Automation Coming To Restaurants, But Not Because of Minimum Wage Hikes 720
dcblogs writes: McDonald's this week told financial analysts of its plans to install self-ordering kiosks and mobile ordering at its restaurants. This news prompted the Wall Street Journal to editorialize, in " Minimum Wage Backfire," that while it may be true for McDonald's to say that its tech plans will improve customer experience, the move is also "a convenient way...to justify a reduction in the chain's global workforce." Minimum wage increase advocates, the Journal argued, are speeding along an automation backlash. But banks have long relied on ATMs, and grocery stores, including Walmart, have deployed self-service checkouts. In contrast, McDonald's hasn't changed its basic system of taking orders since its founding in the 1950s, said Darren Tristano, executive vice president of Technomic, a research group focused on the restaurant industry. While mobile, kiosks and table ordering systems may help reduce labor costs, the automated self-serve technology is seen as an essential. It will take the stress out of ordering (lines) at fast food restaurants, and the wait for checks at more casual restaurants. It also helps with upselling and membership to loyalty programs. People who can order a drink refill off a tablet, instead of waving down waitstaff, may be more inclined to do so. Moreover, analysts say younger customers want self-service options.
This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
"automation backlash" aka increased productivity is fantastic for the economy .
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry; our job as Anonymous Coward will be replaced by a 'bot soon too!
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry; our job as Anonymous Coward will be replaced by a 'bot soon too!
Tell me more about it.
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Automation is good for the economy.
Automation has created 100ks of jobs. For example, FedEx and UPS could not handle the volumes of packages that each handles per day without automation. FedEx employees about 100K persons due entirely to the technology of automation. The same is true of airlines. The automation of pilot responsibilities and tasks has made flying much safer and easier (at least before the TSA). Personal Computers (PCs) have placed automation on the desktop. How many accountants used M$ Excel or some other software. Designers, engineers, et al, are much more productive because of automation. Even the vehicles that are driven on the streets are manufactured with robots. Even trades professions benefit from automation. Electric (first corded and then cordless) drills, saws, scribers, etc., etc. have made persons more productive, more efficient, and more profit.
Automation increases productivity and is good for the economy.
Automation increases jobs. M$ employees around 100k persons who would have jobs wthout the automation of the PC. FedEx and UPS employee well over 100k person because of automation. The list goes on.
Automation does require the displaced employee to get another job. This may require retraining, returning to school to upgrade or acquire a skill set that is marketable. The may require a change of career. Most displaced employees will find other jobs. The vast majority of displaced employees won't become strong-arm bandits or burglars, or thieves, or grifters or etc.
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Interesting)
There are people who aren't qualified for much more than a simple job and lack the drive or perhaps even the capacity to learn something better, or perhaps the amount of effort that must be expended to train them does not generate a net increase in wealth.
As automation gets better, the types of jobs that can be automated grows and the people who are the least able to acquire the types of skills that cannot yet be automated find themselves in a position where there isn't a lot that they can do or where they need to build a completely new skill set as their previous one is no longer useful.
Perhaps by the time this becomes a large enough problem, automation will have made our productivity and wealth generation sufficient that we can just provide everyone the resources they need to live off of while they acquire a new skill set, but it always comes back to the problem of making sure people aren't free loading. Perhaps it just comes down to doing it anyway because the alternative is spending even more resources to police and arrest those people who do turn to crime.
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The hyper-rich "job creators" are actually the most entitled freeloaders in our society by far, but nobody ever questions it. They're too good to pay their taxes like everyone else, and they'll starve our societies to the brink of collapse in the process of hoarding ridiculous, unusable amounts of wealth for themselves. They've done it before and they're doing it again. Their "work" is a little bit of correspondence here and there from their megayachts or the golf course. But because they're in charge of all the decisions of a company in a very abstract way, we think they somehow generated all the value that results from those decisions. It's absurd.
But the people working their asses off for a sub-livable wage while receiving welfare (effectively a massive subsidy program for all businesses employing minimum wage workers - the gains of which are again hoarded by the hyper-rich), they're freeloaders :-\
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
I cannot agree more. States should be going after companies like Walmart to make them pay for any public-assistance their employees qualify for, plus a premium. (They do similar things to individuals, "corporations are people, too" ...remember?) The problem would fix itself.
If your wages from a full-time job don't allow someone who works for you to earn enough of a living to not have to work, you had better not be turning a "profit", much less paying it out to investors...
The whole "flipping burgers isn't supposed to support a family" isn't a valid argument. McDonald's posted 5.5 BILLION in profit for 2012. They can pay their workers (well) above minimum wage.
Re: (Score:3)
The reality that the world faces now is we have ALOT of people that cannot come up with constructive or productive things to do with their ENORMOUS amount of free time, and spend it instead of being envious of those that do.
This is rather misleading. I'm very resentful (not envious, because I'm not a hypocrit) of the wealthy, though I have very little (if any) free time. There are quite a few wealthy people (who have more free time than anyone else) that aren't envious of themselves (because that wouldn't make any sense). You're attempting to draw a connection between free time and envy of the wealthy where I don't believe one exists.
Poor people in the US don't starve anymore, nor do they work. They literally have nearly their ENTIRE day to themselves and instead of devoting it to improvement of themselves, their art/craft, or their community they piss it away and then blame society of their lack of progress.
Where the fuck do you live? I've had some "lean" periods in my life, where I was working 60-80
Re: This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
So we should retain inefficient practices and increase costs to the consumer because otherwise we'll have a glut of unemployed low-skill workers that may commit crimes?
Seriously?
A person rendered unemployable by ordering kiosks is a victim of an education system that ill-prepared them to contribute to society, and the solution isn't to protect their low/no-skill jobs.
Did people argue against the automobile because buggy whip workers would turn to a life of crime when they lose their jobs?
Re: This is silly (Score:5, Interesting)
A person rendered unemployable by ordering kiosks is a victim of an education system that ill-prepared them to contribute to society, and the solution isn't to protect their low/no-skill jobs.
Not everyone is educable. Not everyone has value to society that's sufficient for them to support themselves.
Re: This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
We're headed straight into a wall where we'll have people without any skills we need and who are unable, financially or otherwise, to gain desirable skills, as well as higher unemployment across the board. We can't wish them away and they deserve decency as much as the next person.
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Funny)
It may be good for the economy. It may not be so good for the people who can no longer support themselves because they just lost their minimum wage job to a robot. It may not be good for the people who then get mugged by said hungry person either.
If you are attacked by said unemployed maximized minimum wage person, perhaps you should just beat them with your buggy whip until they back off.
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Informative)
Also... we are talking about the lowest rung of employees. Minimum wage or close. Raise those wages, and what happens to everyone elses wages? They go up. Wages go up, prices go up. Wages won't pay for themselves - those increases WILL be passed on to consumers.
When the minimum wage went up in San Jose, the downtown pizza parlor [npr.org] raised the per-slice price by $0.25 USD and per pie price by $1.00 USD. Business remained steady and the world didn't come to an end. Never mind that states with higher minimum wage have higher job growth [time.com].
This will put more people on welfare, food stamps and beholden to the Democratic party.
I'm still waiting for my FREE iPhone from the government that Republicans always talk about but can never provide a link to the sign-up page.
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Interesting)
Because Bay Area is typical middle class neighborhood /sarcasm.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Funny)
And people who drive Teslas have a higher average wage than people who don't. We should force everybody to buy a Tesla!
You got your cause and effect backwards.
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
"Correlation != Causation."
Except when raising minimum wage is bad for the economy, then you have it all figured out?
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
If you give money to less well paid people, they tend to spend it. If you give money to someone who's already extremely wealthy they tend to hoard it.
An alternative solution would be to reverse the recent trend of taxing labor at a higher rate than capital. With that change, for the extremely wealthy, creating jobs would be a good investment.
As Henry Ford famously observed, your workers are also consumers. If you don't pay them enough to consume then the system breaks.
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to do some research on who is working for minimum wage. http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/
Minimum wage is much more important than your lack of empathy allows you to believe.
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of minimum wage workers are under 24. The average minimum wage worker is 35.
See what I did there?
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Why would you take a proposal that we KNOW hurts people, and continue to force it on them as if it's good for them? Ask any economist; minimum wage hurts the very people it's purported to help. It wasn't introduced to help the poor at all; it was introduced to price minorities out of the job market. That's right, minimum wage is fundamentally racist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How the hell this even gets marks as informative is beyond me.
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
If he can't sell his house, can't cover his monthly expenses, and can't retire in ten years, he's poor. The funny thing is he doesn't know he's poor because he's living the American dream of having it all.
OTOH, I'm weathy. I lived in the same studio apartment for 9+ years, take public transit to work, buy my clothes at D.D. Discount, and put $500+ into savings each month. Unless there's another Great Recession, I should be retire in 25 years. Of course, I'm not living the American dream by living a modest
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Funny)
The problem is that government programs often don't provide enough to help people escape poverty, or they are structured so they penalize people for saving money or getting a better job.
I would argue the best way to fight poverty is to donate money to local charities that fight poverty. We also need to be encouraging people to work hard, graduate high school and not get pregnant out of wedlock. For a great many people in poverty that's an uphill battle against cultural expectations.
Re: (Score:3)
"Households in the top quintile have on average 2.2 people employed full time."
That confirms something I have suspected for a long time. With more people in the house working and/or sharing responsibilities we would all live better. Now to figure out how to convince my wife to let me have a couple more...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Now that 25c increase, which was caused by one small town raising its prices, is now going to be how much of an increase? What happens when EVERYTHING is affected?
San Jose [wikipedia.org] is the largest city in Silicon Valley, third largest city in California, and 10th largest city in the United States. San Jose isn't a small town unless you're living in New York City.
I bet you it's more than a 25c/slice, 1d/pie.
You did read the article that I linked to in my comment? Please educate yourself. Being proudful of being ignorant is shameful.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. There's no way the Democrats can lose by demanding a minimum wage increase:
1. If people aren't laid off, they'll vote for the Democrats for more wage increases.
2. If they are laid off, they'll vote for the Democrats for more welfare payments.
It's a win-win in the short term, even though it's disastrous for the economy in the long term.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a win-win in the short term, even though it's disastrous for the economy in the long term.
Citation needed. In my opinion, the first scenario you set forth doesn't seem very "disastrous". A steady cycle of wage increases is what most people would describe as "awesome".
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Informative)
Because as stated about a bajillion times prior, wage increases do not exist in a vacuum. If wages go up by $x%, and inflation goes up by $x+1%, sure you 'make more money' (in the nominal sense) but you're actually poorer.
Are you saying that minimum wage is what determines the rate of inflation? Not the policies adopted by the Federal Reserve? Or will you acknowledge that it is possible to manage inflation independent of minimum wage?
See also: United States since about 1970. in *REAL* dollars, a janitor made about $17/hour back then.
In real terms, the minimum wage has fallen from $8.90 ($1.45 in 1970 dollars is $8.90 in 2014 dollars) back then. So then do wage decreases exist in a vacuum? Because the minimum wage has been decreasing (in *REAL* dollars) since then. That doesn't seem to jive with what you're saying.
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Something i like to ask my middle class friends when they complain about possible minimum wage increases and the cost of everything going up.
What happens to the payment on your 30 year fixed mortgage when when the minimum wage goes up. Nothing.
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Interesting)
"confronted with employees who demand to get more expensive with time?"
But they are not. Sure, there may be a demand for a larger number of dollars but those dollars have lost value over time. Wages have not increased with inflation. If anything workers are trying to get back some of what they used to make in real value.
"Why should a company ignore self-serve kiosks"
They shouldn't. The people running the company''s job is to maximize profit. Unfortunately that does mean that as labor replacing technologies become less expensive jobs do go away.
What I think has been happening is the price of automation solutions (including these kiosks) has been dropping while there capabilities have been increasing for decades now. We only kept the jobs we have because wages (REAL wages, as in what that money can buy) have been dropping. It dropped enough to put minimum wage workers into the poverty category a long time ago and now it is dropping to the point that a person can't really survive on it. So, something has to give.
So, minimum wage goes up (in terms of dollar amount), kiosks overtake workers as cheap labor and jobs are eliminated. The alternative really wasn't going to be any better. What we need is an adjustment. We need to take the remaining jobs which cannot be automated and spread them out differently. We need a society where greater people work a fewer number of hours per person. This way the same amount of work gets spread among more jobs. We need a society where those hours worked are valued higher so that a person can live on those fewer hours. That shouldn't be such a radical idea. Think about it, every minute you give to some company is time out of your life. We only get one life (that anyone can prove anyway). That makes each minute priceless!
Now, some might argue that those higher wages will make living more costly as the expense must be passed to the consumer. Remember though, prices are set to maximize profit. Raise the price of a burger you make more per burger but you sell fewer. Lower the price you sell more of them but make less off of each. Somewhere there is a best price point that balances those factors to make the most money. Notice what's NOT in that formula... the price of labor! The only way that labor costs (or supplies, etc...) factor in is if the demand is so low and those costs so high that the only possible profit is very small before nobody buys any. If a business is truly operating in that area it is already in trouble! It is probably going to fail regardless of what the minimum wage does! This is not the point where McDonalds for example is operating at. Where would the money come from? I would suggest looking at executive salarys. People who don't even produce anything! Also, don't stop at the salarys, what kind of expensive conferences and other perks are they spending money on?
So how do we get to this world where easily automated jobs are and the world enjoys this saved labor by working less while still prospering? I have no idea. I wish I knew.
Re: (Score:3)
wage increase don't happen in a vacuum
From what I've seen, one side of the debate assumes they're in a vacuum, the other side assumes that they are spherical and exist in still water. Both sides are wrong, nearly equally so. Economies are chaotic, actors aren't rational, externalities drive changes in both directions. You talk in absolutes just as thoroughly as the people you are arguing against, and with about the same amount of evidence to back it up.
let them eat fries with that (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that people aren't, you know, actually, like, supposed to be able to support themselves with the lowest-paid jobs in the country? These are the kind of jobs that used to be done by kids still living at home, not those who expected to make a career and raise a family by saying 'Do you want fries with that?' a thousand times a day?
But with today's fucked economy, that's the only type of job [nytimes.com] many adults with kids, rent and car payments can find.
Our society has deep structural problems [epi.org] relating to automation that have been ignored for forty years and those chickens are coming home to roost. One of those major problems is that we've given preferential tax treatment to capital gains over income (labor).
We can either have egalitarian democratic society, or we can be like Mexico. I hope the walls on your gated community are high enough and you pay your private security contractors enough not to steal from you.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that people aren't, you know, actually, like, supposed to be able to support themselves with the lowest-paid jobs in the country? These are the kind of jobs that used to be done by kids still living at home, not those who expected to make a career and raise a family by saying 'Do you want fries with that?' a thousand times a day?
I'm sorry. This is not flamebait. This is a legitimate point. In the 1980s the minimum wage was $3.35 hr. People could not support themselves on that amount in the 80s. My point is our minimum wage scale has been operating under such constraints for 30+ yrs. Right or wrong, the fact that its been working that way for that long, in many ways, implies what was stated
Re: (Score:3)
Most of these places actively look for desperate adults and won't hire kids. You can't even work in most convenient stores in this state until you are 21 anyway.
The reason is, desperate adults have no options and are willing to be abused and deprived of benefits. A lazy kid can always go back to school.
The only time I see teenagers or young adults working in my area is during summer break. At that point, McDonald's might pick a few of them up but they don't last long. The average minimum wage worker I s
Re:WORSE! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll have to stand behind said idiot while they try to figure out what buttons to push
Kiosks are cheaper than employees and are "always on". They don't take breaks, they don't call in sick, and their shift doesn't end at 8pm. So instead of standing in line waiting for one human order taker, you will have a choice of six or eight kiosks. If you are there in the middle of the lunch hour rush, when all the kiosks are busy, then you can order on your cellphone. Even better, you can order, and pay, on your cell before you arrive, so your order is ready for pickup when you arrive.
After auto-ordering is established, the fast food joints can change their drive-through-window policy to be pre-order only. So you pre-order, and pre-pay, on your cell, get a beep when your order is ready, then pull up, grab your bag, and go. The transaction time will be reduced from minutes to seconds, saving people time, and most likely boosting business for the restaurants.
Remember when WSJ had a modicrum of decency? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, maybe I'm just harking back to a past that exists only in my mind, but I seem to recall a time when the journal actually covered business in its pages, rather than regurgitating neoclassical economics talking points all-day every day, attempting to construe every single negative thing as a result of failing to religiously adhere to its principles.
Am I misremembering, and imagining the shift from kinda disagreeably right-leaning to fanatical?
Re:Remember when WSJ had a modicrum of decency? (Score:5, Informative)
They turned into a Murdoch rag is what happened.
Re:Remember when WSJ had a modicrum of decency? (Score:5, Insightful)
I stopped reading it for this reason - profit has no ideology, moment you view data through a lens of politics is the moment you stop noticing opportunities.
Re:Remember when WSJ had a modicrum of decency? (Score:5, Informative)
"and kept politics contained in the opinion pages" - To play devil's advocate - this particular article IS in the Opinion section.
Re:Remember when WSJ had a modicrum of decency? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are not misremembering, at one point WSJ published a lot of insightful business and economic commentary, and kept politics contained in the opinion pages. Now political narrative dominates all aspects and as a result business and economic aspect suffer. I stopped reading it for this reason - profit has no ideology, moment you view data through a lens of politics is the moment you stop noticing opportunities.
I've read the WSJ daily for decades and have yet to detect a conservative editorial bias on the non-opinion pages. It's the only readable paper any more because it does actual reporting and isn't puffed up with fluff and torn-from-the-AP-feed canned drivel.
Re:Remember when WSJ had a modicrum of decency? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is still in the Journal's ballpark. What was not economical for McD's to do before (automate ordering) possibly becomes so when you're getting forced to pay someone $15/hr to stand at a counter and push buttons.
This is what the minimum wage hike advocates never seem to understand - when you raise the labor expense, many more options become economical to the employer.
(This post is not an opinion on whether the minimum wage should be raised or not, so don't flame me. It is simply an opinion on the possible consequences.)
Re:Remember when WSJ had a modicrum of decency? (Score:5, Informative)
Point of fact: McDonalds as a corporation doesn't sign those peoples' paychecks, at least if their business model hasn't changed since 2000ish. They do franchising, and make money on the fact that franchises have to purchase supplies from the company. This allows them to dodge risk on opening in poor locations, or personnel expenses.
Now, I'm not so thick-headed as to imagine that they wouldn't come up with something like this to help franchises with wage costs, but I'm also aware that this tech is coming to all sorts of places other than Seattle where the minimum wage actually went up.
Re:Remember when WSJ had a modicrum of decency? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I'm not so thick-headed as to imagine that they wouldn't come up with something like this to help franchises with wage costs, but I'm also aware that this tech is coming to all sorts of places other than Seattle where the minimum wage actually went up.
The fact is that it's going to happen regardless of where minimum wages are set, or even if there are legally-mandated minimum wages (as opposed to the market-determined real minimum wages). Anyone who thinks most unskilled jobs aren't going away is crazy. The question is at what rate this change will occur, and it seems quite clear that high minimum wages will make more automation economical sooner, pushing the rate of change.
We're edging towards a major economic restructuring driven by widespread automation. We've had automation-driven restructurings in the past, and dealt with them, and this too will be handled. But when you're talking about widespread elimination of old jobs and creation of new jobs, speed kills. Retraining, and even just adjusting to the new reality, take time, and in the meantime millions upon millions of displaced workers are a huge drain on the economy, not to mention miserable.
I think it's pretty clear that high minimum wages are a forcing function for this transition, and I don't think it's something we really want to force. Ideally, it would be better to slow it down, at least in terms of the human cost, though the most obvious mechanisms for slowing it (labor subsidies) may also dangerously distort the economy.
Actually, this isn't how McDonalds corporate works (Score:5, Informative)
Point of fact: McDonalds as a corporation doesn't sign those peoples' paychecks, at least if their business model hasn't changed since 2000ish. They do franchising, and make money on the fact that franchises have to purchase supplies from the company. This allows them to dodge risk on opening in poor locations, or personnel expenses.
Actually, this isn't how McDonalds corporate works.
The way McDonalds works is it picks your location for you, buys it, builds a McDonalds there, and guarantees you your franchise buy-in back in one year. The franchise buy-in is $1M, which you get back in one year, and then you make that each year thereafter.
They *do* sell you trade dress items - fry boxes with the 'M' on them, and they sell you food supplies - but their primary profit actually comes from their real estate holdings, the fact that they are your landlord, and franchise fees.
Once they do sell you a franchise, they dictate your trade dress, which means corporate pays for remodeling the individual franchise stores (after all, McDonalds themselves owns the property), and when they tell you remodel, expect the crews to show up and just do it, you are at best granted minor choices on things like arrangement of the bathrooms, and the manager's office, and so on. Otherwise, they dictate. This is a typically good thing, since they know how many people will go through in a given amount of time, max, because they have a PhD in mathematics who understands queuing theory work it out.
In addition, you can't buy a franchise unless you have been a store manager, and you can't be a store manager unless you've been an assistant manager, and you can't be an assistant manager unless you've been a shift lead, and you can't be a shift lead unless you've been an ordinary employee. In other words, every step in responsibility requires that you be able to do all the jobs at the previous step in responsibility. This is why when they have walkouts, they typically don't close down over them.
So it's not like this will change the need for employees, from the line on up, or they'll have no new franchise owners, unless they totally rework their entire model. Which they won't do, since their primary profit comes from real estate, them being your landlord, and franchise fees.
This really has nothing to do with the Minimum Wage issue; that's just because the author of the opinion section piece that the OP referenced, since they could care less.
They did however throw $200M in venture funding behind the company providing the automation software and equipment a few years back. Time to recoup their investment there.
Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
Assume that the minimum wage is raised to $15/hr and McDonald's decides not to automate. Many of the current minimum wage workers will be replaced with an equal or smaller number of workers who are more productive. The guys holding the picket signs and protesting will most likely not benefit from the raise. They will have to compete with a larger pool of skilled applicants who will work harder and smarter to get the job done. The people laid off or replaced will find that the minimum wage raise they protested so hard for cost them their job and strains their ability to keep up with what unemployment and welfare pays as cost increase to the balance the new wages.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, you're right. Why would a company which employs millions of low-skilled workers want to get rid of them just because the government demands they pay them more and has set interest rates near zero so borrowing for capital investment is nearly interest-free?
Totally makes no sense to anyone but EVIL RIGHT-WINGERS.
Re:Remember when WSJ had a modicrum of decency? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except the minimum wage hasn't actually increased anywhere but Seattle, Washington(and even there it's still being phased in), and more-over, one of the big principles that undercuts this argument is: "once you can automate away a job, is there any wage at which you wouldn't?"
Re: (Score:3)
No, there isn't any wage at which you wouldn't - and it's been happening right under our noses for thirty-forty odd years now. Most people don't notice it because "automation takes away jobs" is virtually always assumed to mean "low e
Re: (Score:3)
Any company not looking at automating away any level of skilled jobs at any point in history is just silly.
Employees cost money over time. Automation upfronts cost and then allows you to undercut competitors.
It's been that way since even before the steam engine.
Re:Remember when WSJ had a modicrum of decency? (Score:5, Informative)
Democrats are going to keep demanding that the government force low-skilled workers out of work... sorry, increase the minimum wage.
Now that it's been studied, it turns out this isn't the case. Raising the minimum wage doesn't force people out of work, and, in some cases, causes local economies to surge. Seattle is the most recent example.
http://seattletimes.com/html/l... [seattletimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I want to interject that none of us who agree with you just said believe that there is no level at which increasing worker wages starts to hurt an economy. Just that unreasonably low wages also hinder both human happiness and economic growth. Finding the ideal is both tricky and not without risk. There's a difference between wishful thinking (getting paid more is always better for everyone) and the argument we're actually trying articulate.
Automation and jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, the likely outcome is drop in the quality of life for everyone involved.
Re:Automation and jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Automation and jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
It would also save tax payer money.
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 and hour would remove $7.6 billion from being spent by social services to subsidize companies who pay workers $7.25 or less.
Re: (Score:3)
The sane thing to do would be to institute a minimum basic income.
What, just give people money for doing nothing? Who do you think they are, bankers?
I like the idea of a basic income. It would be an interesting experiment both economically and socially. I would love to see how it would be received in a country that loves its myth of the self-made man, pulled up by his own bootstraps. People in America work for what they have, so if they have more they must have worked harder or smarter for it. How would that square up with people getting money just for existing? It
Re:Automation and jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they're human beings. I think that money is power, and that political suffrage (the vote) is no longer enough. We must also have universal economic suffrage as well. Every individual needs to have an assurance that their annual income won't fall below the poverty line, because poor people aren't human beings in the USA.
If they don't want to work, but live on ten grand a year while sharing an apartment with a few other people who want to live on basic, that's their problem. Ideally it would help parents, especially single parents. It would help students. It would help artists. It would help open source hackers and other people who do useful work that isn't adequately valued by our system.
And it would give us an excuse to get rid of our existing welfare system. We can tell people who aren't working, "You got your basic income. If you need more money, get a fuckin' job."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Automation and jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Automation and jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Automation and jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
And why, exactly, do you think any of those rich individuals and corporations would remain in America, when you're forcing them to work just so you can steal their money and give it to the people who don't?
I'll overlook your obviously imflammatory language and answer your question in earnest.
I think that these rich individuals and corporations would remain in America for several reasons. Foremost is my belief that rich individuals specifically aren't generally sociopathic, and consequently understand the value of contributing back to the society in which one lives. Additionally, I think the comfort of living in America (partly because it's not so bad here, partly because it's a bit of a pain in the ass to uproot and emigrate) would prevent many from wanting to leave. Furthermore, I think any developed country they could move to would impose an even higher tax burden on them, and I don't think it's realistic to think any significant number will head out to the undeveloped corners of the world.
Now, to maintain some semblance of balance, I'd like to add some of my own obviously inflammatory language. Stop assraping this site with your retarded hypotheses.
Re:Automation and jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws that made American corporations responsible to nobody but their shareholders were made by men, and they can be reformed by men. All it takes is sufficient political will.
Re:Automation and jobs (Score:5, Informative)
Or maybe in this instance it's just a better way to serve food.
They have had these machines in Japan for decades. It's basically a ticket vending machine, you choose what you want and pay for it, then hand the tickets to the staff. They prepare and serve your food, without handling dirty money that has been through FSM knows how many hands and pockets. The line for the machine is usually very short too, because you get the ticket immediately and can sit down while waiting for food.
Re: (Score:3)
IMO automation like this is what will allow industries to pay a 'living wage", so increased the quality of life for some. Services industry will have less employees, but they will be doing the harder more demanding jobs, and they will be payed more. Quality of life will go up for those who keep their jobs at a higher pay rate, and down for those who were only marginally employable before, who now become absolutely unemployable due to their lack of skills, motivation, work-ethic, etc...
You can't have yo
Re: (Score:3)
You overlook two factors:
1. The higher skilled workers will also see their pay fall, as the excess labor pool in general grows. You end up with that most dreaded of situations: Skilled graduates on minimum wage.
2. If there aren't enough jobs to go around, it's not just those lacking motivation that end up unemployed. Employers get to be really picky, and make whatever demands they want. Are you willing to be on call 24/7 in case of a sudden surge in demand? Accept a zero-hours contract? Stay quiet when you
Re: (Score:3)
Don't know why you're ROTFLing. The people that are needed to work the restaurant with the automated systems will need to be a higher caliber of employee than the 10th graders you see learning how to press buttons on a PAR terminal now. And they'll get paid more because they won't get people good enough if they don't pay them a little more.
Re:Automation and jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Some good points about this... (Score:3)
At a drive through, being able to fire up an app, hit "send" and have the actual order I want would be nice. I tend not to hit fast foot places, but it would be nice to get something that is somewhat close to what I ordered at the pickup window.
Some dine-in restaurants are experimenting with this as well. Chili's has their Ziosk devices, and those are nice because paying for a tab is just a couple taps and a card swipe, rather than having to flag down the waitstaff, especially if one is in a hurry.
Of course, this isn't a "one size fits all", but it can be useful.
Right along side flying cars (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3)
And what of upselling? (Score:5, Interesting)
Good staff knows how to upsell. That extra appetizer, dessert, beer, etc. Will it be as effective as static ads on UIs?
But basically any jobs replaced will be the most robot jobs in the first place. Just like long ago the most repetitious jobs on assembly lines were replaced by robots and now how the most repetitious jobs in IT are becoming automated. Book keeping is already automated but I can see a time when tax accounting coupled with rules engines and data mining could remove many corporate tax attorney and accounting jobs. Taxes are just rules after all. You might need a few people coverting the tax code to standard set of rules for an optimization engine but the days of large staff pouring over tax laws may be numbered.
But it is just like the WSJ to blame one insignificant factor. There are other factors at play and their coverage is not fair, balanced, well reasoned, or complete.
Re: (Score:3)
My Views (Score:5, Interesting)
I want every person who is willing to work full-time to be able to earn at least poverty plus a dollar. I don't care about the skill level of the employee. In this way I ama liberal.
I recognize that you cannot put artificial price controls in place and expect the market to just absorb it. In this way I am a conservative.
My best solution is that we have a tax on the wealthiest to subsidize those that don't have skills that don't allow them to hit pverty level. Some subsidy that will bring lower earners up, but not discourage them from trying to make more.
My rationally is that people are much more productive than they were 100, 50 or even 20 years ago. Part of the promise of automation is that everyone would benefit... shorter hours... higher pay. This never materialized. So, I am fine with a level of socialism for those who are willing to work but cannot make ends meet.
-- MyLongNickName
A blank assertion with no backup (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the handwaviest hand wave in the history of Slashdot. The author of the introductory text claims McDonald's didn't make the change in response to increasing minimum wage levels, but what is their evidence for this? Citing, for example, banks and ATMs is hardly convincing, because bank tellers are not minimum wage employees.
Workforce vs. number served (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently, the way it's implemented in european country, McD doesn't use it to reduce workforce (you're still required to walk up to a clerk to retrieve your order).
McD uses it to accelerate it service and increase the "number served": by the time you finish typing your order and have confirmed, the order is already broadcast to employee's screen. By the time you finish paying and walk to the queue, your order is already ready.
This cuts drastically the waiting time, and european McD's use to cram more customer served per minutes.
In the long run such stategies won't neceessarily reduce the workforce that much, but on the other hand, they will be used to propel "fast food" to a whole new definition of "fast".
On the other hand, that will probably be quite alienating for the workforce: no more breaks between customers, no more small talk while ordering. Work experience is going to be Charlie Chaplin's "modern times"-style: read the screen, pack the bag, hand over the bag, as fast as possible and repeat so the next customer doesn't need to wait.
Chili's is trying this = fail (Score:3)
There have been tablet-based kiosks at the local Chili's (my wife...don't ask) for about a year now that allow you to order and pay your bill. Like anything else in a restaurant that caters to young families, the kiosks are disgusting, and our first act upon sitting down is to usually been pick up the kiosk and shove it under the table, behind a plant, up on a windowsill, etc.
If we sit down at a restaurant, we're there to tell someone else what we want, and let them push the right buttons, coordinate the food and the drinks, etc. Otherwise, we're basically dining at vending machines.
Nothing really new (Score:5, Interesting)
Plenty of cheaper restaurants here in Japan - chain izakayas especially - have used terminals for ordering for years already. And while they certainly do it in part to reduce staff, the fact is that many customers like it. You don't have to flag down a waiter to place an order, and you can always see exactly what you've ordered, what dishes you've yet to receive and your current tab.
Also, the basic truth is that if your job can be automated, no wage level will compete with it in the long run. If you accept wage cuts to avoid being replaced by automation, you've only bought yourself a few years, and at a lower salary than you're worth at that.
Cashiers (Score:5, Informative)
In contrast, McDonald's hasn't changed its basic system of taking orders since its founding in the 1950s
When I was a kid in the 1970s, I remember the order-takers at McDonalds would take the order down on a paper pad, then in seconds add it all up with a pencil and present you with the total.
Wonder if the cashiers would even be able to do that today...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It was always unfathomable to me how more than a century after the invention of the cash register, a multi-billion dollar company could predicate all of their income on high school students' scribbling
Well, if this was true, I'm sure the beancounters determined that at the end of the day the arithmetic errors were in effect rounding errors. McDonald's certainly didn't go bankrupt in the '70s.
Improve capacity (Score:3)
There are times when I use a drive-thru. What I absolutely hate is the delay from the time I order until the time my food is ready to deliver to me. The reason: it takes time to cook. I understand that. So the ability to order "over my phone" means that there is an overlap between travel time and food prep time. So, I get to the drive-up line, confirm my order, pay, and then get the food, all in seconds. Instead of waiting in the car line, engine idling all that time. (No, I don't have an electric car...yet.)
This order-by-phone process has become standing operating procedure for me when I'm getting a pizza, because the 20-minute cook time matches my overall travel time to the pizza place. No time wasted. (No, my usual haunt doesn't have drive-up -- I'm expecting that trend to start sometime, too. If you can have drive-up funeral viewing...)
How about this? You enter the drive-up and place your order, only to discover the two people in front of you have large orders...and all you want is coffee, soft drink, or other beverage. You sit and wait...and wait...and wait. Car idling, of course
It used to be that the fast-food restaurants would prepare food in advance, and possibly have to throw out some of that "spec" food. During rush times, they can prepare some things in advance; during slower times, they don't. I think the "new" way is better in some respects, but it plays hob with wait time.
Automated restaurant (Score:5, Interesting)
I have said for many years that, with an appropriate restaurant-savvy partner, I'd like to open an automated restaurant. In-table PC's to order things, with card-readers.
I don't want to wait for the waiter to come over until I can order a drink. I might have driven a long way and be gasping of thirst before I care about a menu. Press, press, done before I've even taken my coat off.
I want to see the whole menu. The ingredients. A picture. The price. The associated special offers. Does it have pepper on it? A fully interactive menu would be great, and not be covered in the gravy-stains of the last patron, or have bits scribbled out on it. Plus, when something is no longer available, bam, you can't order it. I could even press the "I have an allergy button" and see if anything is incompatible with that without relying on the waiter to run back and forth to the kitchen.
I might want to tip one member of staff, but not know their name (or they happen to have finished their shift by then). Press "tip", select staff member photo (or select "All staff"), type in a reason, swipe card, done. And no arguments over who I intended it for.
I might well want to pay for my own stuff and not have to wait for the end of the meal and argue with friends. Or order a slice of cake to take home as a last minute thought after I've paid. Or split the bill via various common calculations. Or even tag five items as what John has to pay and let him pay that off the bill because he has to leave early. Press, press, swipe. Done.
I might wall desire a human to talk to, if something cocks up. Big green help button lights up the table, which summons a waiter, much like airplane call buttons. The waiter still has to be around to shuttle things from the kitchen, and this way seems easier - and politer - than having to flag him down as he passes with a table full of plates. Press, done.
I might well decide to change the order mid-flow. So long as the kitchen hasn't started on it yet, why not? Until the order's locked in, I can alter it. And I can even "lock" certain portions if one person at the table wants the starter now while the others only want mains and want to argue over it. Press, press, done.
I might want to pay first, or pay once I've eaten everything. I can choose.
I might want to buy some wifi access, or get a code for the toilet (I disagree with limiting toilets to paying customers only, except on an honesty agreement, but some places do just that and your receipt contains your code for the toilet), or donate to the charity associated with the restaurant, or buy the chef's recipe book. Press, press, swipe, done.
I might want to move tables mid-order, or take my drinks outside. Press, press, done and the waiters and kitchen automatically know where I am.
The back-end? The waiters still wait. The bar tabs are still on the EPOS. The kitchen still gets a ticket about what table wants what. And those that want manual service press one button.
We've already automated every part of the experience but the customer's.
Already everywhere in France (Score:5, Informative)
I live in France and these things are in every McDonalds already. I did not realize that they were not common elsewhere.
Ordering at a self-service kiosk is convenient because few people uses them, so usually there's no queue. This may be related to the fact that they only take cards. Ordering from the kiosk also prevent misunderstandings.
I've also used their mobile app and their website to order (for pick-up, they don't do delivery) but the benefits are minimal compared to ordering from the kiosk. Paying with a card on a mobile phone is annoying, especially when 3D-Secure kicks in and I have to copy the confirmation number from the SMS to the app. I'm sure that for McDonalds the main benefit of the mobile and online offerings is that they lock in the customer and prevents her/him from changing their mind on the way to the restaurant (but not really as you pay only if you collect the meal).
Re: (Score:3)
We have been behind on self-service technology because our labor costs are lower; that's why we still have baggers, busboys cashiers, hotel check-in clerks, parking gate operators, etc. where in Europe, they have none. In many cases, in Europe, jobs are only partially automated, forcing
Minimum wage vs economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Peter Schiff wrote a very eloquent piece explaining why minimim wage hurts the economy, job growth, and especially the young, unskilled and minorities. Here is part of it:
Low-skilled workers must compete for employers’ dollars with both skilled workers and capital. For example, if a skilled worker can do a job for $14 per hour that two unskilled workers can do for $6.50 per hour each, then it makes economic sense for the employer to go with the unskilled labor. Increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour and the unskilled workers are priced out of their jobs. This dynamic is precisely why labor unions are such big supporters of minimum wage laws. Even though none of their members earn the minimum wage, the law helps protect their members from having to compete with lower-skilled workers.
Employers also have the choice of whether to employ people or machines. For example, an employer can hire a receptionist or invest in an automated answering system. The next time you are screaming obscenities into the phone as you try to have a conversation with a computer, you know what to blame for your frustration.
There are numerous other examples of employers substituting capital for labor simply because the minimum wage has made low-skilled workers uncompetitive. For example, handcarts have replaced skycaps at airports. The main reason fast-food restaurants use paper plates and plastic utensils is to avoid having to hire dishwashers.
As a result, many low-skilled jobs that used to be the first rung on the employment ladder have been priced out of the market. Can you remember the last time an usher showed you to your seat in a dark movie theater? When was the last time someone other than the cashier not only bagged your groceries, but also loaded them into your car? By the way, it won’t be long before the cashiers themselves are priced out of the market, replaced by automated scanners, leaving you to bag your purchases with no help whatsoever.
The disappearance of these jobs has broader economic and societal consequences. First jobs are a means to improve skills so that low skilled workers can offer greater productivity to current or future employers. As their skills grow, so does their ability to earn higher wages. However, remove the bottom rung from the employment ladder and many never have a chance to climb it.
So the next time you are pumping your own gas in the rain, do not just think about the teenager who could have been pumping it for you, think about the auto mechanic he could have become – had the minimum wage not denied him a job. Many auto mechanics used to learn their trade while working as pump jockeys. Between fill-ups, checking tire pressure, and washing windows, they would spend a lot of time helping – and learning from – the mechanics.
You can read the entire thing here:
http://www.europac.net/comment... [europac.net]
Sounds like a discussion from yesterday (Score:4, Interesting)
There was a spirited discussion yesterday about what's happened to the economy since domestic manufacturing got wiped out. Now that the only things we make in the US at any scale are aircraft, military equipment and cars, all the people who used to have nice stable manufacturing jobs were moved to corporate and service jobs. Then routine corporate work was automated, offshored and outsourced. No problem, you say, they can always work service jobs. Well, now service jobs are being automated.
No one is addressing this problem -- there are millions of people smack in the mean of the IQ scale with no hope of becoming decent knowledge workers. The political climate paints everyone who can't find work as a lazy "welfare queen." How does the calculus change when you have a huge portion, and eventually a majority, of people with no way to support themselves and no hope of getting one of the "new economy" jobs? People like to say that people will just adapt, or the market will take care of it, but I think this is one case where the market would really fail. People in the techie set like to learn new things, and assume everyone else does. People in the factory worker or service set go to their job, do exactly what is required of them, and go home. I realize I sound mean, but it's the truth. There is no feasible way to retrain a factory worker who has been doing the same job the same way for 20 years and put him in a job that will produce the same income.
Automation is great, and it's cool what we can do now...I just think it will eventually trigger a lot of very bad unintended consequences.
Yea....right (Score:4, Interesting)
Yea, right. Just another place where we will be standing for 10 minutes behind some clueless ID10T trying to figure out how to use the kiosk, just like at the Walmarts with the self service checkouts.
If you know how to use the kiosks, they are fast and easy. But you always get someone who is clueless and cannot comprehend simple instructions on the screen holding you up in line.
It might be noted .. (Score:3)
It might be noted that this move to automation occured _without_ an increase in the minimum wage.
i.e. they are doing it because it can contribute to their bottom line and "enhance" customer satisfaction.
-- time to order in this kind of business is a large part of the expense, hence why they flocked to credit card systems to lose ~3% of their revenue, because it essentially eliminates cash handling time and balancing the books at the end of the shift (for that portion of sales).
(just out of high school, I worked at a Burger King in the drive through (1992). You had to make change in my head,. I could do it without error. Most others could not)).
This is why amnesty for illegals is foolish (Score:3)
What is really needed is for an amnesty path for a small group of the illegals (basically, those that were raised here). The rest need to go back to their homes.
Re:Not gonna make it (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually do really like it, for exactly that use case. Considering that the process of settling the bill at a restaurant consists of:
1. Get the server to pay attention to you, and ask for the check
2. Have them deliver the check, and (as if by policy) say "take as much time as you like" and vanish
3. Have them notice that you've put down a card, and take it
4. Have them return with the receipt, you sign, and leave.
Usually steps 3-4 are near instance. However, steps 1-3 can take way too long sometimes.
(I wish doing 2 and 3 within the same minute was possible, but that's rare.)
Re: (Score:3)
I attribute it to poor/lack of training for employees working the register and taking the orders.
You're wrong. I've worked in the food service industry as well as the fast food industry. In fast food, the problem is not poor/lcak of training for employees. It's quite simply that they don't give a fuck.
And really, why should they? They're getting paid chump change to feed people the shittiest food around. If they make a mistake and get you a hamburger instead of a cheeseburger, nobody dies. Quite simply, the quality of the service they provide is nearly inconsequential, and their wages reflect this f