Connect with us

Business

McDonald’s CEO is grappling with a ‘two-tier economy’ as he slashes prices on value meals

Published

on



McDonald’s is banking on burgers and fries to tell a bigger story about the American economy. Chief Executive Chris Kempczinski is slimming down the cost of the fast-food giant’s value meals as he grapples with what he calls a “two-tier economy”—a widening divide between consumers who are still spending freely and those who are pulling back.

For years, dating back to the 2022 inflation wave, McDonald’s and its fast-food rivals have contended with shopper frustration over rising menu prices, with combo meals increasingly breaking into double digits. Customers at the higher end of the income spectrum continue to order premium products and use delivery apps at healthy rates. Lower-income diners, however, are cutting back, Kempczinski argued in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” treating fast food less as a daily convenience and more as an occasional splurge. He told the anchors that McDonald’s has been on a “value journey” over the last year or so.

“Particularly with middle and lower-income consumers, they’re feeling under a lot of pressure right now,” Kempczinski told the CNBC anchors. ”There’s a lot of commentary around, ‘What’s the state of the economy, how’s it doing right now?’ And what we see is, it’s really kind of a two-tier economy. If you’re upper-income, earning over $100,000, things are good … what we see with middle and lower-income consumers, it’s actually a different story.” He cited traffic for these demographics being down double digits and they’re skipping breakfast or eating at home.

Kempczinski was pressed on some political issues by the CNBC anchors, including whether McDonald’s fits with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA, or “Make America Healthy Again,” and the policy around no taxes on tips. Kempczinski said he personally supported the no taxes on tips issue but clarified that it didn’t help McDonald’s much, as it doesn’t allow tips. A tips restaurant requires a minimum wage of just $2.13 per hour, he added, which hasn’t been changed since 1991, calling this an “uneven playing field” as “you’re essentially getting the customer to pay for your labor,” plus the tax-free benefit. He called for one federal minimum wage for all kinds of restaurants and then said McDonald’s was “open” to raising the federal minimum wage beyond that, adding that the company was “in dialogue” with the White House about several issues including this one.

The current federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 per hour, a rate that has been unchanged since July 24, 2009. This long-standing rate marks over 16 years without a federal increase, making it the longest period in U.S. history without an update to the minimum wage. However, many states and localities have adopted higher minimum wage rates, some reaching as high as $18 per hour in the District of Columbia.

In 2025, significant new legislation called the Raise the Wage Act of 2025 was introduced in Congress. This proposed law would incrementally increase the federal minimum wage to $17 per hour by the year 2030, phasing out subminimum wage rates for tipped workers, workers with disabilities, and youth workers. Additionally, a Senate bill was proposed to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour starting January 1 of the first year after its passage. These legislative efforts indicate active momentum at the federal level to increase the minimum wage after more than a decade of stagnation.

Different from the Great Recession

Kempczinski added that this isn’t like what McDonald’s saw during the Great Recession, “when everyone traded down.” And so McDonald’s has to be creative to play both sides of the issue. Increased accessibility for lower-income consumers now comes in the form of a revamped $5 meal bundle, along with more aggressive price promotions in flagship markets. Advertising campaigns are leaning heavily on the theme of value, a message designed to resonate with cost-conscious families forced to make sharper trade-offs in their daily spending.

The strategy underscores a balancing act for McDonald’s. As one of the few global chains with the size and procurement power to cut prices without immediately crippling profitability, the company can play offense where smaller rivals cannot. Still, franchisees—who operate most U.S. locations—are wary that thinner price points could turn into margin squeezes just as wages, rent, and insurance remain high. Still, Kempczinski told the CNBC anchors that the move toward more value was “almost unanimous” among franchisees, to a surprised reaction.

The broader retail picture

McDonald’s dual-track strategy echoes a broader split visible across much of the U.S. economy. Big-box retailers like Walmart and Target report a similar trend that Dollar General CEO Todd Vasos put his finger on in March: “Many of our customers report that only have enough money for basic essentials.” Delta Air Lines, a proxy for demand among the affluent consumer cohort, has largely gone from strength to strength as America’s most profitable airline, although it has lowered guidance during 2025, owing to uncertainty from the Trump tariff regime.

The trends recall an economic pattern established during the pandemic: the “K-shaped” economy. As Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, explained to Fortune in 2023, this means that middle and lower-income consumers are one leg of the “K,” pointing down and to the right, while the upper-income cohort is doing better and better.

McDonald’s, though, has to master the “K” to get the most out of its consumers. That means fighting to maintain its decades-old position as the go-to spot for an affordable meal, even as it courts higher-margin opportunities to keep shareholders satisfied. Whether that balancing act proves sustainable may depend on just how long America’s two-track consumer economy sticks around.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

IWG CEO warns a 4-day week isn’t coming any time soon, despite what Bill Gates and Elon Musk say

Published

on



Billionaire Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, Nvidia’s boss Jensen Huang, and Elon Musk have all made the same prediction in recent years: The workweek is about to shrink. Automation will take over routine tasks, they argue, freeing workers’ time and pushing a four-day work week toward becoming standard. Gates has even floated the idea of a two-day workweek.

But Mark Dixon, CEO and founder of International Workplace Group (IWG) CEO isn’t buying it. From his vantage point, running the world’s largest flexible office provider—with more than 8 million users across 122 countries and 85% of the Fortune 500 among its customers—the math doesn’t add up.

“Everyone is focused on productivity, so no time soon,” Dixon says flatly.

“It’s about the cost of labor,” Dixon explains to Fortune. The U.S. and U.K. are experiencing significant cost-of-living crises. At the same time, he says, businesses are experiencing a “cost of operating crisis.” 

“Everyone’s having to control their labor costs because all costs have gone up so much, and you can’t get any more money from customers, so therefore you have to get more out of people.”

Essentially, companies can’t afford to pay the same wages for fewer hours, and they can’t pass the difference on to customers. So any time ‘freed’ by automation is far more likely to be filled with new tasks than handed back to workers. 

Elon Musk says work will be optional in the future—but this CEO says AI may create more work, not less

Silicon Valley’s loudest voices frame AI as a route to more leisure. The world’s richest person and the boss of Space X, Tesla and X, Elon Musk has gone as far as predicting work will be completely “optional” and more like a hobby, in as little as 10 years. 

In reality, Dixon suggests that this scenario would only happen if there’s not enough work to go around, rather than bosses suddenly becoming benevolent. But in his eyes, AI will most likely create more—not less—work. 

Every major technological shift, he argues, has followed a similar arc: fear of displacement, followed by an expansion of opportunity.

“AI will speed up companies’ development, so there’ll be more work, it’ll just be different work,” he says.

In 19th-century Britain, Dixon recalls English textile workers protesting against new automated machinery, fearing it threatened their livelihoods, lowered wages, and de-skilled their craft during the Industrial Revolution. They were called Luddites.

“They went around the country smashing up the looms to stop progress. But look, in the end, you’ve heard of the Industrial Revolution. That’s what came from those looms and factory production.” As mass production made goods more available, retail grew; more managers were needed to oversee the machines; the middle class grew, and so on. 

Likewise, there was a similar palpable fear when computers first burst on the scene in the 1980s. The 1996 book Women and Computers detailed people fearing becoming “a slave” to machines and feeling aggressive towards computers.”

But since the explosion of the PC (and then the internet, the Cloud, social media, and so on), most professions have undergone a digital rebrand—instead of disappearing altogether. 

Copywriters now use laptops instead of typewriters; designers rely on Adobe Photoshop instead of pen and paper; and a plethora of IT roles were created along the way. 

“It’s impossible to stop progress,” Dixon concludes.  

“Companies have to do what companies have to do, and it’s really important for young people coming into the marketplace to work a little bit harder on really selecting the right jobs, the right avenue, getting extra skills in things like AI. Whatever job you’re going to do, you’ve got to be good at tech.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Jerome Powell to attend Supreme Court oral argument on Lisa Cook’s attempted firing from Federal Reserve

Published

on



Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will attend the Supreme Court’s oral argument Wednesday in a case involving the attempted firing of Fed governor Lisa Cook, an unusual show of support by the central bank chair.

The high court is considering whether President Donald Trump can fire Cook, as he said he would do in late August, in an unprecedented attempt to remove one of the seven members of the Fed’s governing board. Powell plans to attend the high court’s Wednesday session, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

It’s a much more public show of support than the Fed chair has previously shown Cook. But it follows Powell’s announcement last week that the Trump administration has sent subpoenas to the Fed, threatening an unprecedented criminal indictment of the Fed Chair. Powell — appointed to the position by Trump in 2018 — appears to be casting off last year’s more subdued reponse to Trump’s repeated attacks on the central bank in favor of a more public confrontation.

Powell issued a video statement Jan. 11 condemning the subpoenas as “pretexts” for Trump’s efforts to force him to sharply cut the Fed’s key interest rate. Powell oversaw three rate cuts late last year, lowering the rate to about 3.6%, but Trump has argued it should be as low as 1%, a position few economists support.

The Trump administration has accused Cook of mortgage fraud, an allegation that Cook has denied. No charges have been made against Cook. She sued to keep her job, and the Supreme Court Oct. 1 issued a brief order allowing her to stay on the board while they consider her case.

If Trump succeeds in removing Cook, he could appoint another person to fill her slot, which would give his appointees a majority on the Fed’s board and greater influence over the central bank’s decisions on interest rates and bank regulation.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



Investors are trying to remain level-headed as tensions between the U.S. and Europe escalate, with many drawing on experience from Liberation Day as a tool for how to navigate current geopolitical volatility.

Analysts are, understandably, uneasy. Their concern stems from President Trump’s claim that a bevy of European nations would face new tariffs within a matter of weeks if they did not support America’s bid to purchase Greenland, currently a territory of NATO member country Denmark, which is not putting the island up for sale.

At the time of writing, the VIX volatility index is up 27% over the past five days, its highest since April last year when the Oval Office announced sweeping tariffs on every nation on the planet. While markets in the U.S. are yet to have the opportunity to react to the news after being closed for the Martin Luther King holiday, assets in Europe are looking pale.

Germany’s DAX is down 1.57% at the time of writing, London’s FTSE is down 1.4% and France’s CAC 40 is down 1.2%. Asia is similarly queasy, Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 is down 1.11% while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index is down 0.29%. A preview for U.S. trading comes in the form of futures, with the S&P 500 trending down 1.75% at the time of writing.

Meanwhile, gold prices—a barometer for investors fleeing to safety—are climbing higher still, up 1.17% overnight.

However, the damage could have been worse: investors don’t even need to cast their minds back a year for inspiration. Markets plummeted following Trump’s Rose Garden address on April 2, his so-called Liberation Day, despite the fact many of his threatened tariffs were delayed within a matter of days. And so the ‘TACO’ trade was born: Trump Always Chickens Out.

Jim Reid of Deutsche Bank noted to clients this morning that there’s “room for bigger moves” in markets, and highlighted that Trump’s duties imposition on key trading partners is already on shaky ground. This is on account of an imminent Supreme Court ruling on whether the White House’s initial round of tariffs were carried out legally. This “might end up further constraining Trump’s room for maneuver on tariffs. However, no one knows when this will come through (apart from maybe the judges).”

“The market has been burnt before by overreacting to tariff threats,” Reid continued. “Obviously, there was Liberation Day but more recently Trump’s escalation with China in October prompted a -2.71% decline for the S&P 500 on that day, before he then met with Xi and the trade truce was extended by a year.”

Over at UBS, chief economist Paul Donovan described a rational market: “Investors and the U.S. administration are likely to keep focus on the U.S. bond market, which weakened modestly in the wake of Trump’s latest tariff threats. The implications of additional tariffs are more U.S. inflation pressures and a further erosion of the USD’s status as a reserve currency. So far, bond investors do not seem to be taking the threats too seriously.”

Markets also “dismissed” another barb from Trump aimed at French President Macron, over duties levied on champagne and Bordeaux if the European leader refuses to cough up $1 billion to join the Board of Peace for Gaza.

Unconvinced traders

Further evidence of TACO traders comes from Polymarket. At the time of writing, only 17% of betters believe all the tariffs Trump has threatened against Europe will go into effect on February 1. A further minority of 40% believe any tariffs will go into effect in a fortnight’s time.

Odds are also declining on a country-to-country basis. For example, Denmark leads Polymarket’s polls as the most likely country to face levies from the U.S., but that still sits as the outlying outcome at 40% and decreasing. Meanwhile France’s odds of tariffs are at 38%, and Norway is at 37%.

Potentially buoying the idea that the president will make another U-turn is political polling, especially with midterm elections approaching in November. Trump’s approval ratings have been declining across a number of outlets, with nine in 10 Americans telling a Quinnipiac survey they were against taking Greenland using military force. A further Reuters/Ipsos poll found just 17% of voters support Trump’s efforts to acquire Greenland.

However, if investors—or foreign governments—rely too heavily on the notion that Trump will chicken out, they could shoot themselves in the foot. After all, if the White House sees markets behaving in a fairly stable manner, then this could give him the confidence to push ahead with the very plans that investors were betting against. As Deutsche Bank’s Henry Allen framed Trump’s August 1 tariff deadline last year: “The paradox is that as markets discount the tariffs and perform strongly, that’s actually making the higher tariffs more likely as the administration grows in confidence.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.