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.

94 of 921 comments (clear)

  1. How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That would get the biggest savings of them all.

    1. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by skam240 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just make it a chatbot that responds to key terms "bacon" or "cheese" with "yes, more please" and you've got a winner!

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by bobstreo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just make it a chatbot that responds to key terms "bacon" or "cheese" with "yes, more please" and you've got a winner!

      I think you meant "Leverage Synergies" "Core Competencies" "Stockholder Value" "You should be happy to just have a job here"

    3. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The hot air feels nice but smells like a rotting corpse.

      The hot air [from CEOs] feels nice but smells like a rotting corpse.

      FTFMyself

    4. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by avatar+avatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, people do have the right to tell others what to think. At least, as much right as you have to tell them to "FUCK OFF AND DIE!!!111" Funny you managed to miss that, during an election of all times.

    5. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Time_Ngler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about everyone who wants basic income all get together and make it happen? There is nothing stopping you all from pooling your money together, and letting the ones that don't want to work live off the humongous surplus of cash your system is bound to create. I mean if basic income is feasible, that is.

    6. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have no right to tell others what they should think is right.

      Sure you do. You can tell others anything you want to tell them. What you don't have the right to do is force them to comply.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Imrik · · Score: 2

      Would help the corporation's bottom line but wouldn't do anything for the franchises, unless you think they'd actually pass the savings on by reducing franchise fees.

    8. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by whitebread_mike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They do once in awhile. Usually it involves pitchforks and torches though.

    9. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by trout007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Total CEO compensation was $21 Million out of sales of $2.4 Billion.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    10. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      > How about you eat a sandwich?

      I will, after I order it from a kiosk.

    11. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you don't have the right to do is force them to comply.

      But it is perfectly acceptable to elect officials to carry out that task for us, to force others to comply. Right?

      Well, that is WHY Wendy's does have to comply with the health code, yes.

      It'd be easier for them if they didn't, but they do.

    12. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hopefully you were being sarcastic, because that's the point. If a bunch of people want to live together voluntarily and pool their resources (like the early Christians or the Hutterites) only a fool could protest their free exercise of liberty. But socialism as a political system requires high levels of taking at the barrel of a gun.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    13. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    14. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by OakDragon · · Score: 2

      Even if it does work, it's no fun unless you force people into it.

    15. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you don't have the right to do is force them to comply.

      But it is perfectly acceptable to elect officials to carry out that task for us, to force others to comply. Right?

      Well, that was one way to force people stop being assholes enforcing Jim Crow laws for instance. That's another way to force others to stop marrying minors (just another example.) This shit can go both ways, for good and for bad. How good or how bad it goes is a function of education, political participation, and how much the average person in a society indulges in being an asshole.

    16. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
    17. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      You do realize that those companies are themselves likely paying FAR more taxes than you towards paying for those police forces and the justice system?

      If you don't like what they're doing - just don't shop there, and DO shop at a company that aligns more precisely with your ideals. If enough like minded people follow suit they will cease to be operate and the other company you supported will thrive.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    18. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But socialism as a political system requires high levels of taking at the barrel of a gun.

      As the taxation systems of all government types are enforced by their armed police forces, your statement is completely content-free. Do you have a point to make?

    19. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every political system requires taking at the barrel of a gun.

      At the end of the day, that's the ultimate authority behind any political system - if you don't follow the rules someone has the means to force you. Every capitalist transaction is finally backed up with a gun. Don't pay, we'll sue you / arrest you. Refuse to be arrested we'll shoot you.

    20. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by mlts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would throw the concept of Mazlow's Pyramid into this. If basic food and security are not present, you will not get much from people in the way of advances. By a guarenteed basic income, which would let people focus on other things than trying to eke enough for food, it would allow people to spend time doing research, making stuff, designing cooler items, and advancing the arts and sciences in general. The Renaissance is an object lesson to this, when people had time to do something other than toil in the fields.

      It sounds "cool" to tell people to just go eat cake, but that philosophy has its blowback. Look at how the US has stagnated, while countries that guarantee some means of knowing where one's next meal is coming from are advancing. A population that is barely existing is not a population that is inventing and advancing science.

    21. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by i_ate_god · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...
    22. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 employees for a Wendy's location make up probably less than 1% of the local population. Probably less than 10% of the general population frequent that restaurant regularly, but employees get half-price meals all the time so they are even less likely than the average person to pay full price for a meal from Wendy's. The impact to revenue is therefore almost non-existent, so any payroll impact is likely to have a much larger effect on net profits.

      Granted, once most everybody fires low-wage employees, this will become the problem you describe. But employee wages drive pricing, and if your burgers cost a dollar or two more than the equivalent burgers next door, you lose customers... just as if your burgers cost less, you gain customers. The good guy loses.

      It is a problem, it is an inevitable problem, but doing the "right thing" isn't really a viable solution. The good guy will go out of business. The solution has to come elsewhere.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    23. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have the general premise wrong.

      He's not telling them they are making too much money. He's telling them that due to outside regulation, keeping them around is more expensive than automating the job. You even nailed the 'why' when you said that Wendy's doesn't exactly cater to the wealthy - they need to keep the average selling price down, so they can continue to exist.

      What we are seeing is the inevitable consequence of increases in levels of technology, and outside regulation forcing wages up on jobs that have traditionally not been viewed as a career position, but rather a stepping stone for someone starting out in the labor market. The company is going to do what is necessary to keep sales up and expenses down, and some governmental entity just made automation cheaper than people. The consequence of that shift is that those people are free to look for higher paying opportunities elsewhere.

      The upside: we've had self check-out in supermarkets for some time now, and there's still plenty of standard check lanes open any time I go to the store, because that shitty scan robot isn't fast enough for anything but a few items, and doesn't give a level of customer service that you can get from another person. The market will decide which model it likes better - a computer that you place your own order on and then use SamdroidplePay, or talking to a person who can be friendly and courteous at the going regulated market wage, and not enraging if you have the gall to pay with cash, because we still haven't figured out a machine that accepts cash properly.

      TL;DR: All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again. Are you similarly pissed off that your car wasn't hand-welded together by some guy named Burt that is still staggering around from pounding cans of Pabst the night before?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    24. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      First off, many executives salaries, combined with perks such as stock options, is a huge % of most companies labor costs. In a company like wendys, executive compensation is anywhere from 5-15%. Sadly, few general stock holders realize it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    25. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that those companies are themselves likely paying FAR more taxes than you towards paying for those police forces and the justice system?

      If that's true they need to get better accountants.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    26. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But socialism as a political system requires high levels of taking at the barrel of a gun.

      You're a drama queen. I was in Finland last summer, and I didn't see any "high levels of taking at the barrel of a gun".

      When mentioning "socialism", why do people like you immediately jump to North Korea or Mao's Great Leap Forward without acknowledging that there are socialist countries that have better outcomes, more economic and social mobility, greater liberty and more stable economies than anything that capitalism has ever produced?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by PraiseBob · · Score: 2

      If 100 people decided to pool their resources and share a basic income, it means that 95 of them would see additional income, 3-4 would be flat, and 1 of them would be have less wealth. Now, that lower wealth may still lead to higher quality of life from everyone else around them being better off (lower crime, more happiness). The problem is convincing that 1 person to trade their very tangible wealth for what is effectively a set of unknowns.

    28. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Capitalist transactions only work because of the threat of violence. Otherwise, what's to stop me from just promising to give you money (or some other item in trade) for your item, and then taking the item and refusing to hand over the money? Social systems like this only work because there's a governmental system that ends up resulting in violent force if you don't play by the rules. Otherwise you'd have anarchy.

      It's weird how libertarians are so dense that they can't understand this. They're a lot like the ultra-naÃve loony-left people who think that everyone is just going to behave and play nice because it's human nature, if only you just reason with them and plead with them. It's not.

    29. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      How to you figure? The local franchise owner opts to get a few of these, replacing a good part of the staff, and has fewer employees to pay - especially important in high minimum wage states. They can keep costs down, keep prices down to stay competitive. Sure, the corporate side benefits, ultimately, too, but it seems good (in a business sense) for both sides of the equation.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    30. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      Because it's so much more fun to throw everybody's respective True Scotsmen into the arena and watch the mayhem.

    31. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do people try to claim that countries like Finland are not capitalist? Nokia is not a "socialist" company,

      Your question should be, "Why do people say that capitalism/socialism is a binary, one-or-the-other choice?"

      This happens every time socialism is mentioned around here. People try to argue that you can either have socialism or capitalism, but not both, when there are very successful countries that have found a way for the two to co-exist and work together.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by alexgieg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basic income is a concept created by people that want to stifle capitalism and devalue education and personal initiative to better one's self.

      Er... not really. Some of its advocates are famous libertarians, such as Friedrich Hayek. And if there is one thing one can never say about libertarians is that they want to stifle capitalism.

      The thing is, the worst for capitalism, far worse than taxes, is all the interference by big government itself, and basic income works against this. It allows us to downsize and dismantle entire governmental sectors by simply giving the money that would have gone into them directly to the people, who in turn would use it by purchasing from capitalist companies. Additionally, as more and more of those governmental bodies were dismantled, we could start transferring to the people part of the taxes that went into them, thus also lowering taxes overall. In the end, you get a small government, more freedom, and a functioning society that, while still relying on money from taxes, does it in a most definitely "non-welfarian-statist" manner. Also, less crime, because those who want to use cocaine, crack, heroin or whatever will have the money to engage in that and will be able to do so at home in a manner that would be safe for most everyone.

      There's no practical downside to this proposal. It diminishes government, it lowers taxes, it lowers crime, it incentives business, it provides welfare without being actual big government-style welfare, and it requires just a small chunk of all the surplus generated by an exponentially-growing economy. In fact, wealth for those who work will continue expanding exponentially, just a little less exponentially than it might otherwise. It's cheap, and it's effective.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    33. Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Dorianny · · Score: 2

      What we are seeing is the inevitable consequence of increases in levels of technology, and outside regulation forcing wages up on jobs that have traditionally not been viewed as a career position, but rather a stepping stone for someone starting out in the labor market.

      %30 of the entire Labor Market is low-wage service jobs. Considering the large % of the job market, the belief that service-jobs are just stepping-stones to careers elsewhere is unrealistic. At the end of the day having companies at a race to the bottom on their quarterly report payroll line ends up hurting the economy and eventually them as lower salaries eventually end up eroding consumer spending power. This is why you need Government regulation to make sure that the economy is solidly grounded in fundamentals and companies are not competing in ways that undermine those fundamentals

    34. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Buys $100 blue jeans.
      Solicits sympathy for being short of money.

      Pick one.

    35. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by youngatheart · · Score: 2

      I'll bite.

      Capitalist systems, like others, function or fail based in part on scale. Most people are decent and don't need a threat of force to behave properly. Most small groups with a capitalist system work fine.

      For those that have malicious citizens, making it legal to shoot someone stealing from you goes a long way toward stopping crime.

      Of course, there will always be smart criminals who get away with stealing and it's easier in an unregulated environment. And, of course, people with guns and an excuse will use both more in an environment where that's acceptable.

      Everything has trade offs. You want a large nation capable of self defense in a world with nukes and bombers and intercontinental missiles? Well, that means you can't have a nation small enough for pure capitalism or pure socialism to work. Tyranny might be another option, but it's tricky to get a good tyrant and even if you do, killing tyrants is a long standing tradition of humanity. With even the best of tyrants, you're just trading quality of leadership for span of leadership.

      "They're a lot like the ultra-naive loony-left people who think that everyone is just going to behave and play nice because it's human nature, if only you just reason with them and plead with them. It's not."

      I'm a Libertarian and I don't think human nature is all that good all the time. Maybe I'm not a true Scotsman...er, Libertarian. (I only assume I am based on my voting record. Well that and multiple attempts to see what ideology most closely matches my beliefs.)

      Maybe you meant Communists? I haven't had much luck finding one well versed on philosophy who was willing to explain their beliefs to me. However, they're the ones who believe that everyone will work together in the shared best interest without market or government intervention. Oddly, they still seem to think governments are important and that the solution to problems is more governmental power, but hey, I haven't gotten that explained to me yet, so maybe I'm just missing the obvious logical explanation.

      I think it's best in most cases to let people look out for their own interests instead of making everything the job of government. However, I do still firmly believe government has an important role in civilized society.

    36. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by Bartles · · Score: 2

      That's true, but in the end it's all about consent. That's what differentiates liberty from tyranny.

    37. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Capitalism has lifted more than a billion people into the middle class in the last 20 years.

      And is now grinding their children and grandchildren into dust.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    38. Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      You obviously haven't been keeping up what is happening on the Libertarian front, like how the fiscal conservatives got ran out their party by the bible thumping neocons and the liberals are being run out of their party by the islam loving white hating SJWs so too is the Libertarians being taken over by the whack-a-doodles.

      If you want to see what is going on in the Libertarian front? Go to YouTube and look up Stephen Molynut and his buddies, they get millions of views pushing this very fucked up weird mix of Libertarianism and...well cult like behavior on the level of Scientology, complete with the divorcing of families that don't follow their batshit ways.

      As for TFA? Its Wendy's, nothing of value will be lost. Maybe they can invent some robots to eat the crap they serve and it'll come full circle.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Half arsed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    From what I have understood they are only removing the person that will mishear what I say and pushes the wrong button in the register and instead lets me do the pushing. That almost as much automation as the pizzeria that allows me to select topping online and have it delivered to door.
    The thing with junk-food burgers is that every burger and every bread already have industrial-grade quality.
    Making the entire "cooking" process automated shouldn't be harder than any other automated manufacturing process.
    They could build fully automated kiosks where I enter what I want and out comes a packaged burger in the same way I go to an ATM and enter how much money I want.

    1. Re:Half arsed by Zuriel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re: Half arsed by pellik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are assuming that there are other jobs for these people to find. Automation will out-pace job growth at some point. What do we do when there are only 80% as many jobs as people? When there are only 10% as many jobs as people? There is only so much trash to pick up.

    3. Re: Half arsed by Entrope · · Score: 5, Funny

      Machines will not forget things in your order, flirt with the machine next to them, or spit in your food. It will make your order absolutely the way it is told to, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are fed. At least, that's what Sarah Connor told me.

    4. Re: Half arsed by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      That also assumes that the people in question have the training and ability to DO these new jobs. Increasingly, tech skills require an extensive background of knowledge, and, frankly, not everyone is capable of that. And, at least in .us, the schools are not delivering the kind of workers we will need.

      Given global trends, I do not see "basic income" as a solution likely to be implemented. And the likely long term solutions are not pleasant. The "Welfare Islands" of Niven and Pournelle's "CoDominium" universe are probably near one end of the range of likely solutions. And the other end. . . .Soylent Green. Yummy, yummy Soylent Green. . .

    5. Re: Half arsed by TheCycoONE · · Score: 2

      by robots

    6. Re:Half arsed by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      You mean that the Computer is your Friend. Trust the Computer. . .

      . . .now, why am I smelling smoking boots ??

    7. Re: Half arsed by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Civil unrest and war. When you have robotics and AI that render people functionally obsolete on a planet with 7.4 BILLION people, there's only this logical conclusion. It's what will happen when one group of people don't want to support an endless growth of people that consume vs produce to their benefit. This is not my position of course; I'm a Christian. I'm just simply telling you what will occur based on human nature. Question is, once super AI sees our destructive nature on full display (World War 3), I can only conclude that the future of our species will be planned for permanent exit from the evolutionary tree of life. God help us all.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re: Half arsed by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      (damn no-editing Slashdot...)

      Machine: Here is your order! Share and enjoy!

      I really, really hope at least one company is going to add that "Share and enjoy!" bit to its automated registers/whatever. Bonus points if it's the company that manufactures the registers and sells them to lots of fast food joints and adds that bit by default after whatever the chain wants the machine to say.

    9. Re:Half arsed by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      So let me get this straight:

      1. Pass some laws raising labor costs to the point of companies automating low-skill positions and put a bunch of people out of work
      2. Unemployment rises due to #1
      3. Create a bunch of make-work government jobs in order to deal with #2
      4. Pass some more laws raising taxes to pay for #3, because reality.
      5. Cost of living goes up because businesses pass on the additional expenses of #1 and #4 to their customers.
      6. The new wage created by #1 is no longer a 'living wage' for the least skilled jobs in the economy, and your eyes wander back to step 1.

      Of course this is incredibly simplified, but the answer is absolutely not more make-work government jobs. I'd rather that the government gives some form of tuition assistance in order for people displaced by the inevitable falling cost of automation versus the rise in mandated minimum wage, so that they can get better jobs and create more tax base, which pays back that tuition assistance over the next 30 years of successful gainful employment that is far above the minimum wage.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    10. Re:Half arsed by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. Disgustng by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America is shedding jobs at an epic rate so that the rich can get slightly richer. The only reason these corps "can't afford" a higher minimum wage is because they need to protect their obscene profits. We're all in this together and we're all headed to the same grave. Let's try helping each other out instead of seeing who can amass the biggest pile of cash at the expense of other people. A revolution is brewing.

    1. Re:Disgustng by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Disgustng by butzwonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stephen Hawking has warned about that trend recently on reddit.

      Have you thought of “technological unemployment,” where machines take all our jobs?

      The outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

      I agree with him. The second option seems more likely.

    3. Re:Disgustng by bickerdyke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However: I do agree that increasing automation will cause large social problems,

      It's not the automation per se that causes the problems.

      it's more the fact that we insist that people somehow "work" in exchange for goods, services and housing, but less and less of that work is needed to provide goods, services and housing, thanks to automation.

      --
      bickerdyke
    4. Re:Disgustng by Vermonter · · Score: 2

      Someone who hates their job isn't going to suddenly start loving it just because they are getting a few dollars per hour more.

    5. Re:Disgustng by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If everyone is miserably poor there isn't much value in owning a bunch of machines to make things for them.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    6. Re:Disgustng by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      Why do you guys say "horror" instead of "horrible"?

      We don't and that is a horrid accusation.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    7. Re: Disgustng by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      I think that most people are active and busy trying to occupy their time. I believe that to be natural human behavior. I don't think anyone in the world works harder than someone who is homeless trying to survive. It's just that some forms of work are rewarded and others aren't.

      How often do you think: why don't those criminals use their talent and get a job?

      Because jobs suck!

      I have a decent job that I don't mind doing but I cannot imagine any job that I could happily do day in and day out for 50 years...

      Yet if you complain or want a system where you can live a basic life and pursue the things that truly make you happy, you are a leech.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re:Disgustng by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would think we would be at the point where the HENRYs -- high earners, not rich yet, people like the highly educated professional class and SMB owners, people with a high income and wealth accumulation potential, but still needing to work due to lack of sufficient wealth accumulation -- would be starting to feel some kind of collective fear for their own status.

      The working classes have largely been strip-mined for their wealth, the middle classes nearly so, and the next class on the radar screen has to be the HENRYs. There's an awful lot of income still flowing into that class that must look pretty tempting once the middle class has been finished off.

      While they remain politically influential by virtue of their income and education, they probably suffer from some identity confusion, believing that their high income gives them a social status equal to the very rich, leading them to believe their interests are aligned. Really, an economic version of the false affiliation working class whites believed they had with Republicans who used social issues as a diversion while stripping them of wealth and income.

      When in fact, it would seem that once the wealth accumulators no longer find sufficient wealth to strip from the middle class, they will target the "inefficiencies" of high income earners as their next source of wealth addition.

      I would expect that if the HENRYs ever get sufficiently stripped of income and wealth, that the truly wealthy would just start to feed on each other.

    9. Re: Disgustng by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Have any of these 'distinguished economists' held honest jobs before settling into their folly?

      Based on the theories they are working on, yes I know more about economics than them. Business pays me for my economic knowledge, they work on theories. Theories that likely start by pidgin holing everybodies marxist class.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Disgustng by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      Cute, he thinks poor have no income, if that were true, they couldn't buy drugs, booze or lottery tickets. I'm not saying all poor people allocate their resources in such frivolous ways, but some do. Additionally there are some very extensive underground economies in most neighborhoods, that provide incomes that are completely undocumented.

      GP was talking about when the poor have no income; i.e. in the future when automation has taken away their opportunities to earn money. Do you really think having a much, much bigger percentage of economic activity based on "drugs, booze (and) lottery tickets" and "extensive underground economies" is going to be good for society?

      Besides, what about the principled working poor holding down two, three, or more jobs, working stupid numbers of hours in a day, six or seven days a week, trying legally to provide the bare necessities of life for their families, and only a couple pf paychecks away from living on the street? What happens when there are no jobs for them to go to? What happens when their numbers swell to a horrendous percentage of citizens? Are they going to live off those magical underground economies you mentioned, the ones whose money is conjured up via fairy dust and unicorn farts?

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  4. Just another CEO mouthing off... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This sounds like nothing but another CEO running his mouth on his new favorite matter - and showing in the process how uninformed he actually is. We saw the same thing with Subway and Papa John's CEOs telling us how the Affordable Care Act was going to bring the sky crashing down on their empires, yet both are doing just fine.

    To tell us how much a raise in minimum wage will impact the actual cost of doing business - and the cost of the product - they need to open up about two things in particular that they skilfully danced around in this article:
    • How much are they actually paying their employees currently? They mentioned that they already had to raise their wages to get better workers. How much of a raise is $15 over the current rate?
    • How much of the cost of the product is actually labor? This one is a big - and difficult - one to answer. A lot of corporate types like to live in the fantasy where doubling a worker's salary means everything they make or do is now twice as expensive, but we know that is not the case. For a fast food place, you need to consider the cost of the materials going in to the product, the cost of paying for and maintaining the building (with its utilities, parking lot, and everything else), etc. The human cost of their product is likely 10-20% at most.

    Sure, the wage increase has a cost. What we don't know - and I would argue the people interviewed in this story don't know either - is how large is that cost. Will it actually be offset by replacing more workers with kiosks and robots, or is this just a ploy from the top?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Informative

      We saw the same thing with Subway and Papa John's CEOs telling us how the Affordable Care Act was going to bring the sky crashing down on their empires, yet both are doing just fine.

      Subway is not, actually...

      How much of the cost of the product is actually labor? This one is a big - and difficult - one to answer.

      No it isn't... labor is generally just as expensive, if not more expensive than the cost of the food... These are well known costs within the food business...

      A lot of corporate types like to live in the fantasy where doubling a worker's salary means everything they make or do is now twice as expensive, but we know that is not the case.

      No one believes that who runs a food business... but it will cause overhead to rise about 16%, give or take, for most such places.

      That is their existing profit margin, they don't have 16% to give.

      The human cost of their product is likely 10-20% at most.

      Then you are misinformed, it is at least double that...

    2. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      When I worked in fast food, our store seemed to hover at 20-25% of revenue for labor cost. I've been told that that is fairly low, and that 30% is the industry average. California has a current minimum wage of $10 per hour. This would mean that $15 would be a 50% increase. If a fast food location there were to give everyone a 50% raise, that would result in needing to increase revenue by 15% to make up the difference. I don't feel that 15% over six years is a very large increase.

    3. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by skam240 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's exactly double that by most measurements I've seen. So companies will have to raise prices? There will be more people able to afford them which will only help their bottom line. Henry Ford acted with a great bit of social responsibility by paying his employees enough to where they could afford one of his cars. The least a fast food place could do is pay its employees enough to afford one of its shitty meals.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You obviously don't know how these companies run. Most of this affects franchise owners not big parent companies. People who buy into a brand and have a few stores. Maybe even just one or two. They have to pay the parent company a percent of gross earnings and the rest they get to apply to costs such as labor, maintenance, inventory. All the variables the parent company doesn't absorb. Not to mention the small independent business owner without brand support who is on their own. In the restaurant business labor is a significant factor in costs. Don't fool yourself into thinking this will ever affect the people at a parent company.
      No, this affects small business owners.

    5. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you missed that minimum wage increase drive wage increase for almost any other job. To afford the increase in price of the products made with labor paid at the minimum wage everyone else will eventually get a salary increase over a period of a few years. After that, the current situation you tried addressing by increasing the minimum wage will still prevail. At the end, it will not solve anything. All the prices of goods and services will be driven up in order to pay for increased salaries.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    6. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We saw the same thing with Subway and Papa John's CEOs telling us how the Affordable Care Act was going to bring the sky crashing down on their empires, yet both are doing just fine.

      Subway is not, actually...

      I don't know what planet you live on, but here on planet earth Subway overtook McDonald's some time ago as the fast food chain with the largest number of locations world wide. They are continuing to open new locations - in the US and around the world - at a much faster clip than McDonald's as well. Even with most of their locations franchises, how would they be able to keep opening so many new restaurants if they were not doing well? They would have a hard time convincing franchisees to put down the capital to open a new location if they were doing poorly.

      How much of the cost of the product is actually labor? This one is a big - and difficult - one to answer.

      No it isn't... labor is generally just as expensive, if not more expensive than the cost of the food...

      You're only looking at part of the equation. Sure, you can say you pay an employee $X per hour and that they can make Y sandwiches per hour. You can say that the raw materials in each sandwich is $B. What you can't as easily predict though is how much you will pay to keep the lights on, or how much it will cost to maintain the equipment in the restaurant. You can't predict how much your parking lot will cost you or when your landlord (if you are in a shopping mall and don't own your property) will raise your rent. They also cannot always predict what the franchise fee will be any given year. These restaurants have only one source of income - the food they sell. They have to cover all their costs through that.

      A lot of corporate types like to live in the fantasy where doubling a worker's salary means everything they make or do is now twice as expensive, but we know that is not the case.

      No one believes that who runs a food business

      And how often do CEOs actually come from within the industry? There is always pressure from the board to bring in outside executives, which leads to blowhards like this guy.

      but it will cause overhead to rise about 16%, give or take, for most such places.

      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?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by MeNeXT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...
    8. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      Replacing people with machine does allow to run the "restaurants" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no "closed for holiday XYZ" downtime. Even if you only get a few dozen customers overnight, it's still only the cost of having the lights on. And with LED lighting it's now a negligible cost.

    9. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by chispito · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't know what planet you live on, but here on planet earth Subway overtook McDonald's some time ago as the fast food chain with the largest number of locations world wide. They are continuing to open new locations - in the US and around the world - at a much faster clip than McDonald's as well. Even with most of their locations franchises, how would they be able to keep opening so many new restaurants if they were not doing well? They would have a hard time convincing franchisees to put down the capital to open a new location if they were doing poorly.

      Are you sure about that? http://www.wsj.com/articles/su...

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    10. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Basic economics says you can't really create a minimum wage without creating lots of inflation
      Then you should go back to school.
      Inflation only comes from a few base interest factors handled by the central bank, or by the amount of "new printed money" (which no one does any more as using the base interest are more effective). It has nothing at all to do with wages.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by Maltheus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

    12. Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... by sjames · · Score: 2

      So they can't go up three times as much as GP suggested without losing business. Would an incremental increase of $0.30 have driven you away if Chick-fil-a had also gone up by $0.30?

  5. Re:Liberal Solution: Outlaw Automation by skam240 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're an idiot.

    "Ideology I don't like will advocate something dumb because of course they will because I'm on the other team". Then "it's a race issue cause I want it to be"

    The only loophole here is that the "idiot branch" of conservatism gives you a loophole to feel insightful.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  6. Capitalism does capitalism things by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 3, Insightful


    If you were in a mega corporation at C level wouldn't you complain about how anything negative to your business would ruin it?

    Wouldn't you try your best to stall any change that ends up causing you to have less profits (even a minuscule reduction) until you implement a process that circumvents the more expensive method?

    Minimum wage will drive your business to the ground...like when uhm minimum wage was first introduced?

    Otherwise wasn't the future of burger flippers always to be replaced by automation? -we'll only need minimal supervision of a human that can also greet customers should they care for a smiley service person.

    Those C-level folk are disconnected from the reality of everyday people. It's all about profit margins, quarterly statements, shareholder meetings, bonuses and so on. It's not about how their business will crash and burn supposedly affecting their poor employees, it's about earning a single cent than they did before and fuck everyone else.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  7. Already Trialed by neurosine · · Score: 2

    McDonalds Australia has had this for a year or more. It creates more orders on the back end, but for people who want anything customised, they still go to the counter. In my experience as a client, people only check out the kiosk as a novelty, or if there are long lines.

    1. Re:Already Trialed by voss · · Score: 3, Informative

      walmart has self-service lines and they are usually faster than the cashiers. YMMV

      Aldi on the other hand has the fastest cashiers anywhere. They start them at $13 an hour plus bennies. They usually only need 1 in the store on duty.

  8. Already seen in other types of fast food places by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    Sheets gas stations have always had kiosks for ordering food for as long as I can remember. However I find the interface really frustrating to navigate. I only keep coming back because this one Sheetz place is in a convenient location.

    I also saw a kiosk in a McDonalds last year. Not sure if it was just a trial or a part of a store revamp.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  9. Re:...And So.. by geoff_smith82 · · Score: 2

    It is doubtful that the march of automation would have gone much slower, even without the increase in minimum wages.

  10. Wendy's Automats? by l3v1 · · Score: 2

    I mean come on, we love (well, some love) nostalgia, but not the Automats [1] please :) Might have the old-is-new-again feeling that is in fashion again these days, but I don't think this is the way to go. Although, I don't eat at Wendy's more than once or maybe twice a year, so yeah, who cares :))))

    [1] http://www.wired.com/2008/07/g...

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  11. Flirting by Pollux · · Score: 3

    When I saw your comment about flirting, it immediately reminded me of my experience patronizing a particular pretzel chain last weekend. My wife and I placed our order, and we were told, "We make those fresh, so it's going to take about 7-8 minutes." We said alright, sat down, and waited. With four workers behind the counter, all female, I didn't expect it to take too long. But as soon as we sit down, Mr. "I dropped out of high school because I look this good" walked up and leaned against the counter. And all that estrogen ran to him like rats to limburger. Except for the one girl in the back... She did all the pretzel rolling...all the baking...all the packaging...and 15 minutes later, we had our order.

    But don't misunderstand me. 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. What that establishment, and every establishment, needs is good management.

    1. Re: Flirting by edittard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The chain got his money this time. He might not go back again.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    2. Re: Flirting by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Tell that to Jack-in-the-Box which just about failed because of the incredibly terrible mishandling of a food-borne illness situation, which is now a widely used lesson in why accountability matters. As it turns out, when those customers go across the street, and it happens with enough customers, it means shutting restaurants.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:Flirting by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  12. Re:Predictable and self-inflicted by silanea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Firstly, deduct expenses (health insurance, housing etc.) and that $31k will melt away like a snowball in an oven.

    Secondly, the fact that we pay many professions insultingly low wages is not an argument against paying burger-flippers $15 an hour. It is an argument for paying other undervalued professions more.

    Thirdly, whether someone spends 40 hours a week transplanting hearts, laying bricks, nursing the elderly or flipping burgers, none of those is a leisurely stroll in the park. Anyone working a full-time job deserves to be able to afford a modest standard of living in my book. Otherwise, what is the point?

    --
    Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
  13. Royal Farms in Maryland by wiredog · · Score: 2

    has been doing this for years.

  14. Enjoy your extra big ass fries. by toonces33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the movie it was Carl's Junior, but Wendys seems to want to get there first.

  15. This is good to stop paying welfare by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right now, large number of ppl on Food stamps and other forms of gov subsistence are actually working 40 or more hours / week. Problem is, that America's minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. So now, we already pay out to ppl who work at Target, McDonald's, burger King, Walmart Sam's club, and yes Wendy's. With this, many ppl will be laid off, but if they buy American made equipment, they can point to providing better jobs. And if America will deal with the illegal alien issue, and send home those that have no families here, or whose families are nothing but drains on society, then we open many lower end jobs.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. Good management by Pollux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  17. Re: civil unrest, war, etc. by geek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  18. Re:Disney doing this already... by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

    It presumably also reduced order errors. Everybody hates when their meal is wrong. Of course Disney has a good system even for the attended registers where you get a printed receipt to confirm. But with kiosks, you see the order before paying and they seem to have a lower error rate.

  19. Biological clock ticks faster than that by tepples · · Score: 2

    Wait until you have the financial stability to be able to devote time and resources to raising a child..

    If by "financial stability" you mean the ability to provide for a spouse and children despite an extended period of being laid off, then very few people have the resources to retire while still of childbearing age.

  20. Manna by Eq+7-2521 · · Score: 2

    I won't argue the merits of the prose or storytelling, but I always recall this post from 2003: http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

    --
    At my age I find coming up with a witty signature too exhausting.