I kind of lost the point of the article when the author veered into the entirely separate topic of McDonalds being unhealthy. It's like two totally separate articles in one.

Article 1. McDonalds (along with other traditionally cheap-food places) is now very expensive and not for poor people.

Article 2. McDonalds serves (and people are out there eating) unhealthy food.

Article 1 is news if you haven't been in a McDonalds in the last 5 years. Article 2 is obvious and is not really a new phenomenon.

There's two definitions of "premium" and the author seems to have chosen the less commonly used definition.

1. Higher quality

2. Higher price

Products claim to be higher quality so that they can ask for a higher price. McDonalds doesn't seem to be doing this, they are just asking for a higher price. Most people would not call this premium, they would just call it expensive.

For me point 2 amplifies point 1. You could justify a higher price if the quality is better (and by quality, I mean both the health and type of ingredients used: not the type of product).

So not only they go more expensive but the quality stays low and actually got even lower).

I read it more as a segue into the main point about conflicting narratives in the American public regarding food.

Despite our excuses that we have to eat unhealthy fast food because it's cheap, we still eat it it once it's expensive. We all talk about how there is an obesity crisis yet we constantly promote and glorify unhealthy food on social media.

>Or maybe no one is fully logically consistent in their views. In the end, people will continue to consume this food even knowing full-well it’s unhealthy and overpriced. And for that, McDonald’s should not be too concerned.

Article 1 was true under 1990s prices. But you can get two double cheeseburgers for about four bucks and there aren't many who are so poor they can't afford that.