Life is so unfair. "The rich" live in nicer places, have nicer amenities, drive nicer cars, etc., etc.
Here's the last straw: Now they even have better breakfast sandwiches. But never fear: The press's inequality police are on patrol to supply the outrage.
Six months ago, Pete Wells at the New York Times bemoaned the fact that an upscale eatery called BEC (short for Bacon, Egg and Cheese) was about to open, and that its appearance might mark the beginning of the end of an era when breakfast sandwiches didn't "divide New Yorkers by class, income or neighborhood."
Today, Roberto A. Ferdman at the Washington Post's Wonkblog expanded the agenda, with a headline indicating that the demographic differentiation occurring in breakfast sandwiches shows that there's "Inequality in everything" because "The rich get better breakfast sandwiches, too" (bolds are mine):
... Wells's angst was the angst of anyone who feels queasy about the upscalification (yes, that's a made-up word) of anything originally made by and for the working class. And it's well founded. The most salient thing about BEC isn't, of course, that it exists, but rather that it's not really an outlier. Much to the chagrin of bacon, egg and cheese purists everywhere, breakfast sandwiches have been moving upscale for quite sometime (sic).
... The stratification of breakfast sandwiches is, in some ways, unsurprising. "Chefs have a history of taking everyday foods and elevating them," Russo explained. "It's a natural progression for many things. So the breakfast sandwich can be seen as one of the latest examples of this."
Hamburgers, Russo says, are another food that has undergone a similar transformation. Made popular by affordable fast food chains, like White Castle and McDonald's, the ground beef sandwiches were once a simple, cheap and popular food, and little else. Now they can be had at virtually any upscale restaurant, where they come with custom-made buns, dry-aged beef and a cacophony of toppings, and cost as much as $20 or even $30.
... the rise of fancy breakfast sandwiches, the significance of it, is arguably different in at least one respect. Sandwiches rose to prominence, in part, because they were affordable. But they also, and perhaps most importantly, became popular because they are easily eaten on the go.
Good heavens, that excerpt was painful to read — or as Matt O'Brien tweeted (HT Twitchy): "I am now dumber for having read that." (Sincere apologies to readers here who also feel that way.)
Ferdman's argument about the uniqueness of breakfast sandwiches is just wrong. Hamburgers are on sandwiches too, and the fast-food version is also "easily eaten on the go." So the rise of "fancy breakfast sandwiches" that can't be eaten on the go — just like those gourmet burgers he described — is not "arguably different" at all.
Wells at the Times and Ferdman at the Post are among the cadre of media types — many of whom, perhaps including these two, don't seem to mind upscale coffee — who just can't handle the idea that different people make different buying choices, and that those choices are often constrained by a person's income (though not always; many researchers have been "surprised" to learn how frugal many newly rich self-made entrepreneurs often are). Why should we be upset that someone freely gives up $11.50 on a breakfast sandwich in a transaction between a willing buyer and willing seller? Why would it make anyone happy if everyone was forced to buy the same item?
Wells and Ferdman also don't understand that many of the product improvements which originally targeted the well-to-do filtered down to the masses in affordable form over time. Safety and other features once considered groundbreaking in vehicles made by BMW and Mercedes are now commonplace in most vehicles. The two reporters are really taking a position that is fundamentally anti-innovation.
These two reporters would from all appearances be quite happy in three places: the old Soviet Union and modern-day North Korea and Cuba (thanks to commenter "David Walker" for suggesting that I add North Korea). There, everyone except the privileged bureaucrats and party members got the same drab housing, food (when even available), cars, etc. — and anyone who could tried and continues to try, respectively, to flee from those equal-result "paradises."
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
