Slashdot Mirror
Wendy's Plans To Automate 6,000 Restaurants With Self-Service Ordering Kiosks (investors.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In response to the rising minimum wage, the fast-food chain Wendy's plans to start automating all of its restaurants. The company said it will have self-service ordering kiosks available to its 6,000-plus restaurants in the second half of the year. Wendy's President Todd Penegor said it will be up to franchisees to decide whether or not to adopt the kiosks in their stores, noting that many franchise locations have had to raise prices to offset wage increases. California's decision to gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2022 will impact Wendy's 258 restaurants, all of which are franchise-operated. About 75% of 200-plus Wendy's restaurants are run by franchisees in New York, a state that is also on its way to $15. Penegor said, wage pressures have been manageable both because of falling commodity prices and better operating leverage due to an increase in customer counts. The company is still "working so hard to find efficiencies" so it can deliver "a new QSR experience but at traditional QSR prices." The CEO of Carl's Jr., Andy Puzder, is also looking into replacing many of its workers with machines to save money.
A revolution is brewing.
This was tried 200 years ago, it did not stop the rise of the machines, the mill owners became very wealthy. However: I do agree that increasing automation will cause large social problems, I don't know how to deal with them, but we need to go into this with our eyes open not shut.
Once food making machines become a mature technology, they'll be much *better* than human employees. A machine doesn't have enough imagination to get tired, distracted or forget things. If it's programmed to cook something for 178 seconds, that's exactly how long it gets cooked for, every single time.
Putting millions of people out of work is either horrible or great, depending on whether or not we've done basic income yet.
Restaurant operating cost typically are 1/3 Labor, 1/3 Food Cost. You can lower one by increasing the other. You can lower your food cost by purchasing more raw ingredients but you need the staff to prepare it. You can lower your labor cost by buying prepared and just heating it.
The remaining 1/3 goes to Sales and Marketing, Admin, Heat Light and Power, and other overhead. Hopefully after that it's profit.
He should ask himself the question that if everyone replaces their employees who will have the funds to eat his food?
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
The chain got his money this time. He might not go back again.
At the bottom of the
They do once in awhile. Usually it involves pitchforks and torches though.
Total CEO compensation was $21 Million out of sales of $2.4 Billion.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
This whole thing is just a bullshit bluff they're using to fight raising minimum wage. They know they can't automate most of what they do. If there was any way most of this stuff could be automated, they would have done it a long time ago. I worked in fast food when I was a kid, and can assure you that 99% of the jobs I did couldn't have been practically automated (not without a ton of health code violations, thefts, customer complaints, etc.). At most this thing will take orders. But even then, you'll still need humans there for customers with special orders, complaints, etc.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Total CEO compensation was $21 Million out of sales of $2.4 Billion.
The problem perhaps, is not so much the idea that basic percentages of total sales is the bottom line, but what value is added by that 21 million dollar expense.
As well, would it look like such a small percentage if the 21 million dollars is compared against total profit instead of total sales? We all know the answer to that.
There is an inherent problem when Billionaires and multi-millionaires tell people making 20K a year that they are making too much money.
I dunno if my outlook is so screwed up or what, but it seems to me that trying to put as many Americans as possible out of work - or at least have them work for as little as possible, just isn't sound business strategy, especially for substandard eateries like Wendy's, who don't exactly cater to the wealthy.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Business liability itself is an intrusion of the government (I'm not saying its BAD - but that it is). In an unregulated capitalistic society if your product malfunctioned and killed someone then other people would just know to probably stay away from your products. Bad press would be its own punishment.
Liability is an artificial legal concept, and as such government limitations on it aren't any more hypocritical than the liability itself.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
If I received $2000 a month free:
rent: $950 / month for a modest 2 bedroom apartment in a 100+ year old triplex made of wood. Not exactly the best apartment around.
electricity: $40 / month during the summer. In the winter, this can skyrocket. Last year, while my region of hte planet was the coldest place on earth outside of the poles, my total winter electricity bill was slightly over $1000
internet: $74 / month
mobile phone: $80 / month
monthly bus pass: $82 / month
groceries: $400 / month
$1,626 / month. That leaves me with a scant $374 of disposable income, per month. Except that one month where I bought a pair of jeans and brought me down to $274 for the month. Then there was that time I went camping (which is fun, but at this rate, it's the only kind of 'traveling' I can afford) and I had a flat tire and it ate up $250 leaving me with almost nothing left.
But hey, if my disposable income suddenly shot up by $1626/month as I'm working, then I gee, what will I do with my new found wealth? I know... SPEND IT. I can goto the farmers market and support local farmers who produce expensive tomatoes that actually taste like something. I can goto that local thingamajig store that is more expensive than thinkgeek but gives me instant gratification instead of waiting for shipping. I can go eat at more expensive restaurants, drink higher quality beer, go traveling more often, and for longer periods of time, buy furniture that's better than Ikea, and so on.
Capitalism depends on consumerism. Increasing my ability to spend will help the economy, not hinder it.
Capitalism depends on consumerism. So it seems counter productive to not enable consumerism where possible.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Good question. First, good management would have three workers who don't have any customers to serve clean up the establishment and organize the kitchen. Second, good management would be able to determine that, on a Sunday afternoon in May at 3pm, you maybe don't need four workers behind the counter. Third, good management would quickly apologize to a customer who was kept waiting by flirtatious, irresponsible workers. And fourth, a good manager would make sure the customer experience is of a high enough quality to ensure the customer will want to come back.
When you're talking about return-on-investment, I think a good manager is worth paying for. Though, in a fast food establishment, a good manager can replace at least one general worker. A great manager can replace at least two.
You know? As clever as people can be, we're still amazingly bad at "thinking outside the box" at times.
There's this entire universe out there, yet we're all assuming we have no way to ever go anyplace but this one planet we're on.
Its not an assumption. This is exactly what physics tells us.
16% isn't that much for fast food, really. A $2 sandwich goes up by about $.30, that really isn't that much. People don't flinch at that kind of price fluctuation on gasoline any more, why would they change their habits on food over it?
I already have. I used to get the Asiago Ranch Chicken sandwich from Wendy's every week. They raised it by almost a buck, earlier this year, and now I go to Chick-fil-a instead (despite the lines).
I'm not at all a fan of Mr. Moneybags replacing all his workers with computers & robots, keeping all the profits, and putting them in offshore accounts until he can repatriate the money at a meager 7.5% tax. I'm also not a fan of Mr. Moneybags not paying American workers anymore who are unemployed and unable to buy pretzels at Mr. Moneybags's pretzel shop, drying up the American economy.
I am. I think he's doing exactly the right thing. His machines will do a much better job than humans and will do it more efficiently. And if more and more places like that results in the economy completely collapsing and turning into a civil war that makes Syria look like small potatoes, then that's what we deserve for doing such a poor job in electing our government. We need more automation, and to keep our economy strong we need a universal basic income and universal healthcare so that everyone shares in the fruits of the labor of automation. But if we're not going to demand that because we're too stupid, then we deserve destruction due to civil war.
And the idiots trying to change the nature of minimum wage from a "minimum" to one that can support a family deserve this slap upside the head. If you are on minimum wage you should not be breeding. Wait until you have the financial stability to be able to devote time and resources to raising a child..
End of story.
You know, I used to feel as you do -- only idiots and people trying live behind their means end up in a screwed up situation trying to get by on minimum wage.
Then, the first summer during college, I worked on a high-speed assembly line of sorts. Made better than minimum wage, but not a lot better. Anyhow, most of the folks there were college students or young people who didn't yet have experience to get anything better, along with a few middle-aged women who were bored sitting at home, so they could come to work and do a non-stressful job while chatting with their friends.
And then there was Mike. I came to find out that Mike had a bachelor's degree, was reasonably intelligent, and was in his mid-40's. One time during a break he told me what he was doing there.
After college, he had a some white-collar office job (I forget). Anyhow, he did quite well, but then some crap happened at the company, and he was laid off. By that point he was married, had 2 kids, had a mortgage, etc. He tried desperately to find a job, but the economy wasn't doing great at that point, and after about 6 months, it was time to "suck it up" and just take what he could get.
For about 10 years he worked at the company I was doing the summer at, mostly as a handler who delivered stuff to the assembly line (which was paid more). He didn't make good money, but the place had good benefits which he needed for his family. And the company used to have a tendency to promote from inside, so he had been hopeful to get a promotion to a foreman or manager of that section... but the company stopped promoting from inside around that time, and started hiring people with business degrees instead.
Just about that time, Mike turned 40-ish, and he started having back problems. So eventually he couldn't do that job anymore, and he ended up working on the line... the most boring, stupid job in the world, with crappy pay. But he had benefits, and he had time in the company -- no longer a path toward management, but leaving there meant finding a better option. But he had been out of his field for so long that nobody would likely hire him (and he was too "old" to start as entry level again).
He was stuck. Not in a minimum wage job, but a pretty low paying job for the skills and intelligence he clearly had. But his family had been through some rough times, and this was a secure job for him (despite the boredom and low pay).
There are a lot more people out there like Mike. Stuff like this happens more than you think, once you get out in the "real world" and start finding out the stories of "poor people." There are all sorts of reasons that people on minimum wage end up having to try to support others or end up in difficult financial positions -- maybe someone has health problems and medical bills, maybe a parent had problems and needed to retire early, etc.
And what about people who go through a divorce, not of their own choice? The spouse abandons them and the kids, and what are they supposed to do? They thought they had a stable family and income, but not all things last. (And child support, etc. doesn't always solve those problems.)
There are lots of stories for why minimum wage people might have to support others. Some of these could be solved by having better social services to deal with some issues and a better "safety net" for these people, if you wanted to go that route. But if you actually talk to many of these people, you might be surprised how many are NOT just ignorant "breeders" who are popping out kids without considering the consequences.