McDonald’s Aims for a Classier Crowd with Lobster Rolls

McDonald’s Aims for a Classier Crowd with Lobster Rolls

A McDonald's restaurant is pictured in Encinitas, California September 9, 2014. REUTERS/Mike Blake
MIKE BLAKE
By Millie Dent

As sales continue to fall, McDonald’s is desperately trying to reinvent itself, and its latest efforts seem to be aimed at a slightly classier crowd.

New England-area McDonald’s are going to start selling lobster rolls again after a 10-year hiatus, according to a report on Fox CT. No word yet on whether the old name McLobster will be revived.

The new lobster roll is reportedly made from 100 percent North Atlantic lobster, and includes mayonnaise, a bed of lettuce, and a small, toasted roll. 

The meal has 290 calories and sells for $7.99.

McDonald’s introduced lobster rolls nationwide for the first time in 1993. Although the launch was a commercial disappointment, the rolls were still available seasonably in New England until 2005. Select McDonald’s restaurants in Canada also offer them for a limited time each year.

There were several reasons for the 1993 McLobster’s failure. Not only were customers wary of a “quality” seafood item served at a fast food chain, but the roll cost $5.99 (about $7.50 in 2015 dollars), a high price relative to the rest of menu.  

The new lobster roll will also be expensive and doubts about the quality of its fast food continue to haunt the house that Ronald built. Given those barriers and the company’s track record, it seems unlikely that this particular crustacean-based sandwich is going to be driving a meaningful revival for McDonald’s any time soon.

Trump Falls to Second in Michigan Poll

By The Fiscal Times Staff

 

Michigan GOP Poll

Ben Carson Gains in New Hampshire

By The Fiscal Times Staff

  

Ben Carson Is Catching Up to Trump in New National GOP Poll

By The Fiscal Times Staff

 

The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby

Like all of these “commodities,” even if you don’t need it yourself, odds are that someone in your economic circles does. (When Americans on welfare get their checks, formula and diapers are some of their first purchases.) It’s portable, there’s no ready
Temych/iStockphoto
By Millie Dent

The birth rate in the U.S. is finally seeing an uptick after falling during the recession. Births tend to fall during hard economic times because having a baby and raising a child are expensive propositions.

Costs are not the same everywhere, though. Some states are better than others for family budgets, and health care quality varies widely from place to place.

A new report from WalletHub looks at the cost of delivering a baby in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as overall health care quality and the general “baby-friendliness” of each state – a mix of variables including average birth weights, pollution levels and the availability of child care.

Mississippi ranks as the worst state to have a baby, despite having the lowest average infant-care costs in the nation. Unfortunately, the Magnolia State also has the highest rate of infant deaths and one of lowest numbers of pediatricians per capita.  

Related: Which States Have the Most Unwanted Babies?

On the other end of the scale, Vermont ranks as the best state for having a baby.  Vermont has both the highest number of pediatricians and the highest number of child centers per capita. But before packing your bags, it’s worth considering the frigid winters in the Green Mountain State and the amount of money you’ll need to spend on winter clothing and heat.

Here are the 10 worst and 10 best states for having a baby:

Top 10 Worst States to Have a Baby

1. Mississippi

  • Budget Rank: 18
  • Health Care Rank: 51
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 29

2. Pennsylvania

  • Budget Rank: 37
  • Health Care Rank: 36
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 51

3. West Virginia

  • Budget Rank: 13
  • Health Care Rank: 48
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 50

4. South Carolina

  • Budget Rank: 22
  • Health Care Rank: 43
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 49

5. Nevada

  • Budget Rank: 39
  • Health Care Rank: 35
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 46

6. New York

  • Budget Rank: 46
  • Health Care Rank: 12
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 47

7. Louisiana

  • Budget Rank: 8
  • Health Care Rank: 50
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 26

8. Georgia

  • Budget Rank: 6
  • Health Care Rank: 46
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 43

9. Alabama

  • Budget Rank: 3
  • Health Care Rank: 47
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 44

10. Arkansas

  • Budget Rank: 12
  • Health Care Rank: 49
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 37

Top 10 Best States to Have a Baby

1. Vermont

  • Budget Ranks: 17
  • Health Care Rank: 1
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 5

2. North Dakota

  • Budget Rank: 10
  • Health Care Rank: 14
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 10

3. Oregon

  • Budget Rank: 38
  • Health Care Rank: 2
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 14

4. Hawaii

  • Budget Rank: 31
  • Health Care Rank: 25
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 1

5. Minnesota

  • Budget Rank: 32
  • Health Care Rank: 5
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 12

6. Kentucky

  • Budget Rank: 1
  • Health Care Rank: 33
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 20

7. Maine

  • Budget Rank: 25
  • Health Care Rank: 10
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 15

8. Wyoming

  • Budget Rank: 22
  • Health Care Rank: 17
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 7

9. Iowa

  • Budget Rank: 14
  • Health Care Rank: 25
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 9

10. Alaska

  • Budget Rank: 50
  • Health Care Rank: 6
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 2

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times

Worried About a Recession? Here’s When the Next Slump Will Hit

Another <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/06/08/cnn-opinion.research.corporation.poll.pdf" target="_blank">recent survey</a> found that 48 percent of Americans believe that it is likely that another great Depression will begin within the n
Dorothea Lange/Library of Congress
By Beth Braverman

The next recession may be coming sooner than you think.

Eleven of the 31 economists recently surveyed by Bloomberg believed the American recession would hit in 2018, and all but two of them expected the recession to begin within the next five years.

If the recession begins in 2018, the expansion would have lasted nine years, making it the second-longest period of growth in U.S. history after the decade-long expansion that ended when the tech bubble burst in 2001. This average postwar expansion averages about five years.

The recent turmoil in the stock market and the slowdown in China has more investors and analysts using the “R-word,” but the economists surveyed by Bloomberg think we have a bit of time. They pegged the chance of recession over the next 12 months to just 10 percent.

Related: Stocks Are Sending a Recession Warning

While economists talk about the next official recession, many average Americans feel like they’re still climbing out of the last one. In a data brief released last week, the National Employment Law Project found that wages have declined since 2009 for most U.S. workers, when factoring in cost of living increases.

A full jobs recovery is at least two years away, according to an analysis by economist Elise Gould with the Economic Policy Institute. “Wage growth needs to be stronger—and consistently strong for a solid spell—before we can call this a healthy economy,” she wrote in a recent blog post.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times: