I don't want to be difficult, but I find it hard to believe that... McDonald's won't hire you unless there's something you're leaving out. It's hideous work but it's work and you need to keep being able to pay the fleabag motel bill.
I have been told, to my face, in job interviews at a game store, "Your qualifications make it obvious that your just in here to tide over the summer, and when the teaching contracts come out in August you'll be gone." I can imagine a McDonald's using the same logic.
I wonder if such employers ever back-test their prediction model. Why would a person's best option today not also be their best option six months from now? Does one become more employable as one spends more time underemployed?
Second, is it really a good hiring policy to only hire people who one perceives to have already reached their maximum potential at a relatively low level? That's like the employer saying "we strive to hire only the
best mediocre employees!" Even if they stick around 10 years, you've built a company around people who, in the employer's theory, are already "maxed out" and unable to take on additional responsibility. Perhaps the managers are protecting their own jobs from internal competition?
Here's an alternative option: If the learning curve isn't too steep, hire ambitious people you know will move on. Promise them a glowing letter of recommendation if they kick ass at your company. Do a lot of hiring, yes, but get growth potential in return. Mentor your own potential future replacements so you can move up in the organization or expand the business.