sweet treat would have set you back $2.39 in 2014 — compared to $4.49 today.

The Post has sought comment from McDonald’s and the other restaurants.

FinanceBuzz said it used data on restaurant prices sourced from web sites such as ItsYummi.com, FastFoodMenuPrices.com and MenuWith Price.com. It also collected prices for 10 menu items from each restaurant in 2014, 2019, and this year. FinanceBuzz said it then cross-referenced with each restaurants official website.

Inflation rates are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator and were collected in January 2024.

FinanceBuzz acknowledged that it is difficult to accurately source historical data to compare to the present since McDonalds franchisees are given a high level of autonomy in setting menu prices for individual locations.

As such, our team collected additional historical data points related to McDonald’s and applied certain adjustments to the final data to create a reasonable representation of national pricing trends over time for the chain, according to FinanceBuzz.

McDonald’s has admitted in recent weeks that its menu is increasingly out of reach for those Americans who are struggling under the weight of soaring levels of inflation.

In February, McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski said inflation would compel the fast food chain to raise menu prices.

Kempczinski also admitted that dining out at McDonald’s was becoming a luxury that fewer people could afford.

Eating at home has become more affordable, Kempczinski said. The battleground is certainly with that low-income consumer.

In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a new minimum wage measure that raises hourly pay for fast food workers to $20 an hour — a development that some McDonald’s franchisees say has forced them to further hike menu items.

Continue Reading

Politics

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

Published

on

By

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

After nearly a year of legal proceedings, a South Korean court acquitted former Wemade CEO Jang Hyun-guk of market manipulation charges.

Continue Reading

Politics

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules?

Published

on

By

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules?

Are Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules quite as iron clad as she insists?

How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn?

We’ve had a bit of clarity early this morning – and that’s a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne’s podcast today.

Politics Live: Reeves to reform financial regulations

And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.

You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.

For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.

And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.

But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.

And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.

There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.

And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.

It’s outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility.

This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.

In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.

Rachel Reeves during a visit to Cosy Ltd.
Pic: PA
Image:
A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA

Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.

But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.

This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.

But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?

The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.

But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?

Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?

And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?

I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.

And this morning, they issued one.

A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”

So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?

Read more:
Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn
Tough decisions ahead for chancellor

The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.

But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?

I’m still unsure that change has been ruled out.

Continue Reading

Politics

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

Published

on

By

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.

Continue Reading

Trending