The McFlation Crisis: Is McDonald’s the New Luxury?
Since its inception in 1955, McDonald’s has been the established king of American fast food, long maintaining a reputation as a restaurant where anyone can enjoy a comfort meal for just a few dollars. But the days of the Dollar Menu are long gone, and customers are starting to wonder if the golden arches still provide a bargain. Since 2019, the average price of a McDonald’s menu item has increased by nearly 40%, posing a threat to the brand’s reputation for value (Battle 2024). In an era when economic pressures and inflation have reshaped the fast-food landscape, McDonald’s faces an identity crisis. The fast-food giant is now tasked with the challenge of retaining its core base of budget-conscious customers without sacrificing the profit margins that sustain its empire.
That identity crisis extends far beyond customer perception; it’s evident in the numbers. Over the last few years, McDonald’s has experienced a steady decline in visits from U.S. customers with household incomes of less than $45,000 per year (Durbin 2025). According to CEO Chris Kempczinski, many of these customers, and others, no longer see McDonald’s as a good value (Durbin 2025). In May, Kempczinski reported that the company’s U.S. first-quarter traffic among low-income consumers declined by “nearly double digits,” while middle-income consumer traffic fell by almost the same amount, contributing to the biggest drop in McDonald’s quarterly U.S. sales since the pandemic (Paoli 2025). The rising price sensitivity among budget-constrained consumers is particularly troubling for a fast-food chain that deliberately targets the lower-income consumer, and who historically visit McDonald’s more frequently than middle- and high-income customers (Lin-Fisher 2025).
In an effort to restore its long-standing reputation for value, McDonald’s introduced a series of new promotions designed to reconnect with price-conscious consumers. In early summer 2024, the company launched a $5 Meal Deal — a bundle that includes a McChicken or McDouble, four-piece chicken nuggets, fries, and a drink. Earlier this year, McDonald’s rolled out a new McValue Menu, allowing customers to add a second menu item for just $1 after purchasing one at full price. These promotions proved to be popular and helped improve the public perception of McDonald’s affordability. The company responded by extending both deals through the end of 2025, hoping to maintain momentum with value-seeking customers.
The new value deals significantly boosted visits to the fast-food giant; however, they have yet to translate into higher sales (Battle 2025). After nearly a year of offering these value deals, McDonald’s reported that U.S. same-store sales for the most recent quarter had declined by 3.6% compared to the previous year (Haddon 2025). The problem lies in the operational costs of the promotion itself. The $5 meal deal carries a discount of around 40% to 50% compared to buying all the items separately at their regular price, which is eroding the company’s already shrinking profit margins, according to Tom Dillon, McDonald’s U.S. finance chief of operations. Although Dillon notes that the promotions are still a moneymaker for franchise owners and are driving some of the highest increases in customer visits in the fast-food chain’s history, profit margins for McDonald’s started to decline last summer after initiating their value campaign, and have yet to recover since (Haddon 2025).
Another dimension in McDonald’s struggle with affordability lies in its relationship with franchisees, who own and operate roughly 95% of the company’s 13,500 locations in the U.S. While McDonald’s corporate leaders offer pricing suggestions and propose national promotions, franchise owners ultimately set their own prices and can vote on certain price points or whether they want to participate in national campaign promotions. They can, and at times have, voted against promotions advanced by the company (Haddon 2025). In recent years, many franchisees have gone against McDonald’s pricing guidelines and have raised prices to offset higher operational costs. At the same time that the average price of its menu items rose 40%, there was also a 40% increase in labor, packaging, and food costs (Durbin 2025). The increase in these costs is ultimately passed on to the consumers. Peter Saleh, a managing director of research for BTIG, notes that fast-food operators are more dependent on hourly labor than casual dining, where there are more tipped employees making a smaller base rate, creating even more difficulty for franchisees to maintain their profit margins as states have worked to increase the minimum wage rate (Lin-Fisher 2025).
Despite the increased pressure of operational costs, McDonald’s corporate officials have continued to advocate for franchisees to sell the $5 Meal Deal at its intended price. However, in July of this year, some franchisees began to argue that the costs of certain items had gotten too high to sustain the discount. To protect their margins, many locations pushed the price up to $6 for a Meal Deal that includes the McDouble cheeseburger (Haddon 2025). As the divide over menu pricing between McDonald’s corporate leadership and franchisees intensifies, the stakes to appease budget-conscious customers and offer value deals have never been higher. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, McDonald’s value offerings accounted for only 10–12% of total sales, but that share has since climbed to more than 30%, driven by the popularity of the $5 Meal Deal, buy-one-get-one discounts, and app-based promotions (Lin-Fisher 2025). McDonald’s is now finding itself walking a fine line between preserving its affordability and protecting its franchisees’ profit margins as it works to restore the value its customers seek.
This balancing act also helps explain why McDonald’s is unlikely ever to resurrect its once-beloved Dollar Menu. McDonald's is a high-volume, low-margin business, and offering singular items at this price point became financially infeasible. The Dollar Menu rolled out in 2002 and was officially phased out by 2013, largely due to rising ingredient costs over that 10-year span. During that time, the profit margins for franchisees selling $1 burgers were severely squeezed by the cost of buying beef. The price of uncooked beef rose by 69% between 2002 and 2013, an average annual increase of 4% (Kelly 2020). From a business standpoint, the Dollar Menu was fundamentally a traffic-driving strategy to attract customers to the establishment with the expectation that they would trade up to higher-margin items during their visit. However, that wasn’t the case, as McDonald’s customers ended up spending less money on average for each visit (Binnie 2023). The company found itself selling more, but not making more, setting the stage for McDonald’s to rethink how it defined value.
In the years following, the company experimented with several other value-focused pricing strategies, such as the “McPick Two,” which allowed customers to order two of their premium items for $5, and the "$1, $2, $3 Menu,” offering different items at these three price points (Binnie 2023). Since then, McDonald’s has shifted away from competing on the lowest possible price and has instead emphasized the illusion of value with bundled deals that encourage larger transactions, such as the $5 Meal Deal. Yet, the same economic pressures that ended the Dollar Menu continue to create challenges for the company's new value promotions, causing growing tension between McDonald’s Corporate leadership and its franchisees. Ultimately, McDonald’s ongoing struggle to balance affordability and profitability leaves it with the dilemma of satisfying budget-conscious customers and protecting its inexpensive image without undermining the company’s overarching financial stability.
As McDonald’s struggles to maintain its affordable image, many budget-conscious consumers “may have been outpriced,” and are now “finding value elsewhere,” said R.J. Hottovy, Head of Analytical Research at Placer.ai (Ziegler 2025). He claims that “consumers make more choices based on quality and shop around for the best value,” causing McDonald’s to lose customers to fast-casual and casual restaurants as consumers hunt for bargains (Ziegler 2025). For decades, McDonald’s attracted customers through low prices and consistency, but those qualities no longer hold the same appeal. As one customer put it, “I don’t see paying that much money for McDonald’s as worth it. Other places are worth it, but not McDonald’s” (Ziegler 2025). In recent years, the price gap between fast-food, fast-casual, and sit-down restaurants has been shrinking, said Sara Senatore, an analyst at Bank of America. Consumers are struggling to justify spending more than $10 at McDonald’s when a few extra dollars can buy meals at Shake Shack, Chipotle, or even Chili’s, which are perceived as higher quality and offer better value per dollar spent (Ziegler 2025). Chili’s, for instance, has directly used McDonald’s price hikes against them by questioning the chain’s value in recent advertising. Chili’s has begun promoting a burger on its $10.99 “3 for Me” menu as having “twice the beef of a Big Mac” and urged consumers to ditch the “tiny drive-through burger” (Ziegler 2025). In Chili’s most recent quarterly earnings, same-store sales rose 24% thanks to a 16% increase in traffic, which is far different from what McDonald’s is experiencing today (Nguyen 2025). The collapse of McDonald’s value advantage has opened the door for competitors to redefine affordability in today's budget-conscious environment, and the result is a food service industry where McDonald’s no longer leads on pricing.
Ultimately, McDonald’s has evidently pushed itself into an identity crisis — continuing to market its brand around “value” even though customers have failed to agree. This disconnect is hardly surprising, given that McDonald’s has led the industry in price inflation, with the average cost of its menu items rising roughly 100% since 2014—an increase that far outpaces its competitors (Zhu 2024). In the end, McDonald’s ongoing struggle with rising costs while working to protect its affordability has left the company chasing a moving target. The $5 Meal Deal may have briefly restored McDonald’s perception of value, but it remains a short-term solution to a larger problem. Continued increases in operational costs will inevitably sustain the tension between franchisees and corporate leadership, as diminishing profit margins leave little room for compromise. McDonald’s new value promotions will eventually fade due to their unsustainability, and in turn, the company will roll out yet another “value” campaign that feels familiar to the last, but just with a higher price tag. This cycle of short-lived deals with gradual price hikes reflects a brand that is caught in an identity crisis, a company that must raise its prices to protect its bottom line, and a cultural icon that is still trying to convince Americans that it's still the king of affordable fast food.
Citations
Durbin, Dee-Ann. “Coming Price Cuts at McDonald’s May Signal a Broader Fast Food Price War.” AP News, September 2, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/mcdonalds-economy-consumers-spending-9b99f13e71210c27168aa3d7efdf0ec0.
Lin-Fisher, Betty. “Fast Food Used to Be a Cheap Meal Option. Why Has That Changed?” USA Today, September 9, 2025. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/31/fast-food-cheap-meal-rising-costs-price/85784487007/.
Paoli, Nino. “Even McDonald’s CEO Knows the Fast-Food Giant Is Too Expensive. Now He’s Cutting Prices to Woo Back Cash-Strapped Consumers.” Fortune, August 21, 2025. https://fortune.com/2025/08/21/mcdonalds-combo-meal-price-reduction-us-affordability-ceo-value-perception/.
Battle, Patricia. “McDonald’s Is Facing the Brutal Aftermath of Price Increases.” The Street, July 29, 2024. https://www.thestreet.com/restaurants/mcdonalds-is-facing-the-brutal-aftermath-of-price-increases.
Kelly, DB. “Why Dollar Menus Are Disappearing Across The Country.” Mashed, December 4, 2020. https://www.mashed.com/145427/why-dollar-menus-are-disappearing-across-the-country/.
Haddon, Heather. “How McDonald’s Lost Its Value Edge—and Is Trying to Claw It Back.” The Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2025. https://www.wsj.com/business/mcdonalds-value-inflation-fast-food-38611481?st=KS1dKr&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Binnie, Chase. “Where Did the Dollar Menu Go? Exploring Fast Food Shifts.” RetailWire, September 21, 2023. https://retailwire.com/blog/dollar-menu/#:~:text=demands%20careful%20management.-,Challenges%20Leading%20to%20the%20Demise%20of%20the%20Dollar%20Menu,included%20items%20priced%20above%20$1.
Nguyen, Janet. “Here’s How Much Prices at McDonald’s and Chipotle Have Gone up since the Pandemic Began.” MarketPlace, August 25, 2025. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/08/21/heres-how-much-prices-at-mcdonalds-and-chipotle-have-gone-up-since-the-pandemic-began.
Ziegler, Hannah. “Did McDonald’s Price Itself out of a Market It Dominated for Decades?” The Washington Post, May 9, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/05/09/mcdonalds-value-restaurants/.
Zhu, Kayla. “Charted: Inflation across U.S. Fast Food Chains (2014-2024).” Visual Capitalist, July 12, 2024. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-inflation-across-u-s-fast-food-chains-2014-2024/.
CYCLICAL FASHION OR CYCLICAL CONSUMPTION: THE PARADOX OF VINTAGE FASHION SALES
“Vintage” is the new trendy. Over the past two decades, vintage fashion has moved from basement thrift stores and dusty garage sales to the heart of global consumer culture. What explains the rise of this secondhand culture? The consumption of vintage fashion is rooted in nostalgia, concern about unethical manufacturing practices, and the curation of identity, all of which are amplified by the emergence of online platforms and social media. The popularization of vintage fashion brings into play a new kind of shopper: conscious, informed, keen on authenticity, but also at risk of participating in the same commodifying consumerism that drives mainstream retail.
“Vintage” is hardly a new phenomenon. For decades, thrift stores, flea markets, and collectors’ circuits have allowed vintage and second-hand clothing to circulate. But in recent years, the scale has exploded. The global secondhand apparel market is expected to reach $367 billion by 2029, growing 2.7 times faster than the overall global apparel market. (ThredUp, 2025)
It is impossible to discuss the rise of vintage without reference to fast fashion’s failures. The vintage clothing boom has gained momentum in part because consumers began rejecting the “disposable” mentality of fast fashion. Research into circular fashion practices reveals that second-hand clothing is increasingly seen as a viable alternative to traditional new-production fashion. Over the past decades, the fashion industry’s model of cheap, rapidly-produced clothing has been exposed for its environmental, social, and ethical costs: exploitative labor, massive textile waste, and very short usage lifetimes for garments. As awareness of these issues grew, so did consumer interest in alternatives. The second-hand and vintage market presents one such alternative. The idea is simple: instead of buying something new (and contributing to further production), buy something used (Klooster et al., 2024).
Yet the reality is more complex. A study of US consumers found that secondhand consumption is positively correlated with primary market consumption, rather than displacing it (Mizrachi & Sharon, 2025). This exemplifies the phenomenon of “rebound effect” or “moral licensing”: buying second-hand may give people a sense that they have done the right thing, thereby further licensing consumption (Mizrachi & Sharon, 2025). Thus, vintage fashion cannot be assumed to be inherently sustainable simply because it is second-hand.
Still, from a marketing and cultural viewpoint, the vintage/resale trend has been heavily tied to ethical branding: consumers now want to feel they are making better choices. Luxury vintage, therefore, offers indulgence in designer heritage while avoiding new-production guilt. For many brands and platforms, this narrative has become a key differentiator. What’s especially notable in the luxury sphere is how high-end vintage (archival designer pieces and iconic, limited-edition items) has become mainstream (Land, 2025). The resale market is redefining the accessibility, lifecycle, and value of designer goods.
Another strong motivator behind vintage fashion is nostalgia. People who are presented with vintage clothing manufactured during their lifetime have been shown to recall positive memories. Additionally, consumers are able to experience nostalgic feelings for vintage pieces produced in a period they have not experienced. Vintage is “especially appealing to people who have not themselves experienced the time they now consume through dress.” (Cervellon et al., 2012). As fashion production becomes more globalized and standardized, consumers increasingly feel that garments lack uniqueness and craftsmanship. In effect, vintage has become a space of recollection for seemingly simpler, better times. Furthermore, vintage becomes a statement: it signals that you care about more than the current fast fashion cycle; you value materials, heritage, and difference. Because vintage pieces are often one-of-a-kind, they offer a means of standing out. This individualised approach to identity fits neatly with the broader online culture of personal branding. Indeed, the digital era has magnified this effect: on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, the aesthetic of the past is reincarnated via styling videos and “vintage haul” culture, and celebrities are endlessly shown donning rare “archival” pieces. Many Gen Z shoppers are drawn to vintage primarily because it satisfies their desire for uniqueness.
Here we reach a paradox: as vintage becomes mainstream, some of its subversive potential is lost. What began as an alternative to consumption and mass production can itself become another avenue for commodification. The rise in popularity of vintage and thrift has produced several unintended consequences: rising prices, reduced accessibility for lower-income consumers, and gentrification of thrift and second-hand markets. One article describes “thrift store gentrification” as the transformation of second-hand shopping into a trend purchased by wealthier clients, pushing out the very communities thrift stores were originally meant to serve (Cills, 2024). In the digital resale space, the term “reseller drill” or “thrift-grift” circulates: organized buying of large volumes of discounted garments for resale at big mark-ups on Depop, Poshmark, or eBay. Especially on the app Depop, the market has been overtaken by a logic of profit rather than sustainable consumption, with younger users turning thrift shopping into micro-entrepreneurship and driving up prices for everyone (Phillai, 2025). The result? Vintage and second-hand items, once available for a few dollars in local charity shops, now sell for hundreds of dollars online. In this way, vintage fashion starts to look more like mainstream luxury: exclusive, expensive, all while being marketed as “ethical”.
This dynamic also has implications for class and racial inequality. The neighborhood thrift store turned curated boutique often arises in gentrifying districts; the new demographic of consumers (typically younger, wealthier, and whiter) can alter the neighborhood’s retail ecology. A research paper on urban vintage stores and gentrification finds that the influx of stylish thrift boutiques correlates with demographic shifts in major cities like Los Angeles and Dallas (Nittle, 2018). In short, vintage fashion may begin as a moral or aesthetic alternative, but it ends, for many, as a curated commodity in a consumerist circuit.
The story of vintage fashion is one of contradiction. The movement from subculture to mainstream has revealed both the power and the pitfalls of vintage. It gives hope: that clothing need not always be new, cheap, or disposable. It offers promise: that identity can be carved out of history and style. But it also demands reflection: when alternatives become trends, when second-hand becomes luxury, when ethical consumption becomes status signaling, we must ask: who is left out? Who still depends on thrift for affordability? And how do we preserve the radical potential of reuse without making it another adornment of privilege? If these questions are to matter, vintage must remain more than a trend.
References
Cervellon, Marie-Cécile, and Lindsey Carey. “Something Old, Something Used: Determinants of Women’s Purchase of Vintage Fashion vs Second-Hand Fashion.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 40, no. 12 (2012): 956–974. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551211274946.
Cills, Hazel. “The Complicated Reality of Thrift Store ‘Gentrification.’” Jezebel, April 30, 2021. https://www.jezebel.com/the-complicated-reality-of-thrift-store-gentrification-1846113458.
Klooster, Astrid, et al. “Do We Save the Environment by Buying Second-Hand Clothes? The Environmental Impacts of Second-Hand Textile Fashion and the Influence of Consumer Choices.” Journal of Circular Economy 2, no. 3 (March 14, 2024). https://doi.org/10.55845/ZZUG7076.
Land, Gabriella. “High-End Hand-Me-Downs? How Resale Is Reshaping Luxury Markets.” Michigan Journal of Economics, April 3, 2025. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2025/04/03/high-end-hand-me-downs-how-resale-is-reshaping-luxury-markets/.
Mizrachi, Meital Peleg, and Ori Sharon. “Secondhand Fashion Consumers Exhibit Fast Fashion Behaviors despite Sustainability Narratives.” Scientific Reports 15, no. 1 (October 7, 2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19089-1.
Nittle, Nadra. “Are Vintage Stores a Sign of Gentrification?” Racked, March 12, 2018. https://www.racked.com/2018/3/12/17097138/gentrification-vintage-clothing-stores-neighborhood.
Pillai, Annika. “Depop Made Sustainable Shopping Consumerist: The Resale App Reveals the Tensions between Trends and Conscious Consumption.” The Tufts Daily, September 18, 2025. https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2025/09/depop-made-sustainable-shopping-consumerist.
thredUP. 2025 Resale Report. 2025. https://cf-assets-tup.thredup.com/resale_report/2025/ThredUp_Resale_Report_2025.pdf.
Challenging Incumbents - As a High School Teacher
In United States congressional elections, candidates running against incumbents face tough barriers such as name recognition, establishment of donor networks, and party endorsement. In fact, incumbents have ‘franking privilege’ at their disposal–the ability for a member of Congress to send mail to constituents’ residences about the member’s achievements, legislation, or promotional materials. These advantages run parallel to the idea of the ‘career congress,’ the notion that Congress has become professionalized throughout history, and is now a job that can become a career. (Congressional Research Service 2025) Currently, members of Congress’s number one goal is reelection. In 2024, 95% of all incumbents across the United States were reelected, compared to the 1980 Senate reelection cycle, which saw only 55% of incumbents return to their positions. (OpenSecrets n.d-a) This issue is particularly potent within the Democratic Party as the rift between institutional Democrats and progressives grows.
With this knowledge, why would anybody in their right mind spend years of their life campaigning just to have a 5% chance of winning an election? That’s the question I posed to my former high school videography teacher turned political candidate, Jeromie Whalen. Whalen is running for the House of Representatives in Massachusetts' First Congressional District against an incumbent, Richard Neal, who has held office since 1989. (Jeromie Whalen for Congress n.d.-a) Neal has been challenged throughout his 36-year tenure, but never by a former teacher with a community-funded, grassroots-organized campaign. Whalen has a goal of raising $3 million by next September. But with a few phone calls, Neal could raise $3 million in a week. Neal is, percentage-wise, the highest corporate PAC-funded member of Congress, with 74.36% of his donations coming from corporate PAC donors. (OpenSecrets n.d.-b)
Running against a candidate like Neal, who exemplifies the larger concern of a growing kleptocracy in the United States, can be viewed as a daunting task by outsiders. Whalen doesn’t see it that way. Whalen has two characteristics that Neal cannot compete with: passion towards the issues of his constituents and the stalwart ideals it takes to be a grassroots candidate. Whalen spent his career as a civil servant, spending over a decade as a public school teacher in my hometown of Northampton, Massachusetts. As a public educator, Whalen has seen, firsthand, the legislative impact that defunding schools, social security, and minimum wage have had on students and their families. From this position, Whalen seeks to become an active advocate in Massachusetts’ First Congressional District, the same district that Richard Neal has been virtually absent from since his inauguration in 1989. In fact, Whalen’s strongest line of attack against the incumbent is Neal’s lack of presence in the communities he represents.
However, Whalen is not the first candidate to oppose Representative Neal. In 2020, a professor from the University of Massachusetts Amherst attempted to campaign against Neal. Alex Morse, a native of Holyoke, Massachusetts, grew up in Massachusetts First Congressional District under Representative Neal. Affected by Neal’s policy directly, Morse criticized Neal for his lackadaisical approach to issues such as climate change, Medicare for All, and oversight of the first Trump administration. (Stewart 2020)
Like Whalen, Morse emerged from political obscurity to challenge Neal, facing similar financial obstacles while simultaneously accusing Neal of being out of touch with constituents and serving corporate interests. While Morse’s insurgent efforts began to take effect, a letter accusing Morse of having unconsensual sexual relations was sent to a student paper at the university by an anonymous source. (Krieg & Schouten, 2020) This severely curtailed Morse’s efforts in the election, which ultimately resulted in Neal remaining in his position for a 30th year.
Neal denied allegations of attempting to sabotage Morse’s campaign, but LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups claim that Neal and his benefactors used a dirty, homophobic strategy to deny Morse a fair chance at running. Morse is an openly gay man who admitted to having consensual relations with students during his tenure as a guest lecturer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. (Peters 2020) This speaks to another example of the power that incumbents have over new candidates: the resources to intrusively investigate their opponents. These grassroots candidates do not have the funds, nor the time, to run independent investigations into the personal lives of the candidates. The lack of a ‘war chest,’ or an emergency fund that allows for a campaign to respond to negative PR, is a clear indicator of the struggles that grassroots candidates face.
Nevertheless, hope is not lost when a candidate attempts to turn the tide against an incumbent opposition. As previously mentioned, a candidate new to the political scene is at a disadvantage due to an incumbent's name recognition. However, they lack a negative connotation to their name, which, in the right context, can be considered refreshing. Take, for example, the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), who in 2018 defeated incumbent Joseph Crowley, a Democrat who was once considered to be the heir to Nancy Pelosi. AOC achieved this through her strong social media presence and support from other progressive leaders. (Goldmacher & Martin 2018)
When looking at the potential for Whalen to succeed in the 2026 midterm elections, it is important to be realistic. The goal of raising $3 million is a noble one, but could be considered lofty. Still, to win an election against a corporate PAC giant, the dynamics of the campaign must lean towards grassroots organization rather than financial prowess. To do this, Whalen must attend tens, if not hundreds, of events in Massachusetts’ First Congressional District. Recently, Whalen attended five different ‘No Kings Day’ protests, where he positioned himself as the anti-Trump candidate, while simultaneously doing the work on the ground that Neal has not. (Jeromie Whalen for Congress n.d.-b) AOC emphasized her Hispanic roots in New York’s 14th Congressional District, one that is majority-minority. AOC leveraged her life growing up in the district, while simultaneously showing her affinity for those she serves– highlighting how she was more similar to her constituents than Crowley was. AOC and Whalen both utilize the principle of similarity when addressing their constituents, a strategy that worked well in New York and could potentially shock the status quo in Massachusetts.
In a world where the incumbent reigns supreme, new candidates face serious economic disadvantages. In many cases, including the case of the race between Jeromie Whalen and Richard Neal, the odds are stacked against the newcomer. Although it may seem statistically unlikely for a grassroots candidate without corporate funding to succeed, there are success stories and strategies to double down on that a candidate can take advantage of. Candidates must face, head-on, the financial inhibitors of not being an incumbent, because it allows them to embrace the needs of their constituents, rather than having to bend to the will of benefactors. With the upcoming midterm elections less than a year away, Democrats are expected to shock the Republican controlled Congress. (Montanaro & Moore 2025) Institutional Democrats, like Richard Neal, are on the chopping block, as the progressive insurgency wields more power each and every day. Jeromie Whalen and candidates with views akin to his could see an overthrow of the status quo, one that is long, long overdue.
References
CNN. 2020. “Alex Morse vs. Richard Neal Massachusetts Primary.” CNN, August 26, 2020. Accessed November 11, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/politics/alex-morse-richard-neal-massachusetts-primary.
Congressional Research Service. 2025. Congressional Careers: Service Tenure and Patterns of Member Service, 1789–2025. CRS Report R41545. Accessed November 11, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41545.
Jeromie Whalen for Congress. 2025. “Meet Jeromie Whalen.” Accessed November 11, 2025. https://www.whalenforcongressma.com/.
New York Public Radio. 2025. “Poll: Democrats Have Biggest Advantage for Control of Congress in 2026.” NPR, November 19, 2025. Accessed November 11, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/11/19/nx-s1-5611088/poll-democrats-republicans-trump-approval-inflation.
The New York Times. 2018. “Joseph Crowley, Ocasio-Cortez Democratic Primary.” The New York Times, June 26, 2018. Accessed November 11, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/nyregion/joseph-crowley-ocasio-cortez-democratic-primary.html.
The New York Times. 2020. “Richard Neal vs. Alex Morse Massachusetts Primary.” The New York Times, September 1, 2020. Accessed November 11, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/us/politics/neal-morse.html.
OpenSecrets. 2025a. “Re-election Rates Over the Years.” Accessed November 11, 2025. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates.
OpenSecrets. 2025b. “Richard E. Neal: Summary.” Accessed November 11, 2025. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/richard-e-neal/summary?cid=N00000153.
Vox. 2020. “Richard Neal Wins Massachusetts Democratic Primary — Alex Morse.” Vox, September 1, 2020. Accessed November 11, 2025.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/9/1/21409160/richard-neal-wins-massachusetts-democratic-primary-alex-morse.
Wesleyan’s Entrepreneurial Ecosystem of 3 C’s: Classes, Community, and Capital
Wesleyan University’s entrepreneurial scene is growing faster than ever, driven by students, faculty, and alumni. These communities are working together to ensure an ecosystem where founders no longer have to choose between passion and academics. Through a deliberate focus on classes, community, and capital, Wesleyan is creating a pathway that helps students take ventures from idea to impact. What was once a loose collection of clubs and initiatives has evolved into a coordinated, university-backed network that integrates entrepreneurial learning into the liberal arts tradition.
Starting with classes coming up in the spring, Wesleyan is rapidly formalizing entrepreneurship education. Professor Rosemary Ostfeld, Assistant Professor of the Practice in Environmental Studies and founder of Healthy PlanEat, will debut CSPL 249: Startup Accelerator: The Art and Science of Growing Your Idea in the spring of 2026. The course “brings together an ambitious, committed, and diverse group of individuals” to continue developing their ventures through work on minimum viable products (MVPs), marketing, and pitching their ideas to larger audiences (Wesleyan University 2025). This class builds on Professor Ostfeld’s Fall course, CSPL 239: Startup Incubator: The Art and Science of Launching Your Idea, which blends entrepreneurial theory with hands-on practice. The incubator course offers “a combination of a college class and a rigorous startup incubator program,” designed for students serious about testing and validating their business ideas (Wesleyan University 2025). Together, the incubator and accelerator courses form a two-part academic pipeline that allows students to progress from idea formation to growth and scaling under the mentorship of experienced faculty.
Another major addition to the PCE is the arrival of Marisa MacClary ’94 (P’28), Wesleyan’s first Entrepreneur-in-Residence and a former CEO and co-founder of the healthcare technology company Artifact Health. Her new course, CSPL341G: Applied Entrepreneurship: From Idea to Exit, will guide students through the full venture lifecycle, from identifying opportunities and shaping ideas to launching, scaling, and eventually exiting a business. The course promises to equip students with “the mindset and skillset not only to build ventures, but also to bring entrepreneurial approaches to established businesses, nonprofits, and beyond” (Wesleyan University 2025). Complementing these for-credit offerings is the return of the popular student forum CSPL 420: Wesleyan Shark Tank: The Art of the Pitch, co-taught last spring by Ben Carbeau and Michael Astorino. The course culminated in a live pitch event modeled after the television show Shark Tank, featuring judges Strauss Zelnick ’79, Stuart Ellman ’88, Marisa MacClary ’94, Josh Goldin ’00, Olayinka Lawal ’15, A.J. Wilson Jr. ’18, and Rodger Desai (Wesleyan Argus 2025). This coming spring, Astorino will co-teach the forum with Palmer Zarzycki, a former student in the class who pitched his own venture, Perfect Beach Day NJ. Previously, students were able to get involved with the Patricelli Center, but the course offerings were limited to Professor Ahmed Badr’s CSPL 252 Leadership & Social Innovation: Patricelli Center Impact Fellowship class and Professor Ostfeld’s Startup Incubator class. Wesleyan’s expanding course catalog—pairing classroom instruction with live pitch experience and mentorship—demonstrates a commitment to turning entrepreneurial curiosity into academic rigor.
A thriving ecosystem, however, requires more than coursework; it needs a strong, interconnected community. At Wesleyan, that sense of community is anchored by the Wesleyan Entrepreneurship Club (WEC), the central hub for student innovation and collaboration. Under the leadership of Michael Astorino, the club has broadened its impact by hosting alumni speakers, facilitating mentorship, and organizing weekly “Startup Table” meetings—informal gatherings that allow students to share ideas, discuss progress, and exchange feedback. These meetings are often organized around themes such as women in entrepreneurship and social impact ventures, giving students new entry points into the entrepreneurial conversation. They have become an integral space for connection, offering peer-to-peer learning in an atmosphere that mirrors real-world startup culture. Wesleyan’s Entrepreneurship Club has seen a massive resurgence in popularity after previously being known as Kai Wes. Kai Wes was “a completely student-run 501(c)(3) non-profit” that served as Wesleyan’s previous entrepreneurship hub for students (Kai Wes, n.d.). Unfortunately, Kai Wes lacked continuity, and as student interest waned and succession planning faltered, Kai Wes fell out of the spotlight. After being restarted by Wesley Tan and Zachary Berkenkotter and rebranded as the Wesleyan Entrepreneurship Club, their focus on identifying and equipping the next generation of student leaders and entrepreneurs is unparalleled.
Beyond the student club, the Patricelli Center for Entrepreneurship (PCE) serves as the institutional heart of Wesleyan’s entrepreneurial network. During Parents and Family Weekend in October, the center held a rededication ceremony to mark its new name, transitioning from the “Patricelli Center for Social Entrepreneurship” to the broader “Patricelli Center for Entrepreneurship.” The ceremony featured Bob Patricelli ’61, P’88, ’90, trustee emeritus and namesake of the center; Sasha Chanoff ’94, founder and CEO of RefugePoint; and Phoebe Boyer ’89, P’19, ’23, president and CEO of the Children’s Aid Society and chair of Wesleyan’s Board of Trustees (Wesleyan University 2025 Parents and Family Weekend Event). The center’s programming reflects its expanding mission, with recent events including “A Conversation with Yancey Strickler, Co-Founder of Kickstarter,” a workshop titled “How to Identify a Good Business Idea” with Professor MacClary, and a talk with Cynthia Santiago ’07, an entrepreneur and immigration lawyer. Together, these initiatives have strengthened ties among students, alumni, and faculty, ensuring that Wesleyan’s entrepreneurial community extends beyond campus boundaries. While student energy can fluctuate year to year, the university’s growing infrastructure ensures that this momentum becomes a sustainable, long-term feature of Wesleyan life.
No entrepreneurial ecosystem can thrive without capital, and the Patricelli Center is Wesleyan’s financial engine for student innovation. The center’s New Venture Awards (NVA) grants $6,000 each year to several top student ventures, providing crucial early-stage funding. Alongside the NVAs are smaller grants and the Experience Fund, which offers up to $1,000 for students to attend conferences, pitch competitions, and entrepreneurial events (Wesleyan University n.d.). This tiered funding structure enables Wesleyan to support students at different stages of their venture development—from early experimentation to formal launch. Astorino has played a significant role in aligning the Shark Tank forum with the NVA cycle, creating a pipeline where ventures can transition from classroom pitch to funded project. He has also helped secure additional non-dilutive funding from alumni donors, allowing student entrepreneurs to receive capital without sacrificing ownership of their companies. Wesleyan’s non-dilutive and mentorship-focused model is uniquely suited to the needs of early-stage founders. The university’s emphasis on sustainable funding, peer collaboration, and intellectual rigor provides a strong foundation for student ventures to grow.
The real shift at Wesleyan isn’t just the addition of new courses or funding streams, but rather the growing idea that students can build something meaningful while they’re here. The combination of academic structure, peer-driven community, and accessible capital is creating an environment where ideas don’t disappear after a semester. Leaders like Michael Astorino have helped stitch these pieces together to build a grounded and sustainable environment. If this trajectory continues, Wesleyan won’t just support student founders; it will shape the kind of entrepreneurial culture that reflects the values of a liberal arts institution: critical thinking, collaboration, and student-centered education.
References
Wesleyan University. (2025). CSPL 249: Startup Accelerator: The Art and Science of Growing Your Idea. WesMaps. https://owaprod-pub.wesleyan.edu/reg/!wesmaps_page.html?stuid=&crse=017896&term=1261
Wesleyan University. (2025). CSPL 239: Startup Incubator: The Art and Science of Launching Your Idea. WesMaps. https://owaprod-pub.wesleyan.edu/reg/!wesmaps_page.html?stuid=&crse=015370&term=1259
Wesleyan University. (2025, October). CSPL 341G: Applied Entrepreneurship: From Idea to Exit. WesMaps.
https://owaprod-pub.wesleyan.edu/reg/!wesmaps_page.html?stuid=&crse=018051&term=1261The Wesleyan Argus. (2025, April 29). Students Present Ventures to Investors in Packed Inaugural Shark Tank Event. https://wesleyanargus.com/2025/04/29/students-present-ventures-to-investors-in-packed-inaugural-shark-tank-event/
Kai Wes. (n.d.). About. https://www.kaiwes.com/about-1
Wesleyan University. (n.d.). Patricelli Center Grants. https://www.wesleyan.edu/patricelli/grants/
Wesleyan University. (2025). Parents and Family Weekend: Rededication of the Patricelli Center for Entrepreneurship.https://wesleyanaq.my.site.com/s/event-detail?eventId=a35PX000000blBF