Has "for the children" legislation ever worked?

Or, the parents tired of stepping on tons of Happy Meal toys strewn about the can now feed their little monsters more cheaply.

So the only thing standing between some people and small-sized food was their disdain of useless plastic toys?

Happy now?

This just in! Attempting to limit the supply of something will only increase its demand!

See? Supply-side economics works!

(really, who actually expected a different result here?)

Life Business will find a way.

/get your T-Rex toy while supplies last!

OK, I'm pretty tired... but I read the article twice and I'm still not clear on what McDonald's has actually done and how it's forcing parents to buy Happy Meals.

/ Reading comp skillz - I used to haz them.

// Or was this just a case of horrible writing?

Subby, the legislation hasn't taken effect yet. The scenarios described in the article are mere speculation at this point.

\Way to not read the damn article

Nogale: OK, I'm pretty tired... but I read the article twice and I'm still not clear on what McDonald's has actually done and how it's forcing parents to buy Happy Meals.

/ Reading comp skillz - I used to haz them.

// Or was this just a case of horrible writing?

Before, you could buy just the toy, no meal, for $2.18. (Not sure if that number is made up or not but let's go with it.) Now, the toy will only cost 10 cents but you can't purchase the toy at any price unless you buy the meal too. So if you want the toy, you have to buy the "food".

Well, it's not like McD's is getting away free. It's a new process, system program changes, maybe a new picture on the register, training, employee manual updates, separate packaging, etc. For a company that size, I'm sure it was a significant expense. And while it is kind of cool that they're budgeting the extra $.10 item sales to charity - a decent one at that - I suspect that will be offset by a cut elsewhere.

So, what we have here is an outstanding example of California politics: essentially a new tax targeted at a specific business, granting zero new income to the state and with zero (or negative) benefit to the consumer, while increasing costs on a disproportionally lower-income clientele. Brilliant, as usual.

Now all we need is some lawyer-driven class action lawsuits to complete the sequence. I'm sure they're already working up all the angles.

Hamster On A Wheel: Nogale: OK, I'm pretty tired... but I read the article twice and I'm still not clear on what McDonald's has actually done and how it's forcing parents to buy Happy Meals.

/ Reading comp skillz - I used to haz them.

// Or was this just a case of horrible writing?

Before, you could buy just the toy, no meal, for $2.18. (Not sure if that number is made up or not but let's go with it.) Now, the toy will only cost 10 cents but you can't purchase the toy at any price unless you buy the meal too. So if you want the toy, you have to buy the "food".

Now. that makes sense. (Except of course the part about paying $2.18 for a piece of crappy plastic that's probably worth a nickel.) Why couldn't the author of the article have explained it as clearly?

BlueJay206: This just in! Attempting to limit the supply of something will only increase its demand!

See? Supply-side economics works!

(really, who actually expected a different result here?)

Economic Streisand Effect.

m1ke: "Has "for the children" legislation ever worked?"

Child labor laws worked out. And public schooling. And mandatory vaccination. And school lunch programs. And healthcare programs like CHIP.
Sure, they could be better. But in their absence, shiat was far worse. I mean, they only even *exist* because society found the alternative unacceptable.

So just because some misguided twit leverages "for the children" for his pet policy doesn't automatically reflect poorly on *everything* we do or have done "for the children".

Minimally Hairy Beer-Powered Simian: Subby, the legislation hasn't taken effect yet. The scenarios described in the article are mere speculation at this point.

\Way to not read the damn article

I'm glad to see this pointed out. Another possibility is that toy sales willl actually drop, even if happy meal sales don't change, because they are so crappy, or adults are buying the happy meals for themselves and don't care about the toy. I buy myself happy meals on occassion, because I want the small portions. Sometimes I'll play with the toy for a while, but I don't buy the happy meal for the toy. Well, I think I might have bought it for the toy when they had spongebob toys. Or was that Burger King?

Sentient: "with zero (or negative) benefit to the consumer,"

I'm down with the rest of your characterization, but I'm not so sure about this. What 'benefit' have customers lost? Cheap bundled toys? If you expect McDonalds to offset the $.10 donation with cuts elsewhere, surely you expect the cost of the Toy was already offset elsewhere. So the net economic difference doesn't seem so clear-cut to me. It really depends on how the new meals are composed and priced. If this law increases the availability of more-healthful food at competitive prices it may still have *some* benefit.

Though arguably still not worth the effort and cost.
And certainly not justifying the targeted nature of this legislation.

ringersol: Child labor laws worked out. And public schooling. And mandatory vaccination. And school lunch programs. And healthcare programs like CHIP. Sure, they could be better. But in their absence, shiat was far worse. I mean, they only even *exist* because society found the alternative unacceptable.

Yep. You want to make a difference, target the problem, not some narrow symptom or generic giant evil corporation. Fix the school lunch system & mandate physical exercise in grade schools, maybe even spend some dollars on nutritional education for low-income parents. But making a particular corporation change its billing practice in order to help kids get healthier? OK then.

Kind of like Phohibiton and the mafia.

Nogale: Hamster On A Wheel: Nogale: OK, I'm pretty tired... but I read the article twice and I'm still not clear on what McDonald's has actually done and how it's forcing parents to buy Happy Meals.

/ Reading comp skillz - I used to haz them.

// Or was this just a case of horrible writing?

Before, you could buy just the toy, no meal, for $2.18. (Not sure if that number is made up or not but let's go with it.) Now, the toy will only cost 10 cents but you can't purchase the toy at any price unless you buy the meal too. So if you want the toy, you have to buy the "food".

Now. that makes sense. (Except of course the part about paying $2.18 for a piece of crappy plastic that's probably worth a nickel.) Why couldn't the author of the article have explained it as clearly?

Are there actually people who buy these "toys"? Doesn't sound like the premise of the article is true. I doubt that profits from Happy Meals went up. Stupid thing is that even if company claims that 10 cents that the toy costs are going to charity it sounds that the toy costs more than that since you have to buy the meal to cover its cost.

ringersol: Sentient: "I'm down with the rest of your characterization, but I'm not so sure about this. What 'benefit' have customers lost?

Cost of the meal + toy, pre-legislation: $x. Cost of the meal + toy post-legislation: $x + 0.10, plus the loss of the ability to just buy the toy separately.

So, for the consumer, the cost has increased for the same goods, and choices have decreased. Both negatives, albeit minor. I'm not really seeing any benefit though - there's no disincentive for the kid, since the toy is still advertised & available.

I'm lovin it!

Stupid regulation is stupid.

Sentient: ringersol: Sentient: "I'm down with the rest of your characterization, but I'm not so sure about this. What 'benefit' have customers lost?

Cost of the meal + toy, pre-legislation: $x. Cost of the meal + toy post-legislation: $x + 0.10, plus the loss of the ability to just buy the toy separately.

So, for the consumer, the cost has increased for the same goods, and choices have decreased. Both negatives, albeit minor. I'm not really seeing any benefit though - there's no disincentive for the kid, since the toy is still advertised & available.

That was the point of the legislation. If you are not able to make the correct decisions with your money, they will be made for you.

//If San Francisco didn't exist, we would have to create it for the lulz alone.

Nogale: OK, I'm pretty tired... but I read the article twice and I'm still not clear on what McDonald's has actually done and how it's forcing parents to buy Happy Meals.

Taking your kids to McDonald's, for many parents, means you are buying them a Happy Meal (dealing with the aftermath of going there and not is not worth it). The law was intended to make McDonald's improve the nutrition of said Happy Meals. McDonald's is saying "Fark You" to the legislators.

ringersol: Sentient: "with zero (or negative) benefit to the consumer,"

I'm down with the rest of your characterization, but I'm not so sure about this. What 'benefit' have customers lost? Cheap bundled toys? If you expect McDonalds to offset the $.10 donation with cuts elsewhere, surely you expect the cost of the Toy was already offset elsewhere. So the net economic difference doesn't seem so clear-cut to me. It really depends on how the new meals are composed and priced. If this law increases the availability of more-healthful food at competitive prices it may still have *some* benefit.

Though arguably still not worth the effort and cost.
And certainly not justifying the targeted nature of this legislation.

They aren't changing the meals, only taking away the toy from the meal to comply with the legislation, and charging you an additional ten cents in the form of a donation to their charity if you want the toy. So it's still the same greasebomb meal for the same price, only no toy is included.

McPwned!

BalugaJoe: Kind of like Phohibiton and the mafia.

They're banning Vietnamese food?!

Crotchrocket Slim: BlueJay206: This just in! Attempting to limit the supply of something will only increase its demand!

See? Supply-side economics works!

(really, who actually expected a different result here?)

Economic Streisand Effect.

touché

Nogale: OK, I'm pretty tired... but I read the article twice and I'm still not clear on what McDonald's has actually done and how it's forcing parents to buy Happy Meals.

/ Reading comp skillz - I used to haz them.

// Or was this just a case of horrible writing?

I didn't understand it either.

the comments at the bottom of TFA are straight out of worldnut. example:

Tom Walter
Ask the "First Wookie" Moooochelle Oblahblah. She must sit on the toilet for hours, dumping out all that steak & arugula she pounds down her pie hole for hours on end. Always with the eating. the fat sow, and her two little sprogs.


wow.

That, my friends, is an "ass kicking"

The sale of the toy for 10c that goes to Ronald McDonald House is a CHARITY and exempt from any and all state and city legislation.

Farkn Yaj Yenrac: "They aren't changing the meals, only taking away the toy from the meal to comply with the legislation"

I think that's to be determined. Clearly the goal is to get them to change the meals.

m1ke: Has "for the children" legislation ever worked?

It's been a while since I've heard of children being shipped as cargo. That seemed to work out ok.

MMuuuuuuuhahahaha

Sentient: "cost of the meal + toy, pre-legislation: $x. Cost of the meal + toy post-legislation: $x + 0.10, plus the loss of the ability to just buy the toy separately."

The donation loophole's practical effect on sales would be on par with any other $.10 price hike, which is non-trivial. Also, making it a distinct purchase decision would cut down on uptake. Which is why I believe (and I thought you originally implied) that McDonalds, were it to try this ruse, would have to revise prices downward or otherwise improve the meal to minimize the detrimental effect of the hike. Making the net effect a lot less clear than a ten cent price hike.

Also, I'm more than willing to wave the "ability" to buy a heavily marked up crappy toy from a restaurant as a useful benefit. If the toys had any real value to consumers, they'd be sold elsewhere.

ringersol: The donation loophole's practical effect on sales would be on par with any other $.10 price hike, which is non-trivial

This premise is false, thus your conclusion is flawed.

The charity happens to be good one. I spent a night in a Ronald McDonald house when my crazy ex put my son in the hospital last February. It let me stay with my two year old far more time than I otherwise could have.

onyxruby: The charity happens to be good one. I spent a night in a Ronald McDonald house when my crazy ex put my son in the hospital last February. It let me stay with my two year old far more time than I otherwise could have.

A house named after a fictional corporate figurehead is weird...

The thing is, we have no idea who the Ronald McDonald character is and what his relation to reality is. He hasn't spoken in decades.



Now Jack, also a corporate clown with even less facial expression, this guy, we KNOW where he's coming from. WE KNOW JACK. He's not even a real person and I'd trust him with my life.



Ronald McDonald just sits there overjoyed with a smile on his face. But his smile is, as always, unexplained, and this unnerves me. If he were to come to life, lock the doors so no one could escape, and eat half the children and rape the other half, I'm not saying I wouldn't be mortified, but I am saying I wouldn't be surprised. He never gave any indication to the contrary, that his smile WASN'T sizing everyone up as victims as he plots his inevitable atrocities of maximum atrociousness. Basically his smile is that of a psychopath, and you will never convince me otherwise. Do not trust this clown.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: BalugaJoe: Kind of like Phohibiton and the mafia.

They're banning Vietnamese food?!

They can have my phơ when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Ben Enya: While we can debate the "Business good vs. business evil" thing all day long, the simple fact is that Business will always find a way around Govt BS.

Evil will always win because good is dumb.

Only flaw here is that you imply that government would have to be good. While yes, you can debate the business good vs. business evil thing all day, the governemnt good vs government evil debate would take less then 10 seconds and be resolved squarely not in the good column.

This McDonalds move (charging a nominal fee for the toy) was obvious to everyone from the first whisper of this draconian measure. The "no toy for you unless you buy the happy meal" is an unexpected twist that I happen to like since it is the rhetorical equivalent of peeing in the governments cornflakes, but that Mickey D's would find a way around this was never a question.

m1ke: Has "for the children" legislation ever worked?

I dunno, let me go down to Home Depot and buy some lead paint...

jst3p: "This premise is false, thus your conclusion is flawed."

If it were trivial, then McDonalds legal expenses were unnecessary and nonsensical.

Fark SF.

FTA: Those are standards that even the "healthier" Happy Meals McDonald's introduced earlier this year don't come close to meeting. (As SF Weekly noted in January, the school lunches our children eat aren't healthy enough to qualify, either).

If those legislatures actually gave a fark about the poor or the children they'd realize that most poor children get most of their daily nutrition from the free school lunch program and as such they would impose this mandate upon school lunches as well.

Nogale: Hamster On A Wheel: Nogale: OK, I'm pretty tired... but I read the article twice and I'm still not clear on what McDonald's has actually done and how it's forcing parents to buy Happy Meals.

/ Reading comp skillz - I used to haz them.

// Or was this just a case of horrible writing?

Before, you could buy just the toy, no meal, for $2.18. (Not sure if that number is made up or not but let's go with it.) Now, the toy will only cost 10 cents but you can't purchase the toy at any price unless you buy the meal too. So if you want the toy, you have to buy the "food".

Now. that makes sense. (Except of course the part about paying $2.18 for a piece of crappy plastic that's probably worth a nickel.) Why couldn't the author of the article have explained it as clearly?

I'm sorry. I could've sworn you just asked why a writer for the SFWeekly couldn't explain something more clearly.