>Does it magically prove I’m making a bad salary if I can’t afford my employer’s product?
Yes, if the entire premise of your employer is "here's the cheapest hot food imaginable".
>Is a five star general making a bad salary because he can’t afford a nuclear submarine?
No, because the entire premise of the military is not "here's the cheapest nuclear submarine imaginable".
What a ridiculous strawman you set up, although you swung pretty earnestly at it, Mr. Quixote.
A better example would be Walmart, whose entire premise is "we sell the cheapest goods imaginable". Despite this, a lot of Walmart (and McaDonald's employees, actually) are on government assistance. If you have a justification for why there should ever be a society where someone working at a job that boasts "we have the cheapest shit" still can't afford their job's cheap shit, then please, be my guest.
> if the entire premise of your employer is "here's the cheapest hot food imaginable”
My argument elsewhere in this thread is that this description is not what McDonald’s is nor claims to be. It might have been that at some time in the past but it’s now a relatively well-regarded and reputable option. Low end cheap would be a restaurant like Rally’s or Church’s Chicken.
Regarding your last paragraph, I think you’re completely misunderstanding what point I am making. I am not defending employers paying low wages or putting employees on food stamps. Our society shouldn’t work that way.
I’m just pointing out that whether an employee can afford a good their employer makes is essentially an irrelevant detail in isolation.
Even comparing McDonald’s to Walmart for this purpose is pointless because Walmart isn’t a franchise. McDonald’s restaurant wages are determined by local franchise owners and vary a lot.
