Slashdot Mirror


Former McDonald's USA CEO: $35K Robots Cheaper Than Hiring at $15 Per Hour (foxbusiness.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article on Fox Business: As fast-food workers across the country vie for $15 per hour wages, many business owners have already begun to take humans out of the picture. "I was at the National Restaurant Show yesterday and if you look at the robotic devices that are coming into the restaurant industry -- it's cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who's inefficient making $15 an hour (warning: autoplaying video) bagging French fries -- it's nonsense and it's very destructive and it's inflationary and it's going to cause a job loss across this country like you're not going to believe," said former McDonald's USA CEO Ed Rensi during an interview on the FOX Business Network's Mornings with Maria. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.3 million people earned the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour with about 1.7 million having wages below the federal minimum in 2014. These three million workers combined made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers.

1,023 comments

  1. And then those employees burn down your restaurant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure seems like it would cost a lot more than $35k.

  2. obvious response by mal808 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new French-fry bagging robot overlords

    1. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia the robots bag you!

    2. Re:obvious response by mykepredko · · Score: 1

      If we're going back in time...

      1. Create French Fries.
      2. Develop Robot to bag them.
      3. ...
      4. Profit!

    3. Re:obvious response by AdamThor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can these robots also bag hot grits?

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    4. Re:obvious response by mykepredko · · Score: 2

      I read this first as: "Can these robots also bag hot girls?"

      If they could, I'd be interested in getting one!

    5. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Natalie Portman, you insensitive clod!

    6. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget that. Can they bag hot girls?

    7. Re: obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is true then they should have been doing it for years. The distinct absence of Robots at fast food places tells me this is a political statement and not a business nor economic statement.

    8. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said hot girls, not hot grits.

    9. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though I don't eat fast food, I think it will be an improvement. Robots are cleaner and won't spit (or worse) in your food.

    10. Re: obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're just now crossing the roi threshold on the robots. Wages are being pushed up in several states by the union funded $15/hour movement at the same time that reliable technology is becoming cheaper. This is not a political stunt. It's economic reality that it's becoming cheaper to not hire unskilled employees as we pass legislation that makes them cost (higher minimum wage, overtime rules, scheduling rules such as passed in Seattle, new payroll taxes, legislated benefits, etc) more than the value they bring.

      Do you really think a business would choose to use a more expensive option just to make a political statement?

    11. Re: obvious response by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 1

      Do you really think a business would choose to use a more expensive option just to make a political statement?

      No, but they would threaten to.

      --
      Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
    12. Re:obvious response by superdana · · Score: 1

      No, but they can put 'em down your pants.

    13. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. I might start eating there again if they get rid of the teenagers.

    14. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can they help you bag hot girls?

    15. Re: obvious response by compro01 · · Score: 1

      You're looking at the ROI from the wrong direction. The key is the price of robotics going down, not the wages going up.

      No jobs will be saved from automation, even if you keep the minimum wage where it is. Even if you cut the minimum wage in half, it won't be stopped.

      Foxconn is automating cheap Chinese workers out of their factories. Read that again. Workers who make less than $2/hour are getting replaced with robots.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    16. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, I read this as "can these robots also bang hot girls",

    17. Re: obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At $35K, assuming 16 hours a day, seven days a week, the robot only needs to be functioning for 40 weeks to break even (at $8/hour wage).

      So.... how is that more expensive?
      Or are you one of those cashiers that will give me back the $1 if I give you a $21 for an $10.75 meal?

    18. Re:obvious response by kria · · Score: 1

      Or be made to look like Natalie Portman?

    19. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not with a fast food job.

    20. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except this plan actually works

    21. Re: obvious response by tbyington · · Score: 1

      With full time (40 hour) employees at $7.50 an hour, the robot would have to cover 90 hours a week (out of a total availability of 168 hours) to be a better investment in the first year alone with a cost of $35k. That's 2 full time employee shifts and 10 hours. At a 24 hour McDs, if the robot is doing 1 station all day, that covers 3 shifts. You're getting the work of that third employee at a 1/4 minimum wage, or all 3 for less than $4 an hour. The second year, those employees have to compete with whatever a maintenance contract is for that machine, which is definitely going to be less than $35k. There is no way to make those 3 employee's competitive with that robot at today's wages. It's not the $15 wage pushing this. It's going to happen either way. For every one of these robots, that's 3 people competing for other jobs, driving those wages down. Eventually when you expect a livable wage at what you do, you'll be the unreasonable one.

    22. Re:obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're so beautiful, SUSAN EVERYTEEN. Would you like to go out with me?"

    23. Re:obvious response by Lord_Hastur · · Score: 1

      Whats funny is the word robot is a word for serf in old medieval chekoslovakia. That is where the word comes from. Far from overlords, that make us overlords! Now we just have to ban lawyers judges and unions and teachers, and fed, and end regs, move to thorium clean atomic and enjoy union free private clean trains!

  3. Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The machine does one task and a person does many.

    For instance, a $35,000 machine that makes the fries, will only make sense if the station requires a full time person to make them. This isn't the case for all but the most busy locations. (and I suspect, even less so for non-mcdonalds establishments)

    1. Re:Not apples to apples by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      A fully-automated restaurant would require robots capable of cleaning up vomit and other bodily fluids, cleaning the restrooms, restocking toilet paper....

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah but a machine doesn't require benefits, insurance, sick days, vacation, workman's comp, schedule changes or a training. They won't leave you short staffed. They don't spit in the food. And, in my experience, are a lot better at producing a consistent end product. Consistency is a big selling point to a large chain like McDonalds.

      A worker who has their check written out at 15 dollars an hour costs the company a ton more than 15 dollars an hour.

    3. Re: Not apples to apples by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 2

      It'll be in a different manner. Behind the scenes, in the kitchen, it'll be a robot burger flipper, a robot dispenser, a robot fry cook, so on. With one semi-skilled supervisor (probably contractor) paid maybe $20-25 an hour. In front, still a few minimum wagers cleaning, serving and taking orders. Cheaper than an old setup. And the scary thing is that you'll never know.

    4. Re:Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The machine will make those fries 3 shifts a day and will not commit sexual harassment, get sick, take *aternity leave, or spit in the meat when it gets bored. It also doesn't need oxygen, bathroom breaks, or trusted to clean itself properly--it can be cleaned using the same methods as the rest of the food handling equipment (and won't complain about getting hair / clothes soaked in green soap or water). It's work ethic scales linearly regardless of rain, snow, or who broke up with them yesterday. It also won't post damaging things to social media in it's spare time.

    5. Re:Not apples to apples by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Most of the machines that he's talking about do more than just one thing - for instance, a machine can make/wrap a burger (or any type from a range of options) to order - they already have prototypes made.

      Another set of machines replace the cashiers entirely with kiosks, yet another machine does the drinks, and still another one still fries whatever - onion rings, french fries, etc etc.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re: Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      industrial roomba will do
      btw , i have seen robotized self service restaurant in ... USSR ( 1985). I had to insert magnetic card in reader, select food "complex" - then robot conveyor put food in specially designed dishes fixed on tray. It let workers feed at very fast pace.
      Humans just filled robot reservoirs and cleaned up.
      Unfortunately collapse of USSR put an end to the factory and it's restaurant...

    7. Re:Not apples to apples by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2

      Yeah but a machine doesn't require benefits, insurance, sick days, vacation, workman's comp, schedule changes or a training...

      Sure -- but how many times has your computer been out-of-commission as it's updating itself/botched update (= sick days), your device (ahem, Google...) been completely orphaned (= I quit), or your device been broken outside of warranty (= needs insurance)?

      That said, I largely agree that human jobs -- particularly entry-level ones -- will be replaced by robots, but the cost analysis isn't as simple as, "robots don't need health insurance so they're better."

    8. Re:Not apples to apples by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      The machine does one task and a person does many.

      It also works 24/7 without a break, is never late to work, operates at a consistent and predictable pace, doesn't spit in the food, strike, or demand increasing wages. Some fast food chains have replaced their burger flippers with conveyor belt ovens, and it seems to be working out just fine. You get a consistent cook on the meat without having to pay someone to stand there doing nothing between flips. When it comes to producing hundreds or thousands of the same product to the same standard, a robot makes more sense than a human who can fatigue, make errors, or generally doesn't give a shit no matter what the minimum wage may be. Sure, robots do require maintenance and will have down time, but if you've ever worked with humans, you'll know they aren't anywhere near 100% reliable either.

    9. Re:Not apples to apples by syzler · · Score: 2

      Looking at the math, if a McDonalds location is making fries from 11:00 am until 10:00 pm daily, a $15/hour wage would be about $1,155 per week or about $54,750 per year. Using your argument that a single employee is not dedicated to making only fries at a single location, lets say only about 1/3 of a man-hour per business hour, that still is about $18,250 per year in wages for making and bagging fries. However with the same assumptions at $8/hour is only $9,7333 per year in wages for making and bagging fries.

      So a $15/hour wage alone would pay for a $35,000 robot in 2 years and an $8/hour wage would do the same in 3.6 years.

      If you increase the business day to 14 hours (11am - 1:00am), the numbers become:
      $15/hour wage @ 14 hour days = $25,550/year to make fries or 1.4 years to pay for a $35k robot
      $8/hour wage @ 14 hour days = $13,626/year to make fries or 2.6 years to pay for a $35k robot

      Keep in mind that the above figures do not cover the costs in addition to wages for hiring employee such as unemployment insurance and other benefits.

    10. Re:Not apples to apples by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Run the words "automated restroom" through google and you'll be amazed...

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    11. Re: Not apples to apples by temcat · · Score: 1

      Oh cool, where was it? A fellow Russian here.

    12. Re:Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If a machine can cook fast food, how long before consumers buy such machines and install them in their homes/apartment complexes. They could be shared among multiple people, like washing machines, to cut the costs. Bottom line, no need to visit McD, just step out of your house and use these machines.

    13. Re: Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automats come to mind in the US, although those long since disappeared. They were the precursor to fast food.

      I think the fast food industry would actually stop its decline if they stopped trying to treat workers like garbage. I wonder how far a chain would go if the workers were salaried, incoming food was of a decent quality, with no fillers, and so on. Worst case, it might make a burger cost 25% or so more. This is more than worth it in the long run.

    14. Re:Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then it will only replace 9 out of 10 positions at a McDonalds and one lucky employee will get to keep his job so he can clean puke and shit and that's about it

    15. Re:Not apples to apples by Dread_ed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's how it works from a previous comment (https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9101743&cid=52105397):

      I imagine that not only customer facing personnel will be replaced by kiosks, but food preparation, waste disposal, cleaning, and restocking will become automated as well. Accompanying this, I can see a wave of new positions available for robotics, IT, and kiosk repair technicians. I can see a busy McDonalds location staffed by as little as 2 people, there mainly for emergencies and "turning the machines off and then on again" as necessary.

      Its hard not to perceive the future of fast food locations. There will be an app that allows you to order on the way to the location. You pay from your phone and a robot prepares your meal just in time for your arrival. Timing this is trivial because you share your location with them. Forecasting the next 15-30 minutes of business through the app makes for fresher food and drastically more efficient order fulfillment. A dedicated lane for app-placed orders ensures quick in-and-out drive through service. Customers are served better, orders are machine precise, profits are higher, and the only people that lose are low income workers.

      Customer service rep positions are replaced with machine repair and maintenance positions. The law of unintended consequences is preserved and the inevitable slide towards machine replacement for most human tasks is moved forward. Everyone wins, except of course for the people that the higher minimum wage laws and Affordable Care Act were designed to help. They have been priced out the job market. They are just too expensive to keep on board.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    16. Re: Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ugh. Is this really the utopia that the industrialists and baby boomers made? What a trite, unimaginative, completely soulless vision of mediocrity and boredom. Of all the things they could have supported and glamorized, they chose shitty fast food. Pathetic.

    17. Re:Not apples to apples by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      demand increasing wages

      Dear RoboFlipperTM customer:

      It has come to our attention that you are now completely dependent on our equipment in order to provide service to your customers. Please be aware that effective next week, your service contract fees will increase by 100%. Thank you,

      RoboFlipperTM Accounting Department

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    18. Re:Not apples to apples by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      For a 24/7 shop that robot replaces about 4.5 people if they are just made fries. Lets call that 60k or so at current min wage of wages. Let's assume it comes with maintenance for the first year. Even if it reduced headcount by half a person it's quickly giving a return. Mind you every mcd's around me has had fry automation for years if not a decade or more.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    19. Re:Not apples to apples by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Obamacare, lumps all of the franchises owned by a single person together, so you'll have to get them health insurance too. Schultz our local McDonalds franchise owner own 5 restaurants and I don’t think that's unusual.

      Also your math is a bit fuzzy, most workers work 40 hrs/week * 50 weeks/year for 2,000 hours, so a $15.00/hr get $30K/yr gross and probably is a $60K/year expense; dropping one worker across 2 shifts saves $120K/year amortized over 5 years the break-even is about $600K per robot!
      So at $35K per robot, they couldn't make them fast enough,

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    20. Re:Not apples to apples by budgenator · · Score: 1

      So then it will only replace 9 out of 10 positions at a McDonalds and one lucky employee will get to keep his job so he can clean puke and shit and that's about it

      He used to be the manager!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    21. Re:Not apples to apples by Daemonik · · Score: 0

      Franchisee looses out, because every time a new menu item is introduced they have to buy a new robot rather than retrain existing staff. Franchisee will also need to buy duplicate robots as any downtime will dramatically cut into their restaurants ability to serve meals and generate revenue. Franchisee continues to loose out when 12 your old script kiddie figures out how to hack the robots and stages a robot gladiatorial battle in their kitchen.

    22. Re:Not apples to apples by plopez · · Score: 1

      Will it run Windows XP?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    23. Re:Not apples to apples by Daemonik · · Score: 2

      Robots break. When your burger robot breaks your entire store is out of commission vs calling in another worker to cover their shift. Robots can be hacked, robots will not notice of someone introduces foreign substances into the food, leaving the owner liable.

      On the up side, robots will not riot when there are no jobs and nobody has any money.

    24. Re:Not apples to apples by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's great. The devil is in the details. Will the machine salt and bag the fries as well? How do you handle "unsalted" fries? The salt is applied as they are removed from the fryer, so the oils left on are still hot and liquid, and the salt is applied while still hot and oily, for best flavor/texture. So "unsalted" is taking a bag of fries before they are salted. They are "hotter" "fresher" and unsalted, so if you like your fries straight from the deep fry, always order unsalted fries.

      The exceptions will prove the downfall of the system. Building in all the exceptions and you'll end up with a more expensive robot. The humans were good at it because they handle exceptions well.

    25. Re:Not apples to apples by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      demand increasing wages

      Dear RoboFlipperTM customer:

      It has come to our attention that you are now completely dependent on our equipment in order to provide service to your customers. Please be aware that effective next week, your service contract fees will increase by 100%. Thank you,

      RoboFlipperTM Accounting Department

      Still sounds like a people problem, not a robot one :)

    26. Re: Not apples to apples by eam · · Score: 1

      Actually, anyone who pays attention will know. The food will be more consistently prepared.

      If they calibrate everything properly, and set it up correctly, every burger, every fry, every shake will be perfect. If you set it up so that the customer enters their own order, you will eliminate the multitude of errors that are introduced into the process by the quality of humans that are currently involved in the process.

      Of course, if they fail to set it up the way it should be, every burger will have half the cheese stuck to the wrapper, the fries will be burnt and over-salted every time, the sodas will be handed to the customer with too much ice... ...actually, that describes every experience at a couple fast food joints in Lansdale, PA. They need to re-calibrate their robots.

    27. Re: Not apples to apples by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of all the things they could have supported and glamorized, they chose shitty fast food. Pathetic.

      Any gang of capitalists would do the same. When stuff costs money, then stuff that makes money happens — and that's about it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re: Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or people build robots to go out and buy the fast food from other robots.

    29. Re:Not apples to apples by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      A worker who has their check written out at 15 dollars an hour costs the company a ton more than 15 dollars an hour.

      So? Robots require cleaning, repair, reloading, and they can't pitch in and help with other duties around the restaurant. They also break until skilled help can come repair them, meaning no income during a window that can last several hours.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    30. Re:Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear RoboFlipperTM Accounting Department,

      This letter is to inform you of a material breach in the terms of our Master Services Agreement (MSA). Per the terms of our MSA, our service fees are fixed for the initial duration of our contract (five years) and capped at 5% annual increase thereafter. Also per the terms of our contract you have thirty (30) days to cure this breach. Failure to perform as agreed will result in the automatic termination of this contract and will immediately invoke the penalties defined in section 18 "Termination for Cause."

      TTYL XOXOXO,

      RoboFlipperTM Customer's Legal Department

    31. Re:Not apples to apples by packrat0x · · Score: 1

      The ONLY reason to staff the front counter is to up-sell customers. Other than that, order entry is faster and more accurate with multiple terminals. I've been to some restaurants (including McDonald's) that had no customer display. I had to wait until I got a receipt to double-check the order. Sometimes the receipt printer is broken/out-of-paper.

      --
      227-3517
    32. Re:Not apples to apples by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      Robots break. When your burger robot breaks your entire store is out of commission vs calling in another worker to cover their shift.

      I'm sure there's still someone around with the cognitive capacity to shovel fries into a paper tray if the robot goes down. On a related note, workers break too. Grease burns are a son of a bitch. Robots don't require workers comp insurance.

    33. Re:Not apples to apples by packrat0x · · Score: 1

      Replace restrooms with portable toilets. Without employees, a business doesn't NEED on site restrooms. McDonald's bigger profit center is drive-through, anyways. No bathrooms equals less labor, less floor space, less volume for HVAC, and less homeless sleeping in the stalls.

      --
      227-3517
    34. Re:Not apples to apples by martinX · · Score: 1

      "Dear Burger Flipper Union Employee Hirer

      Now that state legislation has required you to hire only union members, and we are the only union representing burger flippers in your state, we own you.

      Yours Sincerely
      Vinnie."

      It can work many ways.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    35. Re:Not apples to apples by martinX · · Score: 1

      "Dear Burger Seller
      Since your prices are too high - which you laughingly blame on robot service costs - we're going to the Cheap Burger Dude across the street. His robots are much better behaved.

      Customer"

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    36. Re:Not apples to apples by dcollins117 · · Score: 3, Informative

      most workers work 40 hrs/week * 50 weeks/year for 2,000 hours...

      Not at McDonalds they don't. The vast majority work part time and there's a reason for that. Hint: it's not to benefit the employees.

    37. Re:Not apples to apples by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Sure -- but how many times has your computer been out-of-commission as it's updating itself/botched update (= sick days), your device (ahem, Google...) been completely orphaned (= I quit), or your device been broken outside of warranty (= needs insurance)?

      SHUSH!!!!

      You're not supposed to ask such questions, you're supposed to take at face value the promises of technology and automation. Maintenance? The machines not being as flexible as you need? Software bugs that you can't fix? The makes and technologists only want you to think of the upsides.

      After all, everyone loves calling a support number and getting a phone menu rather than a person they can to, right?

    38. Re:Not apples to apples by j-beda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Customer service rep positions are replaced with machine repair and maintenance positions. The law of unintended consequences is preserved and the inevitable slide towards machine replacement for most human tasks is moved forward. Everyone wins, except of course for the people that the higher minimum wage laws and Affordable Care Act were designed to help. They have been priced out the job market. They are just too expensive to keep on board.

      If this analysis is correct, not changing the mimium wage delays this type of thing by only a few years I would guess.

    39. Re:Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its hard not to perceive the future of fast food locations.

      They will be vending machines. In fact, they already have vending machines that serve fast-food.

      Actually, the future of fast food locations will be empty lots with "Commercial Space Available" signs.

      Good riddance.

    40. Re: Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure I would know because most McDonalds I've ever been too have relatively open designs where you can see (at least some) of the people working. Making the food, expediting it, communicating, etc.

    41. Re:Not apples to apples by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      I agree with your vision of the future, but not your posited cause (or the CEO's). There's no unintended consequences here. This was coming with or without either the ACA or the minimum wage increases. There are very few jobs that can't be automated over at this point, and the costs of such automation are coming down rapidly.

      That is -- even with the minimum wage staying where it is and no ACA, they're already priced out of the job market. How long until that arm goes from $35k to $20k (or quality goes up enough that it lasts longer and becomes a better investment)? Ok, now $7.25/hr isn't worth paying (especially including hiring, training, and turnover costs). The higher minimum wage moves the automation up by 2 or 3 years at most. They were already preparing for this, they already have test stores with it in place, they're already working out the issues it presents. At this point, the company PR team is just happy they have a scape goat to blame it on so the reaction isn't as bad for them.

      Suppressing wages out of fear of losing these jobs isn't worthwhile when the jobs will be lost anyway, and now those people also not getting paid well in your next job as other markets push down to minimum wage.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    42. Re:Not apples to apples by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      Note: Your math makes it such that even at $7.25/hr and no benefits, they still can't make them fast enough.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    43. Re: Not apples to apples by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Most of the order takers will soon be gone. They will be replaced by a combination of kiosks, apps for regular customers, and web based ordering for customers who don't want to install an app but want to use their phone rather than the kiosk (possibly because they want to order from their car and pickup at drive through or walk into the store to pickup with it's ready). I, as a customer, would rejoice at this -- I would know the order was placed correctly and I wouldn't have to decipher a foreign accent during the process.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    44. Re:Not apples to apples by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Dear RoboFlipperTM:

      We were pleased to receive your recent letter. As you may, or may not, be aware, we are currently negotiating with BurgerRobotTM for replacing your equipment in our restaurants. They have already committed to providing machines and service at a much reduced cost. We are happy that your letter validated our decision to consider other vendors.

      If you want to discuss this, please contact me at KissMyAssAndGrovel@McDonalds.com.

      VP Technology Development and Deployment, McDonald's

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    45. Re:Not apples to apples by uncqual · · Score: 1

      So at $35K per robot, they couldn't make them fast enough

      Sure they could, if they used robots to make them. FoxConn knows how to do this!

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    46. Re:Not apples to apples by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      Sure. But it will end up burning the fries after it gets infected with malware to mine Bitcoins.

    47. Re:Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that the above figures do not cover the costs in addition to wages for hiring employee such as unemployment insurance and other benefits.

      Or the costs of servicing the robots, changing programming as new items are added to the menu or any number of other issues associated with automation that is often left out of the discussion.

      Why bother with the robots at all? Just replace the whole thing with vending machines.

    48. Re:Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF would I need MaccaDees to do this when I can have an automated machine at home?

      As with bulk anything (electricity, gas etc) it requires a stupidly large enough machine to accomodate the output. A machine for home use in the kitchen that can prepare any number of meals is something I would be more inclined to be excited about. McDonalds and co will, of course, not be and would probably be in the marked to buy patents and squash the tech.

    49. Re:Not apples to apples by dala1 · · Score: 1

      Cost per hour would be a better metric. A human costs $15 in wages, plus all the extras for compensation, training, human resources, payroll management, and so on. So, probably closer to $30 per hour.

      If your $35k robot lasts for 5 years running 16 hours per day, that's $.83 per hour, plus the cost of maintenance. That would have to be one hell of a lot of maintenance to not be worthwhile.

    50. Re:Not apples to apples by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, for some reason you just happen to max out at just below the number of hours to be considered full time. Sorry, no more room on the schedule for you.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    51. Re:Not apples to apples by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying that full time is a nice round 2,000 hrs, it makes it easy to do the math in your head; if you need 4,000 manhours, that is equivalent to two people. Additionally under AHA, Obamacare, fulltime employee are determined by taking the total manhours worked and dividing by 30 so 30 hours a week is fulltime too.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    52. Re:Not apples to apples by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      The restroom problem is easily solved. Create one that contains nothing that could be damaged or destroyed by a cleaning process that runs automatically at regular intervals when the restroom is confirmed empty using motion sensors, heat sensors, etc. Since we're already going toward the single toilet with a door that closes model thanks to the transformers go ahead and put in 2-3 of those. Ceiling and wall mounted sprayers with cleaner/disinfectant/air freshener and and drying sequence. Big drain in the floor for everything. We'll probably see that in our lifetimes become a standard of a sort. Toilet paper disappears completely and everyone learns to live with a stream of cold water being shot at their asshole instead. Should be a lot of fun. Sink areas will have hand dryers that are water resistant but don't work anyway. Old people will sit around and reminisce about these things called paper towels.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    53. Re: Not apples to apples by mink · · Score: 1

      The big question is will the robots be calibrated to put as much lettuce and onion outside the Big Mac as current humans manage?

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    54. Re:Not apples to apples by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > Franchisee looses out, because every time a new menu item is introduced
      > they have to buy a new robot rather than retrain existing staff.

      Actually, the maintenance tech comes along and loads new software in the general-purpose food-robot.

      > Franchisee continues to loose out when 12 your old script kiddie figures out
      > how to hack the robots and stages a robot gladiatorial battle in their kitchen.

      Make that any idiot franchisee that connects the robots directly to the internet.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    55. Re:Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this analysis is correct, not changing the mimium wage delays this type of thing by only a few years I would guess.

      Your guess is completely wrong. Changing minimum wage by getting rid of it entirely removes much of the incentive, which has the potential to greatly delay the slide towards automation.

      There are many tasks that human beings perform better than machines, and society is forced to accept many limitations in order to use the machines. In agriculture, for example, human beings still do a better job of picking many crops, and many cultivars can't be grown due to the lack of suitability for machine picking. The net effects are we use land less efficiently (which has lots of environmental consequences), and we have lower biodiversity (which in practice tends to mean we need to use more pesticides and herbicides, as well as having to settle for inferior taste in many cases). These environmental costs in turn also affect the cost of running a business.

      Also, don't forget, anytime we discuss minimum wage, we're not talking about a single business, the impact of minimum wage needs to be viewed in terms of entire logistics chains, which are very complex in the modern business world. The effects are cumulative across the entire chain, building up as each different business involved has to adjust - in one way or another.

      Many businesses don't have any real need for automation, and the drive towards automation is primarily a matter of cost, often costs imposed by well meaning but clueless advocates of a host of social policies. Nobody denies that some sort of sensible social policy is beneficial to a society, but the ones that get adopted in many places generally work poorly and have serious unintended consequences.

      Also, it's not just a question of present costs, any stupid decision on legally mandated social policy is necessarily going to trigger a legitimate concern over what the idiots will do next, and a desire to shield against that. That consideration can be a much bigger factor than the actual present costs. This is probably a huge concern in the fast-food business (which has historically had relatively low profit margins, and is quite vulnerable to steadily increasing costs). Getting rid of stupid policies removes this concern, which in turn means the automation becomes unnecessary.

    56. Re:Not apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few years is actually better than right away. As it would be gradual since it would only save money for the bigger shops. But with a HUGE wage increase then even the mom and pop shop may benefit from automation. Also it will increase/speed up the R&D for better more efficient automation machines which means the old ones can be sold to the smaller places (the single location restaurants). Making the loss of jobs way faster while at the same time increasing the cost of living. So in one case they are employed longer and the cost of living increases a few percentages and the other the loose their job sooner and everything is a LOT more expensive. Also, more money into automation would increase the job loss in all kinds of jobs not just minimum wage jobs as every labor sector could benefit from automation R&D.

      No one should be in a minimum wage job thinking they can retired there. Heck no one should be thinking they are working anywhere and be able to retired there.

      Talking about retirement. The wage increase screws everyone that has retired as the cost of living will increase at a much higher rate.

  4. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The restaurants are insured so a fire would cost the owner nothing.

  5. Cool by Winckle · · Score: 0

    And when you replace all the workers with robots, who's going to buy your fast food?

    1. Re: Cool by TimMD909 · · Score: 2

      Definitely not the newly unemployed.

    2. Re:Cool by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Liberal answer: The benefits are localized, the pain spread throughout. In other words, its a tragedy of the commons. Typically, you need government intervention to prevent those.

      Conservative answer: They'll get one of the many other jobs waiting to absorb the unskilled labor. Also, fucking government caused this problem by not allowing wages to settle at $5/hour

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Cool by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      People who design, program and maintain the robots.

    4. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robots, obviously. They'll be more efficient consumers.

      It's robot arms all the way down!

      Captcha: nauseate

    5. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pepsi and Coca-Cola don't have a problem. I usually buy them from the vending machine.

    6. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The workers that stepped-up and acquired new skills - like how to maintain robots.

      You see, humans that have reasonable motivation are quite adaptable and can develop new skills - robots are somewhat purpose-built.

      Now if you had displaced French-fry-making robots with aliens then I'd be concerned that the displaced robots might revolt . . . other than they're purpose-built and could only revolt by making more French fries.

    7. Re:Cool by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The people that make the robots and repair them.
      You know you do know that farms used to pay for crews of thrashers way back when.
      If you can do a job in a cheaper way it only makes sense to do it that way. The idea is that frees humans to do work that is more rewarding.
      AKA if the best you can do is make frys then you were in deep trouble to start with.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $50 an hour worker who fixes your robots after they are blasted with machinegun fire by hordes of unemployed half starving proles?

    9. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've said this before on Slashdot, but I'll mention it again. This is not for everyone, especially for those who hate the outdoors or manual labor.

      A little over a year ago, I damaged an arm and a hand and was unable to maintain my own lawn for a couple of months. I hired a local Mexican (I live in Texas) guy and his two workers to maintain my lawn, once a week, for two months. HOA requires mowing and cleanliness.

      I spoke with the guy about what he charges and this is what I took away:

      - He cuts about 10 lawns a day, Monday- Friday @ between $50-75 per lawn. He splits the costs three ways and pays for the gas/oil/weed eater cable his guys use. A nice guy all around.

      Math:

      At $50, that's 500 a day, that's 2500 a week, 10,000 a month. That works out to about 3333 per man. Not too shabby. No nights, no weekends.

      At $75, that's 750 a day, that's 3750 a week, 15000 a month. That works out to about 5000 per man. Again, not too shabby. Again, no nights, no weekends.

      In other words, for a small outlay, a man and a friend or two could really make some decent coin. Yes, it's actual work, but work that always requires doing.

      You could probably do this with house cleaning, too.

    10. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You see, humans that have reasonable motivation are quite adaptable and can develop new skills

      I GOT SIX KIDS AINT NO TIME FO SKILL DEV

    11. Re:Cool by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      All the folks who were already making more than $15/hr?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    12. Re: Cool by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Well yes but not everyone gets the same start in life. That doesn't mean they should starve. That never ends well for them or anyone they come into contact with.

    13. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And when you replace all the workers with robots, who's going to buy your fast food?

      People on guaranteed basic income. Liberals are pushing for it, but it's going to co-opted by the 1% who will dump the burden of paying for it, as much as possible, on the middle class. Partially through high taxes on the middle class and partially through debt that will be inflated away, which will destroy the savings of the middle class. The 1% will, of course, pay for as little of it as possible.

    14. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At $50, that's 500 a day, that's 2500 a week, 10,000 a month. That works out to about 3333 per man. Not too shabby. No nights, no weekends.

      At $75, that's 750 a day, that's 3750 a week, 15000 a month. That works out to about 5000 per man. Again, not too shabby. Again, no nights, no weekends.

      In other words, for a small outlay, a man and a friend or two could really make some decent coin. Yes, it's actual work, but work that always requires doing.

      You could probably do this with house cleaning, too.

      Taxes? Healthcare? Months of the year when lawns don't get maintained? Maintaining a competitive advantage in an essentially no-skill occupation?

      I guess he can take solace in knowing that a robot will never be able to mow a lawn. . .

    15. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your answer is "do something rewarding or tough luck?" Automation will eventually come to most jobs. Engineer loves designing cars? Too bad, AI will do it.
      It's just how we deal with it going foward that's important.
      Previous technological leaps created new industries, primarily ones that required mental ability instead of physical ability.
      Once AI kills those.....all bets are off.

    16. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is more along the lines of the workers put out of work or in fact many people (unemployment rate) aren't able to do the more rewarding (personally, emotionally, socially, whateverly) when they don't have a sense of stability. The same is true for businesses, if they fear the bottom-line they will not look at new horizons.

      I do think that replacing humans with machines is not a bad thing, as long as the displaced people are able to find feasible alternatives for their variety of needs. That is the problem, as training comes at a premium and while they train, they may not be able to make enough to sustain what ever balance they are trying to achieve in their life.

      All of this being said, if they close the back of fast food places to hide machines doing the work, I'm less likely to go there compared to those that are open. McDonalds doesn't offer me anything I can't get some where else. The same is true with others, aside Taco Bell (locally, I don't know of any other "mexican" fast food around).

    17. Re:Cool by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you do it slowly enough, the fast food prices won't rise as quickly as inflation, and consumer buying power will increase. That's what actually happens. To buy more stuff, we need more workers--operating the machines, of course--which means new jobs. We spend a smaller proportion of our income on the stuff we buy now, and the remainder goes to new things--since the 80s, we've moved our money from food and clothing onto more and better healthcare, as well as smart phones and electronic entertainment; and houses have gotten bigger, while cars have gained luxury, performance, and safety features while remaining roughly 56% of the median income.

      If you do it quickly, you get an unemployment spike, which damages the economy. The bigger the spike, the longer it takes to recover, and the poorer your society comes out of it.

      If you do it poorly, you get rough destruction of wealth. Raising minimum wage already concentrates wealth into a poor elite--some minimum-wage workers get richer, all other consumers become poorer, and we lose jobs: The cost of a burger increasing by 17 cents, with 282 billion burgers sold per year, is $50 million; that's over 3,000 $8.25/hr jobs. Raising minimum wage such that the old wage was cheaper than a machine *and* the new wage is more expensive ($8.25 wage becomes $15 wage; machine is $9.50) eliminates the minimum wage jobs and exchanges in more-expensive machines, so your economy takes it both ways.

      A lot of people can't grok this because it's a continuous-operation function. Basically, people reason, "Hey, but the minimum-wage worker has more money to spend, and so you wouldn't lose any jobs!" By such reasoning, you have infinite money, and thus infinite jobs, and we are all fabulously wealthy (we are, but that's not the point). You have so much income *per* *time*, and the cost of purchasing certain goods increases, and so the number of goods increased *per* *time* decreases, thus the jobs decrease. Again: doubling down on this kind of damage by making wage workers non-competitive with machines is bad.

      It gets even worse: normally, product price increases occur slightly more slowly than inflation for products whose costs have decreased. That is to say: If you displace 10% of the labor cost of making a hamburger, that hamburger will approach 1.8 times the price after 100% inflation--10% of its price doesn't keep up. As this money returns to the consumer, the consumer base becomes capable of paying the wage of another worker, and thus can buy new products. If you've pushed up the cost of labor, then it takes *longer* for those two things to intersect, and so the transitional period of unemployment extends: jobs lost to technical progress take more time to become new jobs.

      So you're de-employing workers *quickly* (unemployment coming more rapidly); you're increasing the cost of goods instead of decreasing it (setting the far point of technical progress growth years farther out); and you're making human labor more expensive (requiring much more purchasing power movement back to the consumer's hands before replacement jobs are created--and reducing the total replacement jobs possible).

      That's a recipe for an economic disaster and a permanent feedback loop to make a society poorer. It's one of the reasons I push for a Citizen's Dividend that migrates costs off wage-labor (reduce payroll taxes and replace minimum wage raises with a non-wage income basis): that plan increases the number of consumer take-home dollars per employer wage-labor dollars paid to have an employee. You can describe that as "decreasing costs" or "increasing consumer buying power"; if you stare long enough, you realize the two things are eventually the same.

      Technical progress is what makes the middle-class, the poor, *and* the rich richer. It's what's given us the ability to *afford* modern healthcare, high-speed internet, wireless ph

    18. Re: Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your hordes of have-nots and raise my self-driving armored vans armed with microwave area-denial pain beams. Welcome to the 21st Century and the Age of the One Percenters, bitches.

    19. Re:Cool by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 1

      Taxes? Healthcare? Months of the year when lawns don't get maintained? Maintaining a competitive advantage in an essentially no-skill occupation?

      Seriously??? He did say "Texas" and "Mexican". I'm sure taxes and healthcare is not in play here. And here in Texas I mow my lawn from March to November so there's not much downtime for the lawncare industry.

      --
      Karma: Bad
    20. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      between $50-75 per lawn

      He ripped you the fuck off unless prices have gone way up in the last 5 years. I used to live in the suburb around Houston and got a crew of Mexicans that would come weekly to mow, edge, weedeat... hell, one time they completely weeded my garden for $100/mo. Standard suburban lot, front and back. Just had to put up with occasional drama when they'd come around begging for money for a lawyer because their uncle got caught by INS or whatever.

    21. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A niece and a friend's wife have been cleaning homes for the past 25 years; they constantly turn down new business and if they lose a client, there are many more interested in their services. Neither of them work weekends. They each make $40k/yr cash, unreported revenue. Neither of them will ever be without work.

    22. Re:Cool by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      - He cuts about 10 lawns a day, Monday- Friday @ between $50-75 per lawn.

      Holy crap you're getting ripped off...

      I pay $20 a mow and that includes edging, trim, and cleanup with a blower...

      And that is to a COMPANY... still Mexicans, but there is a white guy who owns it who has to make something as well.

    23. Re:Cool by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Where I live HOA isn't a thing. There are no requirements of how you maintain your property anywhere for about 50 miles. People also won't pay $50/week for their lawn to be maintained. You'd be lucky if people here would pay $10 (and from my own experience people are willing to pay somewhere between $5-15).

      I have a friend whose older brother has run a 'lawn carer' business with a single truck and his own tools for a couple decades now. He only gets paid good money by businesses and they pay about $40-50/hour of work done. He does very few houses because they simply won't pay even half what he gets from businesses. He also can't maintain 10 hours of work a day, he's lucky to get 6. So at the best possible rate here he earns (by himself) $300 a day, $1,800 per week (6 days a week which is what he works), or roughly $7,200 a month. Which is a best case scenario and it looks good until you factor in equipment (including maintenance, repair, and fuel), insurance (which is around $800/month for him and his family), and everything else he needs to factor in. However the one time we talked numbers he actually made about $50k that year, so his earnings are sub optimal compared to these best case numbers above. He used to hire teens to help with larger jobs and paid them in cash, but that's become to much of a hassle and so he doesn't do that anymore.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    24. Re:Cool by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      Until you buy a lawn mowing robot.

    25. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worker productivity is increasing at an unprecedented rate while wages have stagnated. Employers are getting far more value out of each employee than they ever have in the past, all while paying practically nothing.

      With automation moving in and reducing the number of unskilled jobs, and quite a few skilled jobs, we're going to find more and more people underemployed, or unemployed and unemployable. All while we produce goods that we can't sell because we don't have anyone to buy them.

      It's an interesting time. We can, for the first time in history, produce more than we can use. We don't need everyone to work a full 40-hours to keep our civilization going. Very soon, it's possible that we won't need MOST able bodied people to work even part-time. Of course, with rampant unemployment, there will be far fewer people able to access those goods and services, no matter how inexpensive they become... Money comes from the bottom, after all.

      Maybe it's time we start seriously talking about a Universal Basic Income.

    26. Re:Cool by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      So some people in China then?

    27. Re:Cool by budgenator · · Score: 1

      My understanding is the combines now start in southern Oklahoma head north and stop in central Saskatchewan, priced just a little less than the Farmers could do it themselves. AgServices is a growth industry and yes John Deere is working on robotics, especially on the tractors that haul the harvested grain between the combine in the field and the truck that hauls the grain to the elevator.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    28. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live one block from Lake Conroe, so it's the going rate. My house itself is not waterfront property, but I'm 200' from the water, so the prices here are high and the white gladly pay the Mexicans to handle their lawn care for $50-75 per go. It's 2016, not 1995. Everyone needs to make a little coin.

    29. Re:Cool by aphelion_rock · · Score: 1

      And when you replace all the workers with robots, who's going to buy your fast food?

      The newly trained technicians who design, develop, install and maintain the robots will have the income to buy the fast food.

    30. Re:Cool by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      This. It's probably a lot easier than a fast food robot too.

    31. Re: Cool by sectokia · · Score: 1

      Both your answers are absolutely stupid. If a robot does a task cheaper than a human, then the human labor can be put onto another value adding task. The same amount of resources as before can now produce more overall sands low for more consumption overall. If you only look at the robot and the one work who is fired, you completely miss the rest of the unseen economic effects. The robots cost will be tired to the resources and labor to make it. The cheaper food will allow people to consume in other areas of the economy. There would be no net loss of jobs overall. Technology has been replacing factory workers for eons. We don't have massive unemployment and a short supply of jobs (the current economic problems are more from government meddling, not because people are suddenly worthless).

    32. Re:Cool by j-beda · · Score: 1

      A niece and a friend's wife have been cleaning homes for the past 25 years; they constantly turn down new business and if they lose a client, there are many more interested in their services. Neither of them work weekends. They each make $40k/yr cash, unreported revenue. Neither of them will ever be without work.

      Until someone reports them to the IRS (for the reward) and they get a hefty fine or jail time, or at least big bucks in lawyer fees. Not to sound too cynical, but only the uber-rich get away without paying taxes.

      "The IRS Whistleblower Office pays money to people who blow the whistle on persons who fail to pay the tax that they owe. If the IRS uses information provided by the whistleblower, it can award the whistleblower up to 30 percent of the additional tax, penalty and other amounts it collects."
      https://www.irs.gov/uac/whistl...

    33. Re:Cool by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Good food, like fresh fruit and vegetables can be rather pricey. McDonalds is one of the cheaper alternatives. Just don't order soda.

    34. Re:Cool by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Labor costs only account for about 20% of the cost of a typical fast food item.

      People have done the math and McD's would only need to raise the price of a bag of french fries about 4cents to cover a $15 minimum wage. That is not an increase that the majority of people would even notice.

    35. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      About a third of my friends now use a robotic vacuum cleaner in their house. Most lawn sprinklers are now permanent and automatic. With battery powered mowers, I predict the automatic mowing and fertilizing of lawns is coming very soon. Putting some brains inside a battery-powered mower just seems like such a small, incremental step compared to the one involved in making the leap to a battery-powered mower.

      As I see it, automation is absolutely critical for maintaining rich societies that de-populate. First-world economies rely heavily on immigration from second and third-world economies to maintain societal growth. That's not sustainable by the planet or by the third-world society. At some point, those sources of population growth will dry-up as population growth will slow, reverse or collapse due to availability of condoms, lack of resources, such as clean water, and the ever-increasing spread and homogenization of cultural ideas, via wireless services and global trade. Future porn, sex-bots and ever-increasing liabilities in forming human bonds will further impact population growth and replacement rates.

    36. Re: Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know there's a robot for that, right?

    37. Re: Cool by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You realize your entire post is the first half of my conservative answer, right? The one you called stupid.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    38. Re: Cool by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      The scoops are coming! The scoops are coming!

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    39. Re:Cool by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The newly trained technicians who design, develop, install and maintain the robots will have the income to buy the fast food

      Good luck selling fast food to people who almost certainly earn enough to eat anything else. Face it, fast food is the Earth equivalent to Dwarf Bread. Nobody eats it if they can find anything else.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    40. Re: Cool by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "That doesn't mean they should starve."
      That is where the government comes in. A social safety net has value. It is not business's place to be the social safety net. Supply resources for the social safety net sure but not be it.
      The problem is that too many people do not have skills needed today.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    41. Re:Cool by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Labor costs only account for about 20% of the cost of a typical fast food item.

      It's 14% of revenue. Industry standard. Below 14%, they start calling people in if business is expected to pick up; above 14%, they start sending people on break or dismissing them early. 20% would be huge.

      People have done the math and McD's would only need to raise the price of a bag of french fries about 4cents to cover a $15 minimum wage.

      14% of an $8 value meal is $1.12; $15 is 181% of $8.25. It's 92 cents extra for that extra value meal.

      Even at 4 cents, that's 1 job lost per 412,500 boxes of small fries sold.

      In reality, the total U.S. fast food industry revenue (total sales) in 2013 was $191 billion. That's $191,000,000,000. The cost of direct wages was 24.6%, which accounts for managers, district managers, corporate operations, and so forth; at the line, it's 14%, which *doesn't* account for minimum-wage workers (or anyone making $15/hr) up the chain.

      Let's assume all minimum wage workers in the United States make $8.25/hr (MD standard, higher than $7.25/hr Federal standard) and that anyone making more than minimum wage makes more than $15/hr. THIS WILL SKEW MY NUMBERS LOW. Let's also ignore any non-direct wage, which will also skew my numbers low. That means *only* the cashier and burger flippers are getting raises; the managers, truck drivers, packing industry workers, and so forth aren't getting raises. If you don't work at the bottom rung in a Wendy's, fuck you.

      14% of $191 billion is $26.74 billion. Multiply that by 1.81 and you get $48.40 billion. That's a difference of $21.66 billion dollars, or 1.3 million U.S. jobs lost. To put this into perspective: the United States gained 9 million jobs between 2010 and 2016; 1.5 years of population and job growth gone in one sweep is pretty big.

      You have this ideal where it's like 53 cents extra for that $8 value meal, and you can afford 53 cents, so this isn't a big deal. Aggregate that 53 cents across the entire consumer base, and it turns into entire years's worth of wages for millions of people--wages that are going to fewer hands. It's still the same amount of spending per year, too: these people were getting paid before, they're getting paid more now, and others aren't getting paid at all; they don't magically have more consumer money to spend and create new jobs because they can't spend it until they earn it, at which point everything is slightly more expensive and the same impact occurs.

      Remember: that 1.3 million jobs is *just* the direct impact of low-level line crew at McDonalds getting bumped from $8.25 to $15. It ignores any manager salary raises; it ignores janitors at corporate; and it ignores any sub-$15 wages in the domestic portion of the supply chain (we are obviously not raising minimum wage for the Chinese). Any of these things will eliminate more jobs.

    42. Re:Cool by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You have no clue. There are millions of working people in America working for cash. Almost everyone on SS disability to start.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    43. Re:Cool by j-beda · · Score: 1

      You have no clue. There are millions of working people in America working for cash. Almost everyone on SS disability to start.

      I don't doubt that there are a lot of cheaters out there, but actually the US's compliance rate is pretty good in comparison to many countries (83% or so, that is by dollar so the per capita rate could be a lot lower if a few people are doing big dollar cheating). Do you have any reference to the idea that "almost everyone on SS disability" are cheating to a significant degree?

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/as...

      The odds of being caught cheating are fairly low, but they are not insignificant, especilly in cases where someone turns you in, and anyone working for cash has a lot of people who know about their non-compliance, and who have incentives to turn them in.

    44. Re: Cool by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      The government needs funding for that which, between the tax avoidance and hoarding by the rich and the gradual impoverishment of everyone else, is going to be increasingly hard to come by. Something is going to give. Donald Trump is just the start.

    45. Re:Cool by denzacar · · Score: 1

      14% of $191 billion is $26.74 billion. Multiply that by 1.81 and you get $48.40 billion. That's a difference of $21.66 billion dollars, or 1.3 million U.S. jobs lost.

      You do realize that you've just argued that if "U.S. fast food industry" was "forced" to pay minimum wage of $15 - they would have to let go 1.3 million of their 1.6 million employees?

      Which would be a bit tricky, cause then they would have to do the same job with only about 19% of their workforce.
      So... not only are you arguing that they would have to fire most of their employees - they would also have to close shop. End of fast food.
      Just so they would not be "forced" to continue to have the same growth in revenue, which would cover most of the $21.66 billion difference ($19.19 billion of it) by the far and distant future of - 2018.

      And that's NOT including increased purchasing power OR higher growth due to positive publicity.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    46. Re:Cool by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you've just argued that if "U.S. fast food industry" was "forced" to pay minimum wage of $15 - they would have to let go 1.3 million of their 1.6 million employees?

      False. Fast food workers aren't the only people with jobs. Did you really just argue that all U.S. jobs are fast food?

      And that's NOT including increased purchasing power OR higher growth due to positive publicity.

      All growth comes from consumer purchasing power, as consumers pay wages. You're concentrating the total income into fewer hands by paying some hands more income on purchases; that means there is necessarily LESS PURCHASING POWER.

      The biggest defect in thinking is people going, "Oh, but the wage worker receives that money, so he has more buying power, and thus there's *more* buying power and *more* money moving around!" That doesn't work because the wage worker receives that money in the same time frame.

      In other words: this year, $12 trillion are spent; if we raise minimum wage, $12 trillion are *still* spent, but somebody is receiving a bigger chunk of that--and somebody else is getting a smaller chunk. The cost of products has to adjust to factor that increased wage cost in, so those products which are supported by people whose wages increased are now more expensive, and the purchase of those precludes the purchase of some other product. Whoever's job supported those lost purchases is now no longer supportable, and that person becomes the "somebody else getting a smaller chunk"--as in UNEMPLOYED.

      The next year around, the minimum wage employees have more buying power due to their more income... but the total buying power of all the wage income is less. It's reduced by the products which were output by the lost jobs. The poorest get richer, others of the poorest get poorer, the middle-class gets poorer.

    47. Re:Cool by denzacar · · Score: 1

      False. Fast food workers aren't the only people with jobs. Did you really just argue that all U.S. jobs are fast food?

      No.
      That's what you argued when you decided to present a raise in operating costs of fast food industry as "1.3 million U.S. jobs lost".

      You do realize you imagined those "1.3 million U.S. jobs lost" out of "21.66 billion dollars" you calculated as a part of "the total U.S. fast food industry revenue"?
      Not shoe industry. Not lollipop industry. "Total U.S. fast food industry."

      Which you've argued will lose 1.3 million jobs. Out of 1.6 million total jobs in said industry.

      In other words: this year, $12 trillion are spent; if we raise minimum wage, $12 trillion are *still* spent, but somebody is receiving a bigger chunk of that--and somebody else is getting a smaller chunk. The cost of products has to adjust to factor that increased wage cost in, so those products which are supported by people whose wages increased are now more expensive, and the purchase of those precludes the purchase of some other product. Whoever's job supported those lost purchases is now no longer supportable, and that person becomes the "somebody else getting a smaller chunk"--as in UNEMPLOYED.

      Blah-blah-blah all jobs are digging ditches with bare hands so the entire cost of product is pure manual labor blah-blah-blah.
      Which isn't true even with handjobs.

      You are ignoring the fact that manual labor is a tiny part of the overall product price - while you're busy trying to prove that people making more money will actually be making less.
      Which is not only immensely stupid as it is basically the argument that rich people are poor.
      It is, again, proven wrong by your very numbers.

      Even in your imaginary scenario the supposed cost increase is about 11.34% - while the wages of 1.3 million NEARLY DOUBLE.
      I.e. Cost of life (i.e. cost of products and services) increases by less than 12% - while income jumps up by 81%.
      Plus it's an instant injection of money into economy cause those people are already living on payday loans and working several jobs just to make ends meet.

      Try to imagine what happens when a person working three jobs suddenly manages to live on "only" two jobs.
      Will they keep slaving for that extra dollar because greed - or will they go "Holy shit! I can now sleep 8 hours a day AND see my kids - while paying all the bills and making more money. Is this that fabled American dream?"
      What if they quit that third job? Will the business simply close their doors cause there's no one to sweep the floors?
      Or will they hang a sign saying "Floor sweeper wanted"?

      When the industry is paying wages which are below the poverty line for a single parent with two kids, then that parent MUST work two jobs for them to survive.
      When that same parent is paid ABOVE the poverty line for a family of five - he/she doesn't need that extra job.
      That job then does not get lost - it becomes a job opening.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    48. Re:Cool by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Which you've argued will lose 1.3 million jobs. Out of 1.6 million total jobs in said industry.

      What if people buy exactly as many hamburgers, spending the additional few cents, which erodes their buying power to purchase some other commodity good? Then jobs at Amazon are lost.

      Every good and service is in competition with every other good and service. You have the capability to buy 1,000 things and there are 10,000 things on the market; 9,000 things will lose out. There are millions of people, so the total pool of all consumer capability to buy is divided up among all of those things, which creates all jobs. If any one of these things becomes more expensive without the total money supply increasing (inflation), then someone else's job must go away, because less of something else is bought.

      You continue to argue that a price increase in the fast food industry can ONLY reduce purchasing of fast food items. The argument is that the TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASEABLE PRODUCTS decreases. The total IN THE ENTIRE POPULATION. That means something doesn't get bought, and somebody's job goes away.

      I.e. Cost of life (i.e. cost of products and services) increases by less than 12% - while income jumps up by 81%.

      This is an infinite money argument. You argue that somebody has more money, thus there is more capability to buy.

      Your argument ignores that the TOTAL INCOME PER YEAR of all people working is *THE SAME*. It's not one penny more; just some specific person has more money because the cost of the products they're helping to produce are now higher. Some other people are incapable of buying as many products because THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY BUYS FEWER THINGS. This means someone else's job must go away, as something isn't bought, and whoever makes that something now can't be paid a wage.

      The key flaw is all of these people are still getting and spending the same money in the same time. That is to say: someone is now getting $30,000 instead of $18,000; and they're getting that money over a year of work. They don't instantly have $12,000 additional to dump into the next guy's salary and create new jobs. If they did, then we would all be infinitely rich because we all have jobs and we put our money "back into the economy" and it comes back to us and, by the end of the week, the feedback loop makes us all billionaires.

      This is a common flaw in thinking by people with narrow minds who can only observe individuals and not economies. Donald Trump is a huge example of this kind of horrendously-broken grasp on economics, although he's a good solid step up from most people I've seen argue about minimum wage.

      When that same parent is paid ABOVE the poverty line for a family of five - he/she doesn't need that extra job. That job then does not get lost - it becomes a job opening.

      When I say jobs are being eliminated, I mean jobs. If there are 500 jobs being worked by 200 people because most of them have second jobs, some of those second jobs are going away--pack your shit, folks, we're going away!

      You are, again, using some broken rationalization to imagine up where the jobs might go. I am saying the economy becomes poorer and less-capable of supporting jobs; you are saying CERTAIN people become richer and so no longer need their job, so the job becomes someone else's job--and ignoring the fact that some subset of such jobs actually vanish out of existence.

  6. If not now... by Memophage · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And in six months buying a $25,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $12/hr...
    And in a year buying a $15,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $9/hr...

    They're going to replace employees with robots anyhow, I don't buy that increasing the minimum wage to whatever has anything to do with it.

    1. Re:If not now... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      Hopefully some of those ex-employees go to school, learn to build, program, maintain, and recycle the robots. Most of those jobs should pay better than $15/hr.

      As for the rest, they can spend their time lobbying for UBI.

    2. Re:If not now... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup. This isn't really a valid argument against increasing the minimum wage.

      At worst, it merely hastens the inevitable by a few years, but this is going to happen.

      This is relevant to the current election cycle for multiple reasons - free trade agreements are a major source of contention, and Trump talks about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US - the problem is, as the recent massive Foxconn layoffs proved, the majority of those jobs are NEVER coming back no matter what you do, unless you enact a New Jersey-style law against automation. (New Jersey requires all gas stations to be full-service, you cannot pump your own gas. One of the reasons for this rather unique law is to create jobs.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This assumes that the Robot can clean itself daily, clean the fryier, and replace the oil.
      And a robot in a hot oil and salt environment will be low maintenance.

    4. Re:If not now... by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It simply accelerates the point at which robot cost and human cost lines intersect. If you artificially raise wages, it will be sooner rather than later, but either way, it will happen.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    5. Re:If not now... by Frederic54 · · Score: 2

      But who will build the robot? And at what time the robot will build others themselves?

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubling the cost of an employee effectively halves the cost of the alternative. Those jobs would have eventually been automated as economies of scale and market penetration reduce the costs -- thought it would be in perhaps 10 years instead of one -- but making it (relatively) cheaper by a factor of two will certainly speed the process along.

    7. Re:If not now... by boristdog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And someone on Slashdot will make a 3-D printed, Arduino-controlled version for $250 that also checks the fry temperature and saltiness, and counts each fry for maximum efficiency.

      Then someone else makes a 3-D printed, Arduino-controlled restaurant that takes raw potatoes, flour, and meat in big hoppers. It creates a burger and fries in a few minutes and is entirely controlled by a smartphone. And the whole thing fits in the space of a standard minivan. Cost? $8500.

      Now McDonalds is out of business because any fool can buy one and put it on a corner.

      BFD.

    8. Re:If not now... by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      If you think about it, that robot can work 24/7 365. So recalculate that number to do that and it will pay for its self in 2 months tops

    9. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then if they're going to replace employees with robots anyhow, why bother raising the minimum wage?

      Politics. This is just another Democrat election year ploy, like the fake war on women.

      They desperately need women voters, and a lot of women hate Hillary Clinton. They have to distract people from her complete unsuitability for office.

    10. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy Fuck!

      Out of the woodwork eh?

      A 3 Digit ID posting to /...?!?!

      What is this, 1999?!?

    11. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're going to replace employees with robots anyhow, I don't buy that increasing the minimum wage to whatever has anything to do with it.

      Businesses have risk appetite and risk tolerance. Risk appetite is how much money they want to throw in a hole for a likely conversion to more money; risk tolerance is the point at which they will not throw more money into the hole because the return--whether or not it's coming--is sinking the ship too hard, and they're no longer interested in trying to squeeze out more promised droplets of gold.

      Because of risk appetite, different businesses will implement labor-reducing changes at different times. Sure, you have an $8.25/hr employee now, and the machine costs $8/hr; but next year the machine should compare to a $7.25/hr employee, and in three years it should compare to a $5.50/hr employee. It seems to me that, over the ten-year period, you will come out with a higher profit if you wait three years before deploying expensive machines. These are $35,000 machines replacing $16,500 employees, so you need a little over 2 years to get a break-even ROI (replace benefits with maintenance).

      To some businesses, switching onto machines right away seems like a good idea. Poor foresight I guess. Other businesses will vary between how they roll out--how long to delay, how fast to carry out the roll-out, etc. That means moving everyone out of their jobs and getting machines in here could take a decade or more if wages are competitive with machines and we believe machines will get cheaper. The risk of moving onto machines isn't offset by the 25 cents savings, and the potential return for paying that 25 cents for the next few years is that you turn it into a 4 dollar savings instead.

      This breaks when you suddenly make labor expensive.

      Now instead of $8.25/hr vs $8/hr, you're doing $15/hr vs $8/hr. In one year, avoiding the 25 cent savings means $500 per employee per year; but at $15/hr, you're losing $7,000 per employee per year for not going in right now. That's going to hit risk tolerances a lot faster, and jobs are going away much more rapidly in those conditions.

      It's even worse if machines are *more* expensive than people: you get the price increase that comes with, say, $11/hr (machine) labor, but you fire a bunch of $8.25/hr human labor. Normally, we replace a high-labor process with a lower-labor one and make cost savings, leading to a reduction of prices, leaving more money in consumer pockets, allowing more purchasing, creating new jobs to make the new stuff we're buying. If the machines are more expensive than wage-workers before the wage bump, then costs go *up*, and consumer ability to buy goes *down*: rather than reacting to the reduction of jobs by creating new jobs, the consumer base reacts to the increase in cost by not being able to financially support the wages of *even* *more* *jobs*.

      In 1790, 90% of Americans laborers (in a ~58% labor force) were farmers; we've replaced most of them with machines, and they now make up 2% of the labor force, and about 11% of consumer spending in total goes toward food to cover those farmers, the people building and maintaining farm equipment, logistics and sales moving that kind of thing, chemical companies making fertilizers and pesticides, and oil mining and refining to get the fuel for energy to drive all this. That means 18% of the labor involved in making food is on the farm, and 82% is in supporting infrastructure. You'll notice we don't have an 82% unemployment rate today; and automated fast food won't destroy our job market unless the method by which we transition is damaging--which this particular method *is*.

    12. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we won't have to subsidize the restaurant's robots with food stamps and medicaid.

    13. Re:If not now... by Tanktalus · · Score: 0

      Yup. This isn't really a valid argument against increasing the minimum wage.

      At worst, it merely hastens the inevitable by a few years, but this is going to happen.

      It's the (mythical) frog-in-boiling-water here. If you had bumped up the minimum wage slowly, the impetus wouldn't be there. Hell, they may not even notice until minimum wage got to $18/hr (ok, maybe before then). But when you increase the labour cost by 25-100%, all in one go, you shock the system so bad that they will naturally look to any and all means necessary to rein in their labour expenses. It becomes the squeaky wheel that's going to get a whole lot of grease. Avoid the labour costs from getting noticeably squeaky in short order, and it might have been more than a few years.

      Further, this will result in a reverse shock when these robots are deployed - putting extra people out of jobs if they work, and possibly shutting down some less-profitable franchises if they don't work putting even more people out of work.

      Would this happen naturally? Of course. But don't pretend the net social cost is zero to hasten it. It's still the equivalent of the broken-window fallacy.

    14. Re:If not now... by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Came here to say this, so I'm happy to see someone else had the good sense to connect these dots.

      Robots are also an investment over time. $35k now, and I strongly suspect they won't cost $35k/year to maintain afterwards.

      This also isn't any different than any other process optimization/automation that's happened. Their fries aren't cut from fresh potatoes. Their burgers aren't made from beef ground on site, or even shaped on site. None of their bread/buns are made at the restaurant. Most things are pre washed and cut. A little more automation isn't going to change very much.

      I do know that, in general, people don't really like ordering from a machine and having a machine deliver the food. They'll probably still staff people for that, and for cleanup, and general monitoring of stuff going on, and to deal with loading the machines with product, etc. A robot arm that makes fries is, IMO, a VERY good idea - how many kids get burned on that stuff every year? No one likes that position.

    15. Re:If not now... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suspect this article was posted for political reasons rather than for robot tech reasons.

      In Slashdot way back in the year 1900, they had similar articles like "Does the latest steam tractor throw one 2 cent an hour + food laborer out of work? They were political back then, too, even though it was News for Farmers, Stuff that Manures.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    16. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can only hasten it. the greed knows no bounds

    17. Re:If not now... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      As long as I can get an order of EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES, I'm okay with that.

    18. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an excuse they hide behind.

    19. Re:If not now... by Altus · · Score: 1

      Yeah because Mcdonalds has never heard of using a spreadsheet.

      These companies are acutely aware of the cost of labor at all times, just like they are with the cost of food... if they can cut costs, they will, it means more profit for the folks on top.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    20. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under California’s plan, its minimum wage, currently one of the highest in the nation at $10 an hour, would rise to $10.50 in 2017, $11 in 2018 and a dollar each year through 2022.

      It isn't like the minimum wage is going from 8 to 15 overnight. It's going form 9 to 10.50.

      It just SEEMS like a lot because everyone's saying the minimum wage is 15/hr now that there is a plan over the next 6 years to get there. If you go too slowly then you don't make any progress catching up with inflation.

    21. Re:If not now... by crunchygranola · · Score: 4, Informative

      But when you increase the labour cost by 25-100%, all in one go, you shock the system so bad that they will naturally look to any and all means necessary to rein in their labour expenses.

      Not been tracking this issue in the news have you? Nobody is proposing increasing the minimum wage to $12 (much less $15) "all in one go". The "Raise the Wage Act" being submitted to Congress raises it to $12 but does it over four years. The law recently signed in California reaches $15 an hour, but takes 6 years to do it.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    22. Re:If not now... by lorinc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yup. This isn't really a valid argument against increasing the minimum wage.

      At worst, it merely hastens the inevitable by a few years, but this is going to happen.

      This is relevant to the current election cycle for multiple reasons - free trade agreements are a major source of contention, and Trump talks about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US - the problem is, as the recent massive Foxconn layoffs proved, the majority of those jobs are NEVER coming back no matter what you do, unless you enact a New Jersey-style law against automation. (New Jersey requires all gas stations to be full-service, you cannot pump your own gas. One of the reasons for this rather unique law is to create jobs.)

      But then you won't be able to compete with countries that do not enforce anti-automation laws.

      I think the game is already over. A significant fraction of the population is already useless to the economy, and in 30 year it will be the vast majority. Let's face it, for the past 40k years, we built our societies based on the value of human labour. Today, human labour is worth almost nothing. It's decreasing so fast, we will see it reaching 0 in our lifetime.

      Where do we go from there? Do we fight barbarian style to survive while the 0.1% enjoy the robotic enabled leisure society utopia? It seems so inevitable, it's extremely sad. Look at what happening right now in France: it's obvious all these guys will be replaced by cheaper and more docile robots in less than a generation, what will they do when that happens? Riots, civil war.

      The sad part is, while a few will be happy, the vast majority will not, whereas it could have been to other way around thanks to technology if the right political decisions were taken in the 70s.

    23. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. This isn't really a valid argument against increasing the minimum wage.

      At worst, it merely hastens the inevitable by a few years, but this is going to happen.

      I addressed this. You repeat a line that comes from the thinking that jobs go away forever and no new jobs come. Circa 1790, 90% of American workers were farmers; today that's 2%, and a total of 11% of the workforce (including the farmers themselves) provides all the supporting infrastructure (energy, machines, pesticides, fertilizer, shipping, retail, marketing) to supply our food.

      It's not "Hastening"; it's "Compacting." You're creating a situation where people become unemployed at a higher rate--more jobs lost per month--and replacement jobs come at a lower rate. Instead of shaking a little as we push up to 6% unemployment and then come back down to 5% over 5-10 years, we spike up to 30% unemployment over 2-3 years and then require some 70 years to recover--if our economy doesn't fucking collapse first.

      You will incur enough injuries and blood loss in your life that, were I to take all that blood from your body today, you would die immediately.

    24. Re:If not now... by shawn2772 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And in six months buying a $25,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $12/hr... And in a year buying a $15,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $9/hr...

      They're going to replace employees with robots anyhow, I don't buy that increasing the minimum wage to whatever has anything to do with it.

      Robots will replace people in lots of professions. Economically this will be fantastic, but it's going to require a serious restructuring of our economy, and the faster it happens the more painful it will be.

      Raising the minimum wage will increase the pace of the transition, which will make it hurt more.

    25. Re:If not now... by geek · · Score: 2

      Yup. This isn't really a valid argument against increasing the minimum wage.

      At worst, it merely hastens the inevitable by a few years, but this is going to happen.

      This is relevant to the current election cycle for multiple reasons - free trade agreements are a major source of contention, and Trump talks about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US - the problem is, as the recent massive Foxconn layoffs proved, the majority of those jobs are NEVER coming back no matter what you do, unless you enact a New Jersey-style law against automation. (New Jersey requires all gas stations to be full-service, you cannot pump your own gas. One of the reasons for this rather unique law is to create jobs.)

      It's not unique. Oregon does this too.

    26. Re:If not now... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      And the 60,000 jobs Foxconn just automated where caused by what, exactly? I don't think China is known for their overbearing minimum wage...

    27. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully some of those ex-employees go to school, learn to build, program, maintain, and recycle the robots. Most of those jobs should pay better than $15/hr.

      As for the rest, they can spend their time lobbying for UBI.

      Until the robots can repair themselves or other robots.

    28. Re:If not now... by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      What are you and others talking about 'build' the robots? They're going to be pumped out of a factory in China like every other consumer good, not a bunch of guys with some Raspberry Pi's and some servos hacking them together in their garage.

      For a while they'll be serviceable, until economics breaks down enough that it's cheaper to just swap the robot with a new one.

    29. Re:If not now... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The step is never larger than $1 per hour. The difference is that rather than 10 raises 1 year apart, with a $10 difference over 10 years, this is a single act with a $1 rise over multiple years. If they had actually done it $1 at a time, one year apart from every raise, it probably would have gotten to $20 an hour before it was an issue.

    30. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be buying into the fallacy that just because technology hasn't destroyed jobs in the past, it will never destroy jobs in the future. We've really only had 150-200 years of solid technology advancement. That's hardly enough evidence to support your theory.

      On the other hand, most economists nowadays are waking up to your fallacy. Traditionally, they would state that technology just shifts around the labor force. But more recently, economists are figuring what technology is capable of, and they're warming to the idea that the old "rules" for the industrial revolution only describe that nascent developmental age and have little to do with an economy employing robots that are not only stronger, more precise, faster, and more tireless than humans, but also smarter, at least within their realm of operation.

    31. Re:If not now... by budgenator · · Score: 0

      When a burger flipper starts getting $15.00/hr, what do you think my skills are going to cost you? Right now I'm only making 3 times minimum wage, if minimum wage doubles, so will mine, sooner or later and a lot of people think that way. Oh yeah and Business owners are going to want to keep wages at 20% of revenues so you know what that's going to do to the price of a burger, that $6.75 meal deal will go up to $8.45.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    32. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four years is hardly a slow introduction when talking about capital expenditures, which are often expected to depreciate over a decade or more.

    33. Re:If not now... by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      You don't buy the argument that increasing the cost of labor incentivizes a company to look for ways to automate the process to eliminate the labor cost? I guess you also don't believe in other economic "fallacies" like supply and demand and price elasticity.

    34. Re:If not now... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The basic problem with McDonalds is that it's the same generic pseudo-food everywhere. It's what you eat when you don't care about the food, you just want something cheap and/or fast and/or convenient. It doesn't really offer anything unique as far as the product goes, what it offers is the franchise. The supply chain, the branding, the efficiencies of scale.

      Robotic food preparation could threaten that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:If not now... by adonoman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why we need to completely drop the minimum wage and bring in a basic income. If something can be done by a robot, then there's no reason a human should be doing it. Productivity will keep going up with fewer and fewer workers needed, but we're still going to have people who need to live and consume.

    36. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe this is more of an argument from a certain political orientation rather than the actual reality short of making some adjustments to the claim. It may be the case that today these laws still are on the books because of jobs. However the or similar laws existed all over the country at one time. It goes back to women driving cars. It was thought that pumping gas was unladylike or something along those lines. It might have had to do with the long dresses women wore at one time as well. Now if you go far enough back women didn't drive, but at some point, I imagine these would probably constitute progressive laws as it enabled women to travel freely (drive).

      I'm for ending these laws, opening our boarders, eliminating minimum wage laws, fixing situations where governments granted or otherwise enabled monopolies/duoplies and created non-free market situations by giving companies first mover advantages which ensures there continued dominance to this day (ie local governments granted cable TV companies monopolies in exchange for serving there community before others), ending public schools (I'm not against socialism and would certainly fund charitable organizations, as I already do in other situations), ending the collection of most taxes including 'tolls' and fees', ending requirements children attend school, ending laws prohibiting children from employment, eliminating immigration law and opening the boarder for all to come and go as they please, getting rid of drivers licenses, get rid of social security, getting rid of social security numbers, getting rid of vehicular registration, getting rid of requirements to have vehicular insurance, getting rid of prohibition for once and for all on all sorts of substances including selling alcohol and cigarettes to minors, getting rid of age of consent laws (they don't protect children and criminalize consensual acts between children in many cases, and in fact if a child can consent to another child, then its illogical to say they can't with an adult, even if it's problematic in many circumstances, due to an imbalance of power, or similar, these are moral or religious issues and should not be legal issues), getting rid of censorship laws even where it seems good (child porn, copyright infringement, 'terrorism', etc), 'copyright' (it's an artificial construct that doesn't even do what its original creators advertised, it doesn't benefit the people, nor is it 'for a limited time' as originally advertised (7 years is no more than a lifetime in practice), but rather tends mostly to benefit large corporations and enables a small minority of people to become insanely wealthy, almost nowhere else does the law grant monopolies),laws prohibiting prisoners from voting (you don't have a democratic society if you don't let those who are victims of the law vote), laws regulating marriage, and many more laws. If there is no violence and there is no victim there should be no crime. 'Hurt' feelings should not be criminal. Rape is still rape. If someone uses violence [where there is no consent] that should be criminal. Someone using violence with consent of the person being impacted should not be criminal.

      www.freestateproject.org

    37. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one will not buy robot made french fries, or use a automated grocery checkout.

      When I am in the mood for a burger and fries, I go to "In n out"
      Fresh made fries and burgers, and all the workers look happy.
      They pay them well and they even get benefits.

      http://www.in-n-out.com/employment/restaurant.aspx

      Fuck robots.

    38. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if he manages to hold is employees salary increase for a year the he will have a excuse for doubling his millionaire bonus and self increase is own pay by 20%

    39. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oregon is just like that. If I have to pass through Oregon, I make sure I fill up before entering so I don't have to stop in Oregon.

    40. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AS you have said, you haven't been tracking the news.

      Main Stream Media shows "striking" (actually demonstrating workers) demanding immediate pay increase to $15 an hour. The Main Stream Media showed people that they reported were on the west coast, the east coast and specific points in between.

      SO..if CBS, *NBC, ABC, FOX and PBS show people demanding an immediate increase fro $7.25 to $15, you must be full-of-shit.

    41. Re:If not now... by whoda · · Score: 1

      Wages are not capital expenses

    42. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL!!! They already do this -- we call these places "factory"!

    43. Re:If not now... by Copid · · Score: 1

      All that matters is whether it's cheaper over the life of the robot to use the robot than a person. There could be different reasons for that to happen. Parts for robots could have gotten cheaper. Some new software could have made robots a lot more efficient. Or maybe robots are as efficient as they were last year but labor is more expensive. The reason why the threshold gets crossed doesn't matter. All that matters is that it gets crossed and suddenly it makes sense to replace a person with a robot, so it happens.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    44. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they can spend their time lobbying for UBI.

      This!

      Like it or not, automation will drive mass unemployment in the very near future (not just fast-food workers & starting in the next 10 years).

      We need to decide how to shape our society(/world) to deal with it. Currently Universal Basic Income seems like the best option - any other suggestions welcome!

      I know there are lots of people who distrust Government, but I also can't see who else is going to prevent a decent into hell-on-earth. IMO we have to task the government with dealing with this, preferably including other governments as it probably should be dealt with on a world-wide basis.

      Whilst I have lots of faith in people on a one-to-one basis, I have very little faith in society/electorate/politicians so I think we're heading to a world of uber-rich and the destitute. I'll probably be dead before it plays out fully.

      So in the lifetime of some of the younger readers here we're either about to enter a golden age, or another dark age. I suspect the latter, but I hope I'm wrong.

    45. Re:If not now... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Circa 1790, 90% of American workers were farmers; today that's 2%, and a total of 11% of the workforce (including the farmers themselves) provides all the supporting infrastructure (energy, machines, pesticides, fertilizer, shipping, retail, marketing) to supply our food.

      I wish more people thought about this.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    46. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You failed economics then. The cost curves will cross when the minimum value required of employees is greater than the value they produce. Doubling the minimum value from $7 to $15 or changes the curve slope enough that it radically accelerates the change.

    47. Re:If not now... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The basic problem with McDonalds is that it's the same generic pseudo-food everywhere.

      This generic pseudo-food concept is, actually, once of the keys to their success.

      McDonalds' marketers found that a *lot* people often want to go to a place where they know exactly what they're going to get (i.e. familiarity and uniformity) and they've capitalized on that. A place where you order "X" and you'll get "X" just like you do in the next town over, or the next country over.

      One time when we were tired and wrecked from traveling we went to a McDonalds in Vietnam....and we got *exactly* the same familiar food we'd have gotten in Seattle or Denver or Memphis. Yes, it was shit food but it was familiar and that was a kind of comfort all in itself.

      McDonalds knows this, they understand this bit of food psychology, and that's why they're soooooooo big on everything being exactly the same in every restaurant (food-wise, anyway). You go there and you know what you're gonna get, no surprises. It's one of their keys to success.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    48. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually, yes. Increasing minimum wage and other employee related expenses is accelerating the move. It's pushing us past the threshold of value faster than had we not done so. The result is the people that think they're getting help with higher wages will actually be getting no wages.

    49. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foxconn had the plant that exploded and killed several people. They're being pushed on safety issues. Robots being blown up by volatile metal powders do not cause an uproar. It's cheaper to automate than implement the safety protocols for human labor.

    50. Re:If not now... by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      Well his email says COWcornell, perhaps he's been doing the moo cow stuff lately under cover of anonymity?

    51. Re:If not now... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The basic problem with McDonalds is that it's the same generic pseudo-food everywhere.

      That's not the problem, that's the benefit. You can walk into any McDonalds, and you know exactly what you're going to get.

    52. Re:If not now... by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      Further putting the lie to Ed Rensi's words, McDonald's was pursuing more automation well before the $15/hour minimum wage was proposed. There is at least one location where one can order with a computer terminal instead of talking to a teller.

      I'm guessing there are fast food restaurants (however broadly defined) which will take one's order, collect payment, cook/heat the food, box the order, and give it to the customer with an almost all-robotic workforce (save ingredient delivery, robot maintenance, and site cleaning). If you're okay with minimal customization, food you could have cooked/heated yourself at home at a lower price, and having to wait somewhere other than your home for the food to be dispensed to you, this might be something to try. To me it sounds remarkably unappetizing.

    53. Re:If not now... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Alas, the time to start bumping the minimum wage was over a decade ago. We waited and stalled and nit-picked until it has to happen suddenly.

      A plus, it might be enough shock to hasten the basic income.

    54. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when you increase the labour cost by 25-100%, all in one go, you shock the system so bad that they will naturally look to any and all means necessary to rein in their labour expenses.

      Not been tracking this issue in the news have you? Nobody is proposing increasing the minimum wage to $12 (much less $15) "all in one go". The "Raise the Wage Act" being submitted to Congress raises it to $12 but does it over four years. The law recently signed in California reaches $15 an hour, but takes 6 years to do it.

      Dude, you're throwing facts in the face of a republican.

    55. Re:If not now... by sjames · · Score: 1

      That might work in a downtown club area, but most will have nobody but crickets to serve at 3 A.M.

    56. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impermanence, also called Anicca is one of the essential doctrines and a part of three marks of existence in Buddhism. The doctrine asserts that all of conditioned existence, without exception, is "transient, evanescent, inconstant". All temporal things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction.

    57. Re:If not now... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And in six months buying a $25,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $12/hr... And in a year buying a $15,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $9/hr...

      They're going to replace employees with robots anyhow, I don't buy that increasing the minimum wage to whatever has anything to do with it.

      As a little bit of context to this, Hedge fund managers each made 1.7 billion dollars last year. That's 2 people making around 300,000 minimum wage workers wages. Which is why I always laugh when I get marked as troll on slashdot whne I point out it is hilarious when billionaires tell us that it costs too much to pay people minimum wage.

      But back to the subject at hand, after all of the takers are gone, what is their next trick? The shareholders don't put up with stasis - you have to make more money the next quarter. But you are absolutely correct. Automation will move up the wage tables. And maybe this will be a good thing, maybe it won't.

      But as the majority of humanity becomes redundant, the shareholders better hope that the hedge fund managers buy everything the takers once did.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    58. Re:If not now... by Narcogen · · Score: 1

      Hopefully some of those ex-employees go to school, learn to build, program, maintain, and recycle the robots. Most of those jobs should pay better than $15/hr.

      And how many of those employees do you think the economy needs? As many as now work for McDonald's, or Wal Mart?

    59. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The job both do is not comparable using only unit cost - for the same reason we use robots to build cars, effectively automating repetitive tasks improves efficiency, quality and the return on dollars invested in other labour.

      Robots don't need smoke breaks or take sickies (if the "effectively" part is met), and generally don't fuck around and get bored.

    60. Re:If not now... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yeah because Mcdonalds has never heard of using a spreadsheet.

      These companies are acutely aware of the cost of labor at all times, just like they are with the cost of food... if they can cut costs, they will, it means more profit for the folks on top.

      But eventually the "folks on top" will start cannibalizing each other, and it will be very few indeed, perhaps a return to feudal society.

      The "New jobs will come along to replace all of the old ones lost - even more jobs will be made!" depend on a rapidly increasing population.

      So at this point, some serious discussion needs made about how to deal with the future. The present paradigm is one sided, Job creators versus the enemy - anyone except them. McD's might make some extra short term profit going worker less. But what happens when all of the fast food swill joints get rid of their employees? Better have new jerbs for your customers. You can save allkinds of money, but you need to make some money as well That requires customers.

      And for all of the people that say that new jerbs will come along - I've yet to hear any suggestions other than th ecple of people who will maintain th robots. Okay, there's one or two out of every thirty replaced.

      This is happening, and we need discussions other than about minimum wage takers. Think of them as money dispensing units that will stop.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    61. Re:If not now... by sjames · · Score: 1

      One note, in all the minimum wage increases I know of, it takes place over a period of a few years, so there is no sudden jump to $15/hr.

      Of course, with the news that Foxconn is replacing people with machines, it's evident that even making less money than it costs to drive to work doesn't exempt you from replacement.

    62. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i wonder will you be saying same when "in and out" has same fries for twice the price, i can guarantee i will go for cheaper mcdonald/robots fries

      also robots in food industry are more hygienic, and have less chance of spreading disease than humans, so i would even pay extra for my food to be prepared by robot

    63. Re:If not now... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      But when you increase the labour cost by 25-100%, all in one go, you shock the system so bad that they will naturally look to any and all means necessary to rein in their labour expenses.

      Not been tracking this issue in the news have you? Nobody is proposing increasing the minimum wage to $12 (much less $15) "all in one go". The "Raise the Wage Act" being submitted to Congress raises it to $12 but does it over four years. The law recently signed in California reaches $15 an hour, but takes 6 years to do it.

      As well - would the opponents approve of government subsidizing of the same workers? That's a trick question of course, because taxpayers already do just that. McDonald's already has information for it's workers to apply for Government assistance. When WalMart comes to town, social services increase. I've posted the links so many times, I'll suggest the supply side only folks do a little google-fu themselves.

      they successfully mouth politicians to help them pay their employees less, Why not? Greasing a few sleazeball's palms to the tune of a few mil is less money than paying higher wages, a sound business decision when the votes are just a baksheesh away. Supply side free marketers are the biggest socialists around - always looking out for their employees to make the most of government assistance - what humanitarians!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    64. Re:If not now... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When a burger flipper starts getting $15.00/hr, what do you think my skills are going to cost you? Right now I'm only making 3 times minimum wage, if minimum wage doubles, so will mine, sooner or later and a lot of people think that way. Oh yeah and Business owners are going to want to keep wages at 20% of revenues so you know what that's going to do to the price of a burger, that $6.75 meal deal will go up to $8.45.

      Talk to me about hedge fund managers Ken Griffin and James Simon who each made 1.7 billion last year - which is the equivalent of around 300,000 minimum wage jobs. Explain how minimum wage workers are paid too much, and how it is good policy for your's and my tax dollars to subsidize them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    65. Re:If not now... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You don't buy the argument that increasing the cost of labor incentivizes a company to look for ways to automate the process to eliminate the labor cost? I guess you also don't believe in other economic "fallacies" like supply and demand and price elasticity.

      Of course it does. Do you only buy the supply side of the equation? Those people wh buy the stuff?

      Because - yes - if we replace every person working today with a robot, and eliminate the jobs, as far up the laddr as we can go let us say that we put 50 percent of th eUS workforce out of work - that will indeed save the companies a lot of money. How much money will they make in massivley unemployed America?

      And if you say that more jobs than are lost will be produced, tell us what the jobs will be?

      This is coming, but supply side only people seem to think that companies will do just fine when a lot of them are going to be put out of business by their own hand. Corporate suicide in fact. And of course, in modern day America, no one dares plan.Invisible hand of the free market and all.

      If we don't plan, we're going to find out that the invisible hand of the free market has a distinct Darwinian bitchslap.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    66. Re:If not now... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You should watch "humans need not apply"

      This time is different.

    67. Re:If not now... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The robots to replace wages are.

      4 years is nothing, it will take that to do a mass rollout anyway.

    68. Re:If not now... by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      News For Herds, Stuff That Cattles?

    69. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do now. When the market is full of them, they'll be making minimum wage, at least until they build robots to repair the robots. Face it, capitalism had a good run, but it's outlived it's usefulness.

    70. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, see here's the problem with the line of thinking you're coming up with. There is no guarantee jobs will be created because they were in the past. We've moved from a survival economy, to a comfort economy, to a greed economy, and now we're "creative". Sorry, that line ends somewhere. When computers can replace every function of a person, that's physical, thinking, and emotional parts, there's nothing left for people to do. They can even program themselves now. At a certain point a job no longer becomes a requirement and we're pretty much there. Previously you also had more people dying, so new jobs could open, now immortality is within our grasp and may be a reality within 50 years. How do you create jobs for a society that doesn't die?

    71. Re:If not now... by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      And this was my point. If they had done this more surreptitiously, it likely wouldn't have been noticed as quickly. The fact it was planned out ahead and will happen automatically, barring a change in government to repeal it, gives businesses the business case to make these changes asap, with the lead-in time the law has given them. However, if they had simply increased the minimum wage by $.5-$1 per year for each of the next however many years it takes to get to $15/hr, businesses would not have the same business case for automation until it got to $12-$14/hr, and that would have spurred the automation technology to get over their last hurdles at that time, and then the roll-out, and, yes, minimum wage would have been $16-$18 before the automation would have been there.

      Conversely, had the minimum wage been frozen instead for the next 10 years, automation would be even further out. I'm not saying this as an alternate solution, just pointing out that an inevitability such as automation is seriously moved up by announcing it as if with a bullhorn.

      Much like getting warning that your employer is going to get rid of you by the end of the year - you don't wait for the pink slip before you start job searching in earnest, and a business knowing that its labour costs are going to increase by significant amounts over a relatively short period of time will start looking at alternatives at its earliest opportunity, once it knows where the costs will be and over what time frame.

    72. Re:If not now... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And they could have more surreptitiously have put it in place with obfuscation. The minimum wage would be indexed at the 1968 level (inflation adjusted) and adjusted by inflation to not drop below that level. If the change in a year is greater than 10% of the previous minimum wage, and more than inflation, then the change will be capped at 10% per year.

      The effect would be the same (or better, for workers), but wouldn't have annoyed the poor-haters as much. There'd be no jump, just a small inflation adjustment each year. And it'd be as locked in as the current law. But the intent of the law wasn't just to raise the minimum wage, but to look like they raised it a lot. It is a battle in class warfare, not an attempt to improve the lives of the poor.

    73. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? Technology has ALWAYS killed jobs through out history. And although it usually creates new job categories, the number of jobs lost vs the new jobs is always higher.

    74. Re:If not now... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Until some lard ass hires H1B types to do the job because Americans are to damn stupid, ask Zuckerberg.

    75. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The robot could replace a worker in two daily shifts at McDonalds. Therefore, the return on a $35,000 robot vs. $15/hr employees is only one year.

    76. Re:If not now... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Even over four (or six) years, that's a rapid increase. Here in San Francisco... where I think we can all agree we're about as progressive as you can get... we voted in 2004 to tie the minimum wage to the consumer price index, so that it would rise automatically with inflation. So, the $8.50 minimum wage from 2004 increased with the CPI to $11.05 at the beginning of 2015. In 2014, we voted Prop J into law. That's our four-year (not six) increase to $15.00 in 2018, starting with the boost to our current minimum of $12.25.

      So, that's under a dollar per year increase. And a total increase of 26%. Businesses will feel it, sure. But business is booming. And if you do business in San Francisco, you've already decided to accept higher than usual costs.

      Now, consider the federal minimum wage. That's $7.25. Take it just to $12 over four years; and that's $1.19/year for a total increase of 40%. That's somewhat more dramatic. And I can see where it would be more likely to shock a business owner into looking at cutting costs by cutting staff.

      Besides, automated ordering kiosks are already a thing. There are many places where I can order with my iPhone. And who goes to a bank teller instead of an ATM anymore? The writing's been on the wall for a lot of low-level positions for a while. What's happening now, is mostly inertia being overcome.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    77. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they could get jobs as proofreaders and editors. Slashdot certainly seems to suffer a serious shortage of competence in both vocations.

    78. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, you guys still bang out that line like the planet's really going to need 500,000,000 robot engineers.

      We're not going to need 500,000,000 anything. The 0.001%'ers could overpay for ten-second blowjobs* all day, all night, all year and people would starve waiting in line to get on their knees. Money will have no way down. Prolekistan only has one export, and we know what happens to countries with no export.

      *"the point" includes the guys playing his (or her) live music, the guys painting him nonstop art, the guys writing him private novels, etc.

    79. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Does the latest steam tractor throw labor into extinction
      No.

      Automation will.

      Thanks for playing.

    80. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >McDonalds is out of business because any fool can buy one
      Anything you can do they can do better.

      We only have the entire history of human civilization to reference on observing that capital drives capital and wealth concentrates. You almost can't ascribe it to human action, it's more like an inescapable law of nature.

    81. Re:If not now... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      What they should have done is what we had here in San Francisco for several years before we forgot that we'd already done something better and jumped on the $15/hr bandwagon ourselves: Index the minimum wage to the consumer price index, let it raise automatically with inflation, and be done with it.

      $12, $15, 4-years, 6-years; it's all academic. Setting it as a specific dollar value is dumb. Supposing the $15 wage goes through, it's going to stay there for long while. Legislative inertia and incompetence on the left, plus the screams of bloody murder at the notion of COMMUNISM and fighting any increase with tooth and nail on the part of the right, combine to pretty much guarantee it. So, eventually $15 will have the same purchasing power that $8 does now; and we'll be right back where we started.

      What they should really do, is set it to automatically increment each year with the CPI; then STFU and forget about it. It'll get buried in the bureaucracy and go up on its own every year. And we can avoid having this same debate again down the road.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    82. Re:If not now... by phizi0n · · Score: 1

      Robotic prep doesn't threaten their business and it could actually raise their quality. If you live in metropolitan areas then fast food franchises have some of the worst food you can find but they have one enormous strength - consistency. If you ever go on a long road trip and find yourself hungry in some population 5k town in the middle of nowhere with nothing for hundreds of miles then you can be fairly confident going into a McD's that it's going to taste how you expect and not give you food poisoning, but the same can not be said about the local restaurants. The reason it's consistent is because they dumb down the cooking so that it's nearly impossible to fuck up even by 16 yr olds. Robots would allow them to use more cooking techniques without some human burning it, undercooking it, putting too much of something, etc.

    83. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That $8.25/hr employee does not cost McDonald's $16,500 a year. You have to also account for the costs of training, employer paid federal and state taxes, uniforms, free meals, business and liability insurance that is more expensive because of the higher risk to/from employees... There is also the cost for the time spent interviewing, hiring, supervising, and reviewing an employee. Some McDonald's offer/cover Vision and Dental Insurance, Prescriptions, Education Assistance, travel discounts, Life and Disability insurance, for employees. All in all, that $8.25/hr employee probably costs around $21-22k the first year (due to the high cost of training) and a bit less in subsequent years.

    84. Re:If not now... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      They were political back then, too, even though it was News for Farmers, Stuff that Manures.

      It still is "Stuff that Manures"...

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    85. Re:If not now... by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      No, you drop the minimum wage and get rid of all income and wealth related taxes, all business regulations, shutdown 99% of what government does, get rid of IRS, Federal reserve (it is a gov't organization whether, they know they are), IFDS, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, gov't controlled education, energy, transportation, communication, utility and other services. Let the free market work out who does what instead of a central planner and people will come up with ways of making money that are just completely unavailable today, we will actually have more products and rising standard of living for once in our lifetimes.

    86. Re:If not now... by arcade · · Score: 1

      and that's why they're soooooooo big on everything being exactly the same in every restaurant (food-wise, anyway). You go there and you know what you're gonna get, no surprises. It's one of their keys to success.

      But, you're wrong.

      If you've been to McDonalds in the US and compare it to say McDonalds in the Philippines - you should notice a major difference in the food.

      First of all, the US version will be flat, horrible and not look like the pictures at all. It's to damp buns with a meatpatty in the middle. Or three damp buns with two meatpatties for a Big Mac. With some salad. And it looks horrible.

      Now, if you order the same thing in the Philippines, or any other country where a McDonalds job is a GOOD job and not just what poor people and students do - and you'll see the burgers being beautiful and look like in the *pictures* in the resto. The texture and taste is better too.

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    87. Re:If not now... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The economics doesn't work. If the robots required as many jobs to build and maintain as they replaced then they wouldn't be viable. They are only possible economically because they replace a large number of low-skill jobs with a small number of high-skill jobs. The factory robot might take a few thousand man-hours to build and maintain, but it'll replace a few hundred thousand man-hours of unskilled labor. Even if all those ex-employees retrain, there wouldn't be enough jobs for them all - the most they could do is drive engineering wages down to minimum wage too.

    88. Re:If not now... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "Now McDonalds is out of business because any fool can buy one and put it on a corner."

      The food retail industry would lobby for extensive health-and-safety and hygiene regulations requiring all food retailers apply for a license that costs $5,000 a year and be subject to frequent inspections to ensure they comply with frequently-changing rules. Only government-certified food processing robots will be allowed, which will undergo extensive and expensive testing to ensure their price never falls below $30,000. One way or another a high barrier to entry will be maintained.

      That's how the farming industry worked to squeeze out small farms.

    89. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could have just tied the minimum wage to inflation to adjust for cost of living (for example, most law in Sweden referencing money is pegged to a "standard amount", which is changed every year). Or you could simply have stronger unions and unemployment benefits (then you don't need to have a minimum wage; people simply won't work for less than unemployment benefits).

    90. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what a cowardly way to phrase his part in it, too. "It's going to cause job loss" is some serious weaselly passive-voice bullshit. Is the job loss just going to fall uncontrollably out of the sky onto them?

      No, you wimp. You're going to fire them. He clearly doesn't care about the people, so I don't know why he would bother trying to reflect responsibility about what he's going to do to them.

    91. Re:If not now... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sure, but that wasn't my point. I was simply pointing out that their product is not unique or difficult to replicate. It's the same with KFC and Burger King and Subway and any number of others. The same the world over.

      As I went on to point out, it's the consistency that is the key to their business, and it is easily replicated. It's just that few people bother because the market is saturated and there isn't much margin in it, compared to selling proper food. But if, as the GP suggested, anyone could buy a Burger-o-matic on eBay and set up on a street corner, selling the exact same thing as all the other Burger-o-matic vendors, without the capital costs or overheads of a McDonald's franchise...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    92. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, if it wasnt for patent #31245432, #12320885, #3fac4321 ..... That CLEARLY states that McDonalds invented the burger and fries and holds exclusive rights.

    93. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And in six months buying a $25,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $12/hr..."

      Is this before or after a percentage of their customer base simply stop going to their stores due to lousy automated service. Personally I find the stuff they serve as food at most fast food joints barely manage to justify going into the store. I'd just stop going if I have to put up with automated shit.

      And if I -did- go to such a joint, I can assure you I'd be 10x less lenient over screw ups. The manager will be informed of anything at ALL is lacking. And if managers adapt by making themselves not available, then the head office will definitely be getting the low down.

    94. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully some of those ex-employees go to school, learn to build, program, maintain, and recycle the robots..

      Congratulations. You've managed to address 1% of the demographic that will be unemployed due to automation like this. Now let me know what you intend to do with the other 99%, as they stand around trying to figure out what JOB they're going to NEED in order to "go to school". You act like most students these days can afford to just sit back on their ass for four years and only go to school and not worry about a job.

      And some kids aren't finding a need to go to school these days. Pretty much all of them are, now that a college degree has become the new high school diploma.

      Unfortunately, in many cases all that gives them these days is $80,000 in debt from student loans while they struggle to find a job as they continue to work that shitty jo...oh wait that's right, that shitty job just got replaced by a robot. Nevermind.

      Oh we'll wake up as to how bad this is, right after it's too late.

    95. Re:If not now... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The irony is that the only reason this is even an issue is because, for some truly mindblowingly idiotic reason, minimum wage was not tied to inflation in the first place. If it had increased by the inflation rate every year since first instated - it would be at a decent rate today, with no risk of shocks to avoid in the first place.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    96. Re:If not now... by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ironically, it's not like McDonalds has ever even BEEN a food company. Ray Koch has given multiple talks in which he spelled it out: McDonald's is a property company. The whole restaurant schtick was just a way of acquiring valuable corner properties right outside city CBDs which would be IN those CBDs a few years later.
      McDonalds makes far more from renting out the properties where a restaurant stood decades ago than they have ever made from selling food. Hell the main corporation doesn't even sell any food at all. They sell franchises, and they allow you to buy one by signing over the deed for the place where the restaurant will go and paying the bond on the property. That's how they acquired such a massive supply of valuable properties.
      To quote Koch himself: "Every person I've ever met can make a better burger than McDonalds, but none of them are as rich as me, because McDonalds is not a company that makes money from selling burgers".

      One side effect is that anything the McDonald's corporation says about labor should be treated as bullshit since they are not in a labor intensive industry at all - they are landlords. The franchise owners care about labor costs, but they are not part of the corporation and the corporation decidedly does not speak for them - they are merely tools the corporation uses to acquire more land.

      McDonalds corporation has consistently insisted on that seperation when it came to any and all forms of liability. The case a few years ago in New York where thousands of workers were cheated out of their paychecks by outright fraud (altering their timesheets to lie about how much they worked) ended up having to be pursued against individual franchise owners as the corporation denied any involvement in the management of the franchises nor any liability for anything they do.
      Different courts have shown different levels of agreement with that argument (the famous coffee case - which everybody knows only the bullshit corporate-spin version off that has no resemblance to reality at all found the corporation liable for the fuckup at a particular franchise, most cases have not).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    97. Re:If not now... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      There are other cases where that gets subverted however. McDonalds historically upon entering any country would put all local franchise fast-food businesses out of businesses very soon.
      In South Africa though, that did not happen. In fact, after about ten years the McDonalds corporation decided that South Africa will never be nearly as profitable a market as any of their other countries, and sold the local right to sell franchises to a local company under condition that they keep complying with McDonalds branding and the like. Basically McDonalds South Africa is not owned by the McD corporation at all, they simply have a trademark license with conditions.

      The reason was - South Africa already had well established nationwide franchises (notably Nandos and Steers) which sold much better quality food with only slightly longer waits and for lower prices. So very soon the novelty of the new American company wore off and everybody who wanted a burger went to Steers instead where you would get a decent real-meat patty on a proper bun with a giant helping of nicely sized portion of chips (not those horrible, hard-boild stick things McDonalds sells) for rather less. Nearly everybody thought the 10 minute extra wait was bloody well worth it because it really was only ten minutes and the food actually tasted good.

      Lots of small individual restaurants couldn't hold up to the onslaught anywhere -they simply lacked the funds to ride out the first few years of everybody grabbing mickey d's because it's quick and novel and has a massive marketing budget. But the franchises could, and because their quality was better, they not only survived but ultimately pushed mickey-D's into a niche for people who want some very fast hunger ending at 3am. There's money to be made in that niche, and they are marking it, but it's hardly a dominant position.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    98. Re:If not now... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Presumably, we eventually arrive at a point where robots are doing most of the 'menial' jobs and the businesses operating them have no-one to sell to, because no-one has a fucking job. I realise some countries will opt for some kind of universal basic income, but can you imagine that kind of commyinist nightmare happening in the US? Me either.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    99. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice, :). I would have said, then someone else makes a 3-D printed Arduino controlled Robot that can build 3-D printed Arduino controlled robots, replacing the guys building said robots.

    100. Re:If not now... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Explain how minimum wage workers are paid too much, and how it is good policy for your's and my tax dollars to subsidize them.

      I think I know this one.

      They're paid too much because he isn't one.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    101. Re:If not now... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      The basic problem with McDonalds is that it's the same generic pseudo-food everywhere.

      This generic pseudo-food concept is, actually, once of the keys to their success.

      McDonalds' marketers found that a *lot* people often want to go to a place where they know exactly what they're going to get (i.e. familiarity and uniformity) and they've capitalized on that. A place where you order "X" and you'll get "X" just like you do in the next town over, or the next country over.

      One time when we were tired and wrecked from traveling we went to a McDonalds in Vietnam....and we got *exactly* the same familiar food we'd have gotten in Seattle or Denver or Memphis. Yes, it was shit food but it was familiar and that was a kind of comfort all in itself.

      McDonalds knows this, they understand this bit of food psychology, and that's why they're soooooooo big on everything being exactly the same in every restaurant (food-wise, anyway). You go there and you know what you're gonna get, no surprises. It's one of their keys to success.

      Inaccurate - you will not get the same thing everywhere:
      http://www.foodnetwork.co.uk/a...

      India's a good example, as they don't sell anything with beef :
      http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    102. Re:If not now... by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      I think what you are missing here is that raising the minimum wage speeds up this process. Say that robots are cheaper than $15/hr employee. If a business can get a $8/hr employee, then they will not buy a robot until it gets much cheaper. On the other hand, if they can no longer get the $8/hr employee, they will buy the robot, which in turn make the robots cheaper through economies of scale, which will further displace additional workers. We are heading towards the guaranteed income economies with the "unemployable" (no skills that can provide a living) class comprising up to 80% of society, however we should not try to hasten the creation of the "unemployables" until the system is in place and can handle the load (i.e. the 20% of people who are willing to learn and work are supporting the remaining 80% who prefer not to produce but instead to pursue hobbies - whether art, gardening, learning for the sake of learning (perpetual students), or on the other end of the spectrum smoking pot and watching TV).

      PS> I am not saying that this is bad either - the guaranteed income will enable more people to be creative and take risk, therefore providing higher gains for society as a whole, however there will be problems with the fact that the 20% who work have so much more than the 80% who don't, that it will be perceived as "unfair", even though the 80% will basically be supported by the 20% (akin to kids saying it's so unfair that the parents have money and they don't).

    103. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The utopians wants to tax companies back to the US like we did with coat hangers or shrimp. And that didn't work and those costs just get included with everything else. A little cost added to everything, nobody complains. The problem with the minimum wage, is it is a big cost. It is easy to support it when you don't employ those types of workers. Those that do can only compensate, like Coyote Blog hirers pro's for landscaping, since geezers that just wanted a good camping site and would work for that, are too expensive now. The higher the cost, the quicker the payoff. Franchises have a great deal of pooled knowledge and training like hamburger university. Automation will just be another course there. Look at the Score study, they absorbed it no problem.

      http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/05/8401288/index.htm

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q0vk_fKDEo

    104. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That hope will probably only hold out for for those making minimum wage and still in school. If they are an adult and still only making minimum wage, I don't really see them taking the initiative to better themselves if they haven't already.

      That's why they are complaining about making minimum wage instead of actually doing something about it - it's easier to stand around and b***** instead of actually working for the higher pay.

    105. Re:If not now... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if nothing else, the automation of McDonald's may serve to properly change the focus from "foreign workers are stealing our jobs" to "robots are taking our jobs". The historic arguments that new jobs will come along may not be relevant. Yes some new jobs like robot tech will be created, but either the job will be so simple that another robot can do it, or it will be so complex that entry level workers and long-term unskilled workers won't be able to perform the work. The key difference now is that the robots are reaching the point where they can permanently displace many or even most forms of unskilled labor and there is a large portion of the unskilled labor class that simply don't have the learning capacity to progress out of that trap.

      A basic income law would be one answer - it would allow unskilled labor to survive while retraining full time or just to survive in the face of inability to learn new skills. But if you look at the historic antipathy in the U.S. to any kind of a taxpayer-funded handout even with stringent eligibility requirements, you can see that a basic income is going to be a loooonng, 20-30 year debate with the laissez-faire capitalists and IP rent-seekers screaming "illegal taking" every step of the way.

      And then there's the question of how to fund such a program. A tax, or elimination of depreciation, on robots and other autonomous capital equipment might help, but probably wouldn't cover. It would also probably spark a move toward leasing robots.

      Eventually, we'll reach a point where the social costs of a large "unproductive" and "unemployable" class will force some really hard decisions. I think that very long-term, either the US socio-economic system will be forced into democratic socialism with state ownership of sufficient property and industry to fund basic income or pseudo-productive employment, or there will be a violent revolution to outlaw AI in all forms, as in the Butlerian Jihad back-story of "Dune". (And yes, all you surveilling governments out there, this is how you use "jihad" in a sentence without being a terrorist.)

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    106. Re:If not now... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Consistency is everything with big brands like that. Never heard anyone say "that was a good can of Coke" ;)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    107. Re:If not now... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Robots will replace people in lots of professions. Economically this will be fantastic

      It will be fantastic for the people who own the robots. The people who own the means of production will become ever richer and more rarified. Everybody else will be ever-more removed from the ability to break into that realm. Yay.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    108. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What jobs exactly do you think these out of work people are going to move on to? Service jobs for the rest of the unemployed who also have no money to pay them? It won't take very many people to design the robots. For now a few people will repair them, eventually the robots will repair themselves.

    109. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. This time is Industrial Revolution model, and I already know how to control that model.

    110. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I think their movement to machines is actually a cost-savings measure, plus they're getting money from the Government to do so. The Government wants more industrial machines to move humans away from industrial accidents.

    111. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the 35K robot an ordering Kiosk? Who are they going to pay $100/hr to keep repairing, cleaning and reloading the burger maker?

    112. Re:If not now... by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

      The robot doesn't have hour restrictions. A quick search of McDonald's in my area show many of them are open 24 hours. That is 168 hours of operation or 4.2 employees at 40 hrs/week. So that robot can replace 4 employees at $16k/year and takes the ROI down to 6 months.

    113. Re:If not now... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Explain how minimum wage workers are paid too much, and how it is good policy for your's and my tax dollars to subsidize them.

      I think I know this one.

      They're paid too much because he isn't one.

      Bam!

      Although I suspect he wishes they'd FOAD as well.

      By the way, my two highest paid hedge fund managers example - having their jobs performed by computer automation would eliminate the equivalent of 300,000 minimum wage jobs. I expect adding the next, say ten highest paid to automation would eliminate the equivalent of all of the minimum wage jobs in America.

      And for as much as our libertarian friends love to hate on the lowest on the ladder folks, I've yet to get a peep out of them on the possibility of eliminating the equivalent of the entire subclass.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    114. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      went to another country and ate McDonalds? :(

    115. Re:If not now... by bravecanadian · · Score: 1

      And in six months buying a $25,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $12/hr...
      And in a year buying a $15,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $9/hr...

      They're going to replace employees with robots anyhow, I don't buy that increasing the minimum wage to whatever has anything to do with it.

      This guy gets it.

      A lot of jobs are going to be replaced by robots and AI. The only question is can we manage the transition before it becomes a crisis.

      I know people will chime in with the "people can retrain for new jobs" chrous but this time it really is different.

    116. Re:If not now... by bravecanadian · · Score: 1

      Hopefully some of those ex-employees go to school, learn to build, program, maintain, and recycle the robots. Most of those jobs should pay better than $15/hr.

      As for the rest, they can spend their time lobbying for UBI.

      Sure, and there will be one of those jobs for how many hundreds(?) of people replaced?

    117. Re:If not now... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be painful. It could be the opposite, a great freeing of nearly everyone from wage slavery. We'll all have much more time to devote to leisure, community, and self-improvement.

      The big question is of course distributing the wealth from these robotic advances. It won't be good so long as a few people manage to convince the rest of us that it's only fair that they should reap all the gains from the massive savings on costs. Competition will see to it that savings are passed on to customers, unless these restaurants successfully employ some of the many means to block competition. In which case, the restaurant owners get it all, while the inventors and designers of the robots get paid a tiny fixed amount on a "work for hire" basis, and the rest of us see no price drop?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    118. Re:If not now... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      The risk of moving onto machines isn't offset by the 25 cents savings, and the potential return for paying that 25 cents for the next few years is that you turn it into a 4 dollar savings instead.

      But delaying investment only works in the absence of competition. 4 years to get your ROI now means that in year 5 you're down to maintenance costs for your robots. If that's the year your competition decides to make their investment in robots, you can drop your price due to how little it now costs you to make burgers.
       
      Your competition is then in the crappy situation where they're overpriced in comparison to you, needing capital for their robot investment, and looking at 3-4 years before they can compete with you on price, even if the cost of robots has gone down. That's a nice recipe for bankruptcy.
       
      As others have noted, the rise to $12 or $15 per hour is gradual spread over several years. There's got to be a careful balance in when you make your robot investment, and it's not just going to depend on minimum wage.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    119. Re:If not now... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      If you've been to McDonalds in the US and compare it to say McDonalds in the Philippines - you should notice a major difference in the food.

      Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, we went from the US to Vietnam, basically as far from home as you can get without starting to come back and the food was identical, down to the wrapper. Yeah, the menu or the food may vary slightly in some places, but by and large it's gonna be the same exact shit no matter what time zone or hemisphere you're in. McDonalds has about 35,000 restaurants worldwide, and 99.5% of them serve the exact same thing.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    120. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are factually incorrect and logically incorrect. You've also outed yourself as never having run a successful business (or any business).

      Nobody is proposing increasing the minimum wage to $12 (much less $15) "all in one go".

      You're wrong; many have, and some cities have done exactly that. The results are predictable.

      Also, you're logically incorrect. Forcing wages for unskilled workers up will inevitably drain blood faster than would happen naturally. These sharp, government-mandated wage increases give businesses a good push to look for alternatives to human labor. A natural, gradual increase wages would not - and this would best allow people to make adjustments.

      The other problem with the increases is that it gives business that can afford to invest in bots an advantage over smaller ones who can't afford bots and can't afford the higher wages. A small family owned restaurant I worked for in the late 90s went under due to the min wage increase. LArger businesses are the ones who can best handle the push to bots.

       

      And if you were really unhappy with the poor wages of unskilled labor, you would stop importing it, which is the primary cause of stagnant wages in the US; an unlimited supply of unskilled and skilled foreign labor crashing in, living ten to a house, and sending their earnings home.

    121. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You're only strengthening my argument, you know. I have a habit of ignoring things which strengthen my argument but which require an unsubstantiated handwave. "Benefits and taxes are really expensive, too!" The only thing I can quantify there is the $1,056 of OASDI and HI paid to social security out of payroll taxes on top of the employee's paycheck; I don't know how many part-time employees McDonalds has (any assembly of 40 hours is one full-time job, and people with fewer hours are underemployed and count as *less* than one job), so I don't know how many of these $16,500 jobs also incur a benefits cost and could only make something up.

    122. Re:If not now... by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Robots will replace people in lots of professions. Economically this will be fantastic

      It will be fantastic for the people who own the robots. The people who own the means of production will become ever richer and more rarified. Everybody else will be ever-more removed from the ability to break into that realm. Yay.

      It will dramatically lower the cost of goods and services for everyone. Just as the industrial revolution made lots of goods dramatically cheaper (good for everyone), but also eliminated lots of jobs (bad for those who did those jobs).

    123. Re:If not now... by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree that it will be a great opportunity to free people to do what they want to do. But that doesn't change the fact that it's going to dramatically rearrange the economy and therefore society, and such changes are painful.

    124. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      But delaying investment only works in the absence of competition. 4 years to get your ROI now means that in year 5 you're down to maintenance costs for your robots.

      At 25 cents per hour and a 14% labor proportion, that's only $1.78 per employee per hour more revenue required to keep employees versus getting machines. With 160 sales per hour on average (over 1,900 sales per day over the reasonable 12-hour daytime period) and $8/sale average, that's $1,280/hr income and $0.0111 per sale. With 6 employees, that's 7 cents per sale. You think McDonalds can't be competitive because they have to charge a penny more for a soda and 7 cents more for that supersized Extra Value Meal?

      You're not "down to maintenance costs for your robots" in 5 years; you're dealing with an amortized TCO across the life of the machine. There's a spike in cost up-front, which you might be able to afford by digging into your bank accounts or by taking a loan; then you have to recover that loss with later profits.

      If that's the year your competition decides to make their investment in robots, you can drop your price due to how little it now costs you to make burgers.

      Only if you previously *raised* your prices to get ahead of the TCO amortization, thus cutting out your ability to compete.

      Over the long run life of the machine, the business which gets in later and finds that they're saving $4 per employee per hour. They're trying to make labor represent 14% of their revenue, so that's $23.53/hr per employee that they can now reduce their prices. That means 5 years down the line, McDonalds starts rolling out price drops of $0.147 per employee per sale, instead of a penny--and with the 6-employee average staff referenced, that's 88 cents per sale.

      So now Wendy's has jumped in in 2015 and reduced their $8 Single Biggie Meal to $7.93; McDonalds waited until 2020 and reduced their $8 Quarter Pounder Large Extra Value Meal to $7.12. Wendy's can't switch to the newer, more-efficient machines until 2028 or they won't get the ROI--they'll take a big loss on the whole deal--and even McDonalds is guessing the savings might be $5 per employee by then compared to 2015 (i.e. they think the cost of machines is going to level off around 2020).

      That's how it plays out in the real world. Businesses do this all the time. Early-adopters are the ones who usually go bankrupt first.

    125. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But once the minimum wage gets to $15 / hour and the cost of a Big Mac is now $6.57, I think I'll buy my own meat and buns and make my own for much less and eat at home where I already know the sanitary conditions of my kitchen. Bye, bye McDonalds, so the workers lose their $15 /hour job and get nothing at all rather than the $7.25 they were making before.

    126. Re:If not now... by spkay31 · · Score: 1

      N.J. One of the few states where Frank Zappa's "Wind Up Workin' in a Gas Station" still applies!

    127. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That kind of makes 24-hour service a lot cheaper, which is a *big* win because it means we reach a technical progress level at which we can have 24-hour service. This is similar to when we developed better steelmaking processes and got machines to dig ditches, and suddenly the taxes required to provide in-home running water dropped from 92% of your income to 5% of your income (it's like 1.2% of average income today--around $600/year here versus $54k median income). It's not identical: reducing the cost of steelmaking made steel viable for many things, thus creating a lot of steelmaking jobs (the computer revolution did this with a *lot* of information services); McDonalds automation is more on the Industrial Revolution model, which is *dangerous*.

      That is 168 hours of operation or 4.2 employees at 40 hrs/week. So that robot can replace 4 employees at $16k/year and takes the ROI down to 6 months.

      Technically, it replaces one *extremely* inefficient employee at the given time, and 4 full-time employees over the course of the year. What you said is thus correct, and I want to point out that we've essentially made those 4 employee's jobs *extremely* efficient, thus requiring less labor--fewer of them. This is because a single employee at a night-time McDonalds is underutilized: 6 employees with 160 sales per hour during the day is as efficient as 1 employee with 26 sales per hour at night; with the average sale volume being less, that night employee is inefficient.

    128. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct, however, you really think that most people advocating for $15 an hour really know this? Take a quick survey of 10 random people on the street and I would bet they all think that Clinton/Sanders/Dems want to raise the min wage immediately. Listen to all the political speeches they give, "$12-$15 an hour if you elect me". Not $9...$10...$11... then...etc... over x amount of years. It should be obvious to most people that if we are going to have a min. wage then the current $7+ an hour is not really a living wage, but it is important to make people aware that immediately raising the min. wage to $12-$15 an hour devalues the workers who are already making that amount doing actual hard work i.e. factory, manual labor, etc... It basically says flipping a burger has the same value than lifting 100lbs of xyz all day.

    129. Re:If not now... by sjames · · Score: 1

      It looks like the only real options to choose from are basic income or torches and pitchforks (these days, more likely baseball bats and Saturday night specials).

      I suspect most unskilled laborers can learn useful skills given the time and money necessary to do so. They've just not had that opportunity due to the constant treadmill of living paycheck to paycheck. Especially if they have needed "assistance". Our current programs actually punish saving money or incremental increases to income.

      Means testing isn't even logical. Fundamentally, means tests are a demand to prove a negative.

      We may have to accept that some portion of the displaced workers have been on that treadmill too long to recover. That sort of "living" is corrosive to the mind and spirit. We even have research that suggests neurological damage. Add that to damage from environmental toxins and they might really not have the normal ability and motivation to move up to skilled labor. Of course, a lot of skilled labor is being robotized as well (for example, a lot of factory welding)

    130. Re:If not now... by TechnoJoe · · Score: 0

      The early adopters who pay a higher price are the ones who start the avalanche. By raising the minimum wage, you're making with cost effective to be an early adopter, pay that higher price, and get the snowball rolling.

    131. Re:If not now... by AnnaZed · · Score: 1

      And in six months buying a $25,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $12/hr... And in a year buying a $15,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $9/hr...

      They're going to replace employees with robots anyhow, I don't buy that increasing the minimum wage to whatever has anything to do with it.

      exactly

    132. Re:If not now... by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      These same arguments were made during the industrial revolution and yet prosperity has exploded since that time.

    133. Re:If not now... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      The fixed cost of buying a robot will always beat the continuous cost of hiring a human in the long term. The advantage of the human is they're easier to program. If McDonald's wants to offer a new triple meat Big Mac, they will have to pay someone to reprogram all of the robots and validate them. A human can look at a picture and figure it out.

      Robot programming and validation is getting cheaper, and human wages are getting more expensive. Now might be the time when the robot takes over.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    134. Re:If not now... by vandamme · · Score: 1

      One night we were in Rome, at the end of the bus line (no car), and the only thing open was McDonalds. It was slightly better than starving to death.

    135. Re:If not now... by tigersha · · Score: 1

      If someone is capable of servicing, let alone programming, a robot s/he would not be working at McDonalds in the first place.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    136. Re:If not now... by tigersha · · Score: 1

      I doubt that any person. let alone politician, could have predicted the rate and direction of technology in the 1970s

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    137. Re:If not now... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I've had my wages counted as capital expenses. By crooks. They counted all software costs as development and capitalized it, then sold the place on the strength of the cash flow.

      You'd think company auditors doing the due diligence would have noticed the insane development/support cost ratios. Fools and their money were lucky to get together in the first place.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    138. Re:If not now... by mink · · Score: 1

      Another fun part of getting gas in NJ is that the pump keeps running up the $$ charge after it has stopped dispensing fuel. I've been stuck sitting there for 5 min after the tank filled watching another shit ton of $$ rack up on the pump while the one attendant was moving slowly between 12 pumps.

      Apparently this is legal there.

      Fuck NJ. Never buy gas (or anything else) there.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    139. Re:If not now... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Name one country were McDonalds put all the local fast food out of business.

      You can't, because you are _full of shit_.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    140. Re:If not now... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You assume robots improve at roughly the pace of computers. That's a terrible assumption.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    141. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But signing one law that raises it over 6 years is different than passing 6 laws that do it over that time.

      THAT is the point.

    142. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I didn't make that assumption; I made some examples of time scales. It is a good assumption that robots will improve at a certain pace and then slow down, and thus that getting in early and getting in late are both bad timing.

    143. Re: If not now... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You taking things too literally is a comprehension problem on your part, not an honesty problem on other people's part. No reasonable person would fail to understand what I meant.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    144. Re:If not now... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that every 100 or so hours of robot work will require some pretty serious (like 2 hours of) maintenance. If you replace a full restaurant staff with a single store manager and robots, you'll still need a guy who comes in every night, or maybe every other night, to rotate through and service each robot in turn. That lucky SOB is probably also going to be changing out the fry vat oil, detail mopping the floors and doing all the other crap work that the robots can't (yet) for decades to come.

    145. Re:If not now... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      this just gives them a convenient scapegoat. Instead of simply admitting that they are only interested i money, they can try to pretend that they really would like to employ people but the big bad government just made it impossible.

    146. Re:If not now... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      If someone is capable of servicing, let alone programming, a robot s/he would not be working at McDonalds in the first place.

      But that's all about to change...

      Also, I worked at a couple of fast food restaurants when I was 16-17 years old, and even did some really brain-dead data entry work when I was halfway through getting my Master's degree in computer engineering. Just because somebody has really great capabilities does not mean that the world is going to give them opportunities to use those capabilities.

    147. Re:If not now... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      UBI - Universal Basic Income: money for nothing.

    148. Re:If not now... by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Continuing to pay workers less than a living wage is already damaging society, today. Putting it off for longer and longer periods will only make the eventual necessary adjustment even more damaging.

    149. Re:If not now... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'Robots' are old technology already. Computers have been 'fast enough' for the controller job for decades. The AI controller is still a dream. The last 'breakthrough' required was the near perfection of electric motion control (to eliminate hydraulics).

      As pointed out upthread, this is just two cost curves crossing. A little sooner than expected.

      Further the 'burger flipper' conveyor cooker is also decades old, as is the self timing, automatic fry basket. Granting neither is universal.

      Should McDonald's not have put the self timing baskets in 20 years ago, because someday there would be an arm to finish the fry packaging job?

      Making practical kitchen robots, even fast food kitchens, will just be hard work. One job/cost curve at a time, with the end game still having one or two humans there to kick the machines when needed, replace dirty and torn sanitary plastic robot covers, clear hopper jams etc.

      One practical thing I'll throw in there. I'll bet in 20 years an unguarded fry vat will be an OSHA infraction. Just to put 'mom and pops' out of business.

      The only reason industry went near 100% automated, in the cases they did, was the parts got too small.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    150. Re: If not now... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It was the core of your argument, along with the thought that South Africa was somehow an exception, 'because franchises'.

      Just by way of clue. McDonald's makes _terrible_ hamburgers, literal shit and pink slime sanitized by ammonia.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    151. Re:If not now... by BDF · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you are a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. You "don't buy" that mandating unsustainable wages for completely unskilled workers will destroy the business unless that business finds ways to compensate. The fact that they have continued to favor employing people through this date/time undermines your opinion. Robotics have been available for decades -- only now are they being forced into a corner by destructive progressive policies. Let's face it, bagging fries is a job, not a career. It doesn't deserve a "living wage", because it was never meant to fill a career role. Let's stop celebrating mediocrity, and expect people to be uncomfortable enough in their poverty to actually work on getting OUT of it.

    152. Re:If not now... by BDF · · Score: 1

      If you have to legislate jobs, then you have clearly failed miserably. New Jersey -- The armpit of America.

    153. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Continuing to pay workers less than a living wage is already damaging society

      False premise.

      There are better ways to handle this

      which have huge impacts on the poor. Non-wage solutions stabilize the job market by narrowing the gap between job elimination to technical progress and job creation from consumer buying power increases (which come as prices lag behind inflation). Fixed solutions respond to technical growth by continuously making the poorest-of-poor more wealthy and, since around 2013, can reliably eliminate all homelessness and hunger in the United States.

      We can raise the ratio of consumer take-home pay to employer wage-labor cost *without* raising business income taxes and without excessive taxes on the wealthy (I've pushed the top bracket from 39.6% to 43%, and have transitional mitigation plans to roll that out slowly and then back it out back to sub-40%, trying to avoid actually hitting that 43% top end). This can have secondary effects, such as a necessary reduction of the working week to 32 hours (I structured an example plan that causes ~118% employment demand, requiring everyone to become 20% poorer from that frame of reference... easy enough: cut their hours by 20%, unemployment rises to 5.6%).

      There's something important here.

      Continuing to pay workers less than a living wage

      Compare to:

      raise the ratio of consumer take-home pay to employer wage-labor cost

      If you raise minimum wage, you *necessarily* *reduce* *employment*. I explain this frequently. For the employment to recover, the buying power lost to consumers must return, which means inflation must suppress those wages again (wages rise more slowly than inflation), spreading the jobs out again.

      Without any alternative, this is a simple proposition: The many suffer, or the few become the Child of Omelas. You throw those people out of their jobs, let them starve, and let the many who remain live better, because 10,000 people jobless and starving quickly is better than 3,000,000 people working themselves to death and starving slowly. Through the 1900s, minimum wage increases have been a good solution.

      We now have an alternative, and it's damned cheap. Transitioning from a minimum wage and public aid system to a dividend is readily facilitated by deducting the dividend from public aid: welfare costs are less dividend costs, which means, until the market has adjusted to the stable income source, grandfathered old-age pensions get split between a supplemental, phasing-out OA pension and the Dividend as a top-off; unemployment almost entirely goes away *immediately*; HUD costs get cut back dramatically; and food stamps become practically unnecessary. To eliminate the risk of abuse, children (and naturalized American adults) are still covered by a full public aid system (food stamps, etc. via EBT), which costs 1.4% of AGI (compared to more than 17% in 2013 for the full public aid system).

      Immediately, for minimum wage workers, that bumps a 1-adult, single-filer household from $15,047 to $21,276 take-home, roughly equivalent to a minimum wage increase from $8.25/hr to $11.67/hr. For a two-adult household, single or married, the bump is to $29,689 take-home or roughly a current wage of $16.28/hr. Regardless of any other argument about my financial considerations and my grasp of economics, you can't deny that impact. All of that without raising labor costs (actually

    154. Re:If not now... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      And in six months buying a $25,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $12/hr... And in a year buying a $15,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $9/hr...

      They're going to replace employees with robots anyhow, I don't buy that increasing the minimum wage to whatever has anything to do with it.

      Exactly. We have been using robots like, forever. Think of all the automation and machining that has gone around making, say, an ice bucket (which is nothing new). Or how robots have revolutionized the auto industry (whose workers are very well paid.)

      Robots are coming regardless of how well or little we get paid.

    155. Re:If not now... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      That may be true ---- but the great equalization of 1929 happened and many of the oligarchy jumped out windows. A guy who makes $7.29M per year over an average staff wage (c) $11K per year is more part of the problem than the solution.

    156. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in six months buying a $25,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $12/hr...
      And in a year buying a $15,000 robot will be cheaper than paying an employee $9/hr...

      They're going to replace employees with robots anyhow, I don't buy that increasing the minimum wage to whatever has anything to do with it.

      And the fuckwit burger flippers and all the other protesters have not worked this out. US education failed to teach them the reality of commercial life.

      Once the robot rush starts they, the fuckwits, won't even be able to afford to live in their mom's basement.

    157. Re:If not now... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      These same arguments were made during the industrial revolution and yet prosperity has exploded since that time.

      Speak to me of the exploding prosperity of American workers since around 1975.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    158. Re:If not now... by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Think a bit more globally - the standard of living around the world has exploded since 1975. Much to chagrin of Americans, the fruits of labor in a globalized world are shared by everyone instead of just Americans.

    159. Re:If not now... by Winkkin · · Score: 1

      I suggest we let them replace all the jobs with robots. It'll result in a more consistent quality in the food served. We just tax the company an additional 2080 hours at $8 per x the number of full-time equivalents(~20) that are now sitting at home, on top of the taxes he'd have paid prior to the staffing change. and forward that to the employees in the form of a national subsistance allowance. The McDonalds Owner would easily cover the $350K in additional taxes. We're going to have to figure out what to do when more than 50% of the people are out of work in this country due to automation taking whats left of work in America. Businesses will have to pick up their share of the cost.

    160. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally, we replace a high-labor process with a lower-labor one and make cost savings, leading to a reduction of prices, leaving more money in consumer pockets, allowing more purchasing, creating new jobs to make the new stuff we're buying.

      Why would it leave more money in consumer pockets? Why should the corporation reduce prices if they don't have to? They can merely increase profits for themselves.

      Sure, a fully automated competitor of McDonald's might be able to try to compete with them on price, but good luck with that. As the market shows us all the time, even better and cheaper products have a hard time competing against a very valuable and established brand. So, there really is no point in the competition (or McDonald's) to reduce prices any time soon.

    161. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In principle I agree with you. The UBI will have to come and there is no way around it.

      A somewhat sad side effect will be that smaller business/restaurants who don't have a highly standardized kitchen will have a much harder time replacing their human workers with robots. With a basic income the wages will have to go up for this type of work, and therefore these restaurants will become more expensive, thus less competitive against the highly-standardized food outlets.

      We will lose some variety and diversity in our food choices, since only the larger players can the initial capital cost to afford to automate and also have their processes structured to support automation in the first place.

    162. Re:If not now... by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      If you think about it, that robot can work 24/7 365. So recalculate that number to do that and it will pay for its self in 2 months tops

      And it doesn't even need to get a liberal arts degree first.

    163. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. This isn't really a valid argument against increasing the minimum wage.

      At worst, it merely hastens the inevitable by a few years, but this is going to happen.

      This is relevant to the current election cycle for multiple reasons - free trade agreements are a major source of contention, and Trump talks about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US - the problem is, as the recent massive Foxconn layoffs proved, the majority of those jobs are NEVER coming back no matter what you do, unless you enact a New Jersey-style law against automation. (New Jersey requires all gas stations to be full-service, you cannot pump your own gas. One of the reasons for this rather unique law is to create jobs.)

      It's not unique. Oregon does this too.

      And here I, an Oregonian, was about to complain that pumping your own gas isn't automation, so such a law isn't actually "against automation".

      Clearly, that Oregon does it too was a more relevant point.

    164. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In Slashdot way back in the year 1900"

      Back then, Slashdot was called Dashdot.

      PS -- To complete the joke, I had written out "Dashdot" in Morse Code (because, you know, the Internet was a series of telegraph tubes back then). But Slashdot won't post it, due to "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters." * sigh *

    165. Re:If not now... by rhazz · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of better solutions, none of which politicians would agree on or are likely to be implemented in the near future. In the meantime, minimum wage is a tool that exists. While everyone argues about the best solution moving forward, raise minimum wage by a small amount. Even by one dollar. You can argue all day about the right way to patch the hole in your boat, but maybe someone should stick their finger in the hole in the meantime.

    166. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      So, you want to respond to the elimination of jobs by enforcing the permanent removal of those jobs, thus sliding the American economy into the depths of poverty? Are you trying to collapse the country?

    167. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      So get 40 million people together and start screaming very loudly. Seriously the amount of stupidity I deal with every day; do people not realize "X is hard and nobody will want to do it" implies NOTHING IS WORTH DOING?

    168. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese will build the robots....

    169. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but one person can probably clean and manage multiple machines....

    170. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And someone on Slashdot will make a 3-D printed, Arduino-controlled version for $250 that also checks the fry temperature and saltiness, and counts each fry for maximum efficiency.

      Then someone else makes a 3-D printed, Arduino-controlled restaurant that takes raw potatoes, flour, and meat in big hoppers. It creates a burger and fries in a few minutes and is entirely controlled by a smartphone. And the whole thing fits in the space of a standard minivan. Cost? $8500.

      Now McDonalds is out of business because any fool can buy one and put it on a corner.

      BFD.

      okay I want this to be a reality. And preferrably small enough to fit into a trailer for a food truck or portable cafeteria installation. Like those servers in a box where all you do is plug in LOL

    171. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      after being subcontracted to the Clown for years for IT asset instalation and having been in around and thru too many, I have seen maybe 3 franchise locations that were turned into anything else even after 2 decades or more. A McD franchise STAYS a McD franchise location because the location has too much value AS a McD franchise, the property value comes from that almost exclusively. Only thing that would make more money in the same location would be a better drive thru fast food joint. the first McD in my home town over 30 years ago, is still there. I did install work on a few west coast single digit ID number "restaurants" that were physically in the same place they've been in since the beginning, only the buildings have been torn down and remodelled a couple times.

      they make the money on the franchise licensing but Corporate owned stores then rent the whole thing lock stock and barrel, to an aspiring franchisee as a turnkey unit, but always still a McD unit. McD corporate makes more money from those than they do from old school "owner operators" (who are the only ones who also have the menu items that get fanatical following like Shamrock Shakes) and tend to be ones already paying "their kids" well above local fast food rate.

      But I honestly have not personally seen more than 2 locations "rented out" as something else. And Ive worked well over a hundred locations from west coast to places in Flyover country where even after Y2K the McD parking lot was still considered the "cool place" to hang out LOL

    172. Re:If not now... by Winkkin · · Score: 1

      I'm not advocating it, but I'm also not going to ostrich myself to the reality that automation is going to continue to put people out of work until only the highest skilled, specialized techs and engineers, doctors, will be working. A high percentage of jobs that people do today can and will be replaced my machines over the next 50 years. Furthermore, once jobs are lost overseas, what company in their right mind is going to come back to America when they have access to labor for pennies on the dollar. We need to adapt to the changes that foreign sources of labor have brought about, reinvent ourselves. rebuild our infrastructure, better educate our youth and find a way to give them a sense of purpose in America, develop technologies that benefit from our strengths, stop being slaves to consumerism (drives our angst more than anything). This see-saw ride we've been on has resulted from a complete lack of objective guidance on the part of politicians and big business. They've been chasing profits while the rest of us suffer. Just pointing out that collapse is where we're headed if we don't check our roll.

    173. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These won't handle animal products for OBVIOUS REASONS, George Harrison!

    174. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have just announced to the world that your life is paid for in full and live in an armed compound and have ex-SOF as your bodyguards. In short, you have burned your humanity membership card.

    175. Re:If not now... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I was more pointing at the "We just tax the company an additional 2080 hours at $8 per x the number of full-time equivalents(~20) that are now sitting at home" argument. That will lead to an increase in unemployment and a decrease in societal wealth, spreading poverty and harming the American worker.

      Jobs aren't going away forever. We can mishandle the automation revolution and get 80% unemployment for 100 years, or we can cover ourselves by adjusting the tax structures and welfare systems to spread the job loss and increase the rate of job replacement so that unemployment only nudges up by a portion of a percent at any given time. If we do the latter, we'll hit maybe 5.2%-5.5% UE3, grit our teeth a little, and then roll back out of it into a world that looks ... well, like today's world looks to the 1990s.

      Let's think about that for a second.

      In 1990, we didn't have air bags, traction control, bluetooth or satellite radio, and the like; antilock brakes weren't even standard on all cars. Cell phones were the subject of movies and children's toys--enormous, boxy things that somehow functioned as a car phone without the car, if you had thousands of dollars to spend. Late-90s cell phones were little plastic bricks with buttons and an LCD screen; caller ID was a nifty feature; and we had some kind of plastic magnetic tape to answer the phone and record messages if we weren't home. PCs cost $2,000 (about $3,600 today), had a multi-hundred-megabyte hard drive, and a 66mhz CPU; in 1997, the Intel Pentium 2 broke the Pentium Pro's 200MHz speed limit, coming to market at rates of 233MHz to 300MHz.

      In 1990, the average family spent 15% of their income on food, and 6% on clothing.

      Today, we spend 11% of our income on food, and 3.5% on clothing. New cars still sell for 56% of the buyer's income based on median statistics across income demographics; they now come with traction control, multi-CD changers, USB, bluetooth connectivity, sun roofs, independent suspension, disc brakes, and all manner of upgraded engine systems such as EFI and electric power steering. $800 (the equivalent of $437 in 1990) buys me a PC with high-speed graphics, 3GHz 4-core CPU, 16GB of RAM, and a 250GB SSD or a 6,000GB hard drive--60 thousand times the storage of what we had in 1990! I'm carrying around this ridiculously powerful smart phone in my pocket, 4 cores, 1.9GHz ARM, 2GB RAM, and a display resolution several times the dimensions and with 26 times the pixels as the monitor I used on my 486.

      We spend a little more on healthcare now, and we get more and better healthcare. It is newly possible to eliminate all homelessness and hunger in America. All manner of things have become cheaper, all manner of new things have come about.

      That's happened because we've found more efficient ways to do things. That's not only globalization, although that's a big part of it. In 1790, 90% of Americans were farm workers; in 1900, it was 38%; in 1950, 18%; and today, it's under 2%. In 1900, we spent 43% of our income on food; 1950, 30%; today, 11%. We're paying fewer workers for less labor hours because we've replaced farm workers with *fewer* farm workers driving diesel machines and using fertilizers and pesticides and intensive farming methods. Some of the jobs have been displaced to machinery, energy, and chemistry (hence 2% farmers, but 11% of money--we have to pay the chemists and machinists, too); others have been displaced to business, medicine (lots of healthcare...), and bagging my groceries.

      All of that because

      They've been chasing profits while the rest of us suffer.

      ...They've been producing new technology and increasing efficiency while the rest of us benefit. Someone loses their job and you cry a whole lot, while you ignore the whole economic effect of more production, more purchasing power, and the eventual creation of new jobs.

    176. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd probably be cheaper still to pay the CEO $15 an hour, and only 30 hours a week, to avoid having to pay him benefits.

    177. Re:If not now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully some of those ex-employees go to school, learn to build, program, maintain, and recycle the robots. Most of those jobs should pay better than $15/hr.

      As for the rest, they can spend their time lobbying for UBI.

      Until the robot-recycling robots hit the market. Then humans will be rendered obsolete by the robot council.

    178. Re:If not now... by Lord_Hastur · · Score: 1

      Awesom!! get rid of lawyer n judges too!! end al non objective laws !! get everyone programming for pay! using free software like swi prolog ada gnoga happstack.com lisp forth etc

    179. Re:If not now... by Lord_Hastur · · Score: 1

      or you simply get rid of regulations and let employers hire without emploee able to sue and steal from employer get rid of min wage apply the robots to house building, and de regulate house building and dekstop computer style improvements follow massive number of vastly overpaid union buggers making houses 30x as expensive as need be if factory built and scienced up like desktop computer

    180. Re:If not now... by Lord_Hastur · · Score: 1

      well problem is people mistake welfare jobs for labor, labor is productive labor, action that produces something, teacher, lawyer, most gov jobs are simply useless welfare, end them and people willl be forced to learn to program etc and or de regulate so factories can spring up and people can have high paid safe factory job and be productive, and house can be like desktop pc, centrally manufactured and assembled from replacible parts

  7. Math doesn't work out by rjstanford · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guess what? Those $35K robots are also cheaper than paying people $8/hr.

    Human beings are incredibly expensive. They're also the economic engine that turns a single business into part of a functional economy, but I digress.

    There are very, very few positions that could be automated in a way that makes sense financially at $15/hr that wouldn't also make sense at $5/hr. Either a position is automatable, or it is not, and at 4000-5000 hours per year (plus benefits, etc) that's a lot of money for a single position that could be thrown at a robot if that's the way you wanted to play it. Basically, automating that position will either be super-cheap or super-expensive.

    Automation is a very important discussion point. Its disingenuous to tie it to the current debate over moving the minimum wage back up to a living wage.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    1. Re:Math doesn't work out by AtariEric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Automation is a very important discussion point. Its disingenuous to tie it to the current debate over moving the minimum wage back up to a living wage.

      The reason they're tying it to the current debate is so they can blame the victim; victim-blaming is practically mandatory these days.

      --
      Don't trust any concentration of power.
    2. Re:Math doesn't work out by erase · · Score: 1

      exactly. automation has been happening at the current minimum wage levels (see: self checkout at stores).

      they are just trying to give cover to something they'd already been planning on doing.

    3. Re:Math doesn't work out by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Either a position is automatable, or it is not,

      It is automatable now, or it is not yet automatable. There is no reason to believe that any job is safe from robots/computers in the long run.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    4. Re:Math doesn't work out by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the 1980s, $3ish minimum wages were also not living wages.

    5. Re:Math doesn't work out by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Automation is a very important discussion point. Its disingenuous to tie it to the current debate over moving the minimum wage back up to a living wage.

      I'm old enough to have been through multiple debates regarding raising the minimum wage - some national, some state-wide (Washington), some city-wide (Seattle and environs).

      The bogeyman of massive unemployment always gets trotted out whenever anyone mentions raising the minimum wage. And guess what we've seen when the minimum wage goes up? A few isolated businesses will lay off a few people (which is trumpeted loudly in the media), but that's the sum total of it - there are no mass layoffs. Prices may go up a little, but that's about it.

      The real "issue" here is that upper class people want to hang onto as much of their money as they can. That's certainly understandable, but it's not a particularly compelling argument.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So other than he head the price of a robot.
      How many robots per location?
      What do the Robot Maintainers cost per hour?
      Is the Kichen fully automated?
      Who cleans the kitchen?

    7. Re:Math doesn't work out by Jamlad · · Score: 1
      Is it disingenuous?

      I concur with your math, 35k/(365days*16hours*0.9duty) = $6.65/h, but it also leaves out other factors. You have to pay a guy to maintain those bots, you have the initial outlay, and replacement parts. Then you have the unquantifiable factors like public backlash, rollout issues, safety issues, legal issues, and any other unknowns with rolling out a new system.

      From a cost-benefit standpoint all these factors combined may make it only marginally profitable (and an unpalatable arse-ache) to replace workers at $8/h, but it may be a much different case at $15/h.

      You can hardly take a corporation to task for trying to make/maintain/protect profits.

    8. Re:Math doesn't work out by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A typical full time position, which fast food generally isn't, is about 2000 hours a year. The fact is that minimum wage employees are less than 5 percent of the workforce and there's a reason for that. You get either kids or the dregs at minimum wage. I know most fast food is run by part timers and a lot of them are under 21. I've seen the kiosks in the local McD's here and I don't think I like self service. I walk by them to the pimply teenager at the register. When they tell me use the kiosk or forget it.....well there's always somewhere else. I'll go home and fix a fucking PBJ first. As for automating the fryers and such there will still be a human overseeing the kitchen. I imagine they can cut some employees but still there will be no way to automate it all.

    9. Re:Math doesn't work out by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 1

      40hrs/wk x 50 weeks/yr = 2000 hours.

      Not disagreeing with you. The cost of automation is steadily decreasing, and what it can do is increasing. Automating McDonald's is inevitable, $15/hr wages are just speeding things up a little.

      --
      --- Need web hosting?
    10. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can hardly take a corporation to task for trying to make/maintain/protect profits."

      Actually you fucking well can! Its called consumer backlash and "voting with your wallet".

      Stop being a sheep!

    11. Re:Math doesn't work out by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the real "issue" here is that the minimum wage unfairly targets particular employers, those who hire unskilled workers. An increase to minimum wage will impact some industries much more than others.

      A better solution would be a universal basic income, with no minimum wage. It would be fair by not targeting particular industries (a progressive tax would pay for it), it would force employers to compete, it could eliminate unemployment (any income you earn, no matter how small, is more than you have and is not needed to survive), and in particular to this discussion it would eliminate much of the competitive advantage of robots.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    12. Re:Math doesn't work out by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      In the long run, we are all dead.

      What is your point?

      Quite frankly, somewhere along the tipping point, we have enough robots to move away from a scarcity economy.

      Very few people will need to work, but some number will want to work.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    13. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automation is a very important discussion point. Its disingenuous to tie it to the current debate over moving the minimum wage back up to a living wage.

      The reason they're tying it to the current debate is so they can blame the victim; victim-blaming is practically mandatory these days.

      It's almost as mandatory as shouting 'victim blaming' any time someone points out facts you don't like.

    14. Re:Math doesn't work out by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Interesting case, the self checkouts. The cheapest supermarkets in the uk (e.g. Lidl) don't have self checkout machines, they have staff who are very fast. I prefer gong to Lidl now not just because of the prices, but because you never get stuck in a queue with a really crap slow checkout person.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:Math doesn't work out by boristdog · · Score: 2

      Plus the inevitable stories of:

      3000 McDonalds auto-restaurants hacked this week. Dispensed free food until the doors were blocked by mounds of burgers and fries.

    16. Re:Math doesn't work out by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      But a business often operates 12-16x7x52 = 4300-5800 hours per year. That means needing 3 employees to cover all those hours. If you go with a all-part-time workforce (necessitating 4 employees to cover those hours) an avoid paying healthcare, you'll still have 40-60% overhead for FUTA/SUTA, FICA, training, misc costs. At $8/hr, it costs over $60k to staff a position in a fast food restaurant, burdened.

      Once a method is optimized for automation, there is no practical hourly wage which can compete with it. The only way it occurs is when the robotic IP holder charges per hour of operation or unit of production, and even then they can always undercut the cost of a person.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    17. Re:Math doesn't work out by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are very, very few positions that could be automated in a way that makes sense financially at $15/hr that wouldn't also make sense at $5/hr.

      There is an awful lot of automation that doesn't make sense when the workers are cheaper and the payback is far off, and a factor of three is a good bit of money here. If your labor costs double because the minimum wage doubles, then there is a lot more incentive to find ways to automate those jobs. Some people "don't buy" that economic fact, but it's true.

      Basically, automating that position will either be super-cheap or super-expensive.

      The excluded-middle of "costs a little less to automate at a wage of $15/hour but more than $7/hr" still exists. It surprised the heck out of me when I saw my first automatic french-fry machine, but it was obvious that the costs of paying someone to do that job were going to be a lot more than the cost of the machine and paying someone to refill the freezer every so often.

      Its disingenuous to tie it to the current debate over moving the minimum wage back up to a living wage.

      It is disingenuous to claim that the minimum wage ever was, or was intended to be, a "living wage". It is supposed to be an entry-level introduction to employment wage. Saying "moving ... back up to" when it never has been is silly at best.

    18. Re:Math doesn't work out by vux984 · · Score: 1

      "Either a position is automatable, or it is not". Well said.

      The robot, being new technology, is still rapidly coming down in price. Even if the break-even point isn't today, it WILL be tomorrow. And a few years after that not using a robot will be finanicially idiotic.

      " Basically, automating that position will either be super-cheap or super-expensive."

      No, you had it right the first time. Either a position is automatable or it is not. If it can be automatable it will be cost effective sooner or later.

      Its disingenuous to tie it to the current debate over moving the minimum wage back up to a living wage.

      Yes.

      But not completely. It moves the line. Sure it only moves it forward or backward a few years, but it does move the line. And moving it back a few years to ease a transition is worthwhile... assuming anyone had any interest in figuring out a transition strategy.

    19. Re:Math doesn't work out by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      The real "issue" here is that upper class people want to hang onto as much of their money as they can.

      Does it really add up to that much money? this seems more like just a matter of who gets to win a shouting match between TV pundits. Goes like: Minimum wage bad, capitalism make all people rich. Random figures. Anecdotal evidence. Want speaking fee. Want book deal. Now watch important message for term life insurance.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    20. Re:Math doesn't work out by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Some Lidl stores do have self-checkouts. I was in one today and used a self-checkout there. However the Lidl store I go to most often doesn't have self checkouts and I can spend more time waiting in the queue for a manual checkout than I did shopping for the half-dozen or so items I usually buy. The till operators are pretty quick but there are never enough of them on duty to save on overheads and the store is always busy because of the low prices.

    21. Re:Math doesn't work out by bws111 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But what actually IMPROVED during those previous hikes? Did people just start making more money at their existing jobs, without an increase in cost of living? Or did many, many jobs go away and people moved to other industries? What I saw happen was this: labor costs go up, factories close and move production somewhere cheaper. Minimum wage factory worker gets a job as minimum wage order-taker, making a little more money. But the factory workers who were making MORE than minimum wage are also now forced to take a minimum wage job, LOSING money in the process. Yeah, the bottom moved up a little, but now there are a whole lot more people closer to the bottom, which is exactly the opposite of what should happen.

      In the 70s and 80s, when the manufacturing sector was imploding, there were low-paying but available jobs, mostly in retail and food service. Those jobs were deemed 'safe' because people need to buy things and eat. Now, we see that those jobs are very vulnerable. Where are the displaced retail and food workers going to get jobs? You can't just say 'unemployment didn't happen in the past so it won't now'. In fact, there was MASSIVE unemployment in certain sectors, it was just that other sectors were able to absorb the workers (although they are making less money).

    22. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40hrs/wk x 50 weeks/yr = 2000 hours. --- This is for one position. A typical fast food restaurant is open from say 6am to 10pm, 7 days a week. So 1 robot could in theory offset 16 hours * 365 days = 5,840 (ignoring holidays). Even at $7/hour with no benefits that comes out to $40,880 a year to fill that position. That means a $35K robot would have a return on investment of about a year (I'm sure there are some installation and overhead costs).

    23. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, the "unemployment" rate is a meaningless, politicized number. Tracking it is next to useless for anything long term. Look at the employment rate (which is simply the ratio of employed people to all people). That rate has been falling for decades, with a slight bump in the 90s, and only stopping its dive in the last year.

    24. Re: Math doesn't work out by sectokia · · Score: 1

      Sorry but people who are against automation belong in medieval times with those against the printing press, the weaving loom, the steam engine etc. They are completely economically ignorant. If robots ran fast food joints, it would be a major boom to the economy. Food would end up substantially cheaper, and living standards would improve as there will be more labor for other value add activities. People keep being scared of technology, but for 200 years technology has obliterated jobs and made us richer every step of the way.

    25. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect 90% of the CEOs could be replaced by toasters and nobody will notice

    26. Re:Math doesn't work out by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did people just start making more money at their existing jobs, without an increase in cost of living?

      The answer is yes. In every single case (22 times) where the federal minimum wage was raised by law, economic growth and standards of living went up faster than inflation. Every single time.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > no reason to believe that any job is safe from robots/

      CEO

    28. Re:Math doesn't work out by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The bogeyman of massive unemployment always gets trotted out whenever anyone mentions raising the minimum wage.

      Most people don't make minimum wage. If you're working to improve your skill, and you've been in the market more than two or three years, you'll easily be making more than minimum wage.

      Among the people who do make minimum wage, mainly teenagers, there is ridiculously high unemployment. Look it up.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell it to all the teenagers who can't find work.
      http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/01/teen-employment-and-the-minimum-wage-sixty-years-of-experience.html

    30. Re:Math doesn't work out by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      The bogeyman of massive unemployment always gets trotted out whenever anyone mentions raising the minimum wage.

      Most people don't make minimum wage. If you're working to improve your skill, and you've been in the market more than two or three years, you'll easily be making more than minimum wage. Among the people who do make minimum wage, mainly teenagers, there is ridiculously high unemployment. Look it up.

      %30 of the entire Labor-Market is low-wage service jobs. The idea that these jobs are simply for students and people starting in the economy is pure Conservative fantasy

    31. Re:Math doesn't work out by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      %30 of the entire Labor-Market is low-wage service jobs.

      Most of the law wage service job employees are not making minimum wage. The idea that "low wage" is identical to "minimum wage" is a fantasy that only belongs to you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Math doesn't work out by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      And fewer people needed food stamps and supplemental money from the government to survive. Every single time the minimum wage was increased the number of people on food stamps fell, sometimes dramatically.

    33. Re:Math doesn't work out by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The real answer is "correlation is not causation". And here in the real world in the twenty teens economic growth is stalling and the standards of living are flattening or dropping.

    34. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the minimum wage. Look at Seattle's rules for scheduling. Requiring advanced notice of schedule changes. Fast food franchises run on slim margins. They require an elastic labor force. If someone calls in sick, they need to be able to call in an employee. If business is slow, they need to be able to send people home. The new regulations passed in Seattle and being proposed elsewhere would require they keep extra employees on the clock, burning through labor costs at times of low revenue. It becomes too expensive to keep the shop open other than at peak business hours. Automation also helps solve that added expense.

    35. Re:Math doesn't work out by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      %30 of the entire Labor-Market is low-wage service jobs.

      Most of the law wage service job employees are not making minimum wage. The idea that "low wage" is identical to "minimum wage" is a fantasy that only belongs to you.

      The VAST difference between $7.25 federal minimum wage and a below $10 low-wage job only exists in your Conservative mind. Both of those wages quite easily would make someone qualify as a "working poor" pretty much anywhere in the United States.

    36. Re:Math doesn't work out by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The real answer is "correlation is not causation". And here in the real world in the twenty teens economic growth is stalling and the standards of living are flattening or dropping.

      You say "correlation is not causation" at the same time you say, "Minimum wage hikes will cause unemployment, lower standard of living and inflation."

      Correlation isn't causation unless it fits your worldview.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, and what a lot of people seem to have glossed over - an automation system/robot isn't just replacing a single worker. It's going to replace a dozen workers at once. You'll have a couple people on shifts in the store to keep the machinery operating and deal with unforeseen circumstances, but otherwise everyone else is out.

      This isn't a matter of, "Is a $35,000 machine cheaper than 1 employee at $15/hr" but rather "is a $35,000 machine cheaper than 18 employees at $8/hr?"

      And the answer is, yes. Yes it is.

    38. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much would you pay someone to cut your grass versus having a robot do it? Even if it's close I would pay a person because that's what I know. If it's not close I'll do automation.

    39. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know that correlation implied causation in this case... hmmmm

    40. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sshh. dont give the mean people PROOF that their horrible ideas work towards their goals. as long as its not clear that increasing minimum wage is helpful, those against it can only be against it in principle. if they have proof that higher minimum wages helps people, they will then be able to argue from fact to reduce wages, just by saying "we now know that our bad intent does in fact lead to bad outcomes, so we no longer have to worry about the possibility it may backfire on us and produce good outcomes. so lets do it, wipe out minimum wage laws KNOWING it will hurt the greatest number, the greatest amount". social science is a double edged sword.

    41. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      easy to solve with one minimum wage "manager" per location to manage robots, and personally serve people that hate robots (that 1% willing to pay 100% "human service surcharge")
      if he notices anything wrong all he needs to do is call tech support or simply shutdown/lock store until someone able to solve problem arrives

    42. Re:Math doesn't work out by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that correlation implied causation in this case... hmmmm

      I'm not saying that raising the minimum wage caused anything. I'm just saying we have proof that it did NOT cause higher inflation or unemployment or less economic growth.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    43. Re:Math doesn't work out by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Guess what? Those $35K robots are also cheaper than paying people $8/hr.

      Or 5 dollars an hour. Would the US even had slavery if we had automation? Of course, robots will be cheaper.

      Once upon a time, we seemed to understand that a healthy economy meant companies making things, and people having the money to buy things. That wage enabled people to buy cars, homes and other stuff. This enabled the manufacturer to make money, and the people working for them to buy the things that were manufactured. It was actually an ecosystem.

      Then at some point, the employee became public enemy number one, a parasite of little use, a liability to be rid of if at all possible.

      It was as if somehow, suddenly, there was only a need for one side of the equation, the ecosystem could support itself indefinitely using only the supply side.

      You know - that never works in nature, and only works for a short time in business.

      Having most of America unemployed will not work out well.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    44. Re:Math doesn't work out by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The real "issue" here is that upper class people want to hang onto as much of their money as they can. That's certainly understandable, but it's not a particularly compelling argument.

      Some, not all. I'm pretty well off, but I also understand that we have to have buyers and sellers - and it isn't a lot more complex than that. If I don't have money, I don't spend it. And even if some low wage people try to outspend their means with credit, it catches up to them in short order. Even then once they declare bankruptcy, some businesses lose out.

      This whole "people iz teh enemy" whining is to be laid at the feet of a few people with pathological levels of greed, who have only their interests in mind, and not the country's.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    45. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    46. Re:Math doesn't work out by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Did people just start making more money at their existing jobs, without an increase in cost of living?

      The answer is yes. In every single case (22 times) where the federal minimum wage was raised by law, economic growth and standards of living went up faster than inflation. Every single time.

      People making more money, and spending more money - whoda thunk?

      Which always brings me to my strange idea of economics. I think that we should have a concept of making people as wealthy as possible, not the present day death march of making as many people as possible as poor as possible.

      And if people think that making people poor makes us all wealthy, how have wages been going since say the mid 70's? Stagnant at best And producing more for that stagnation.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    47. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we've been breaking record numbers on people on food stamps since the last wage increase, right?

    48. Re:Math doesn't work out by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The bogeyman of massive unemployment always gets trotted out whenever anyone mentions raising the minimum wage.

      Most people don't make minimum wage. If you're working to improve your skill, and you've been in the market more than two or three years, you'll easily be making more than minimum wage.

      Sometimes - sometimes you'll still be getting social services that you qualify for. If my tax dollars were not subsidizing McDonald's and WalMart's employees lived, I might be a little more amenable to your position.

      Among the people who do make minimum wage, mainly teenagers, there is ridiculously high unemployment. Look it up.

      Interesting, Let's take say the locals my wife knows who are rocking to minimum, and in the restaurant trade. One is a licensed pharmacist, one an aerospce engineer - I have no idea why they are not working in their field - and several college degreed people as well. Most of the people in the fast food joint I go to for beakfast on occasion are adults, and several are college educated. The problem is that the McDonald's jobs or Convenience store jobs are fast becoming the career path jobs for a lot of people. In fact, my anomalous town McDonalds have absolutely no teenagers on staff.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    49. Re:Math doesn't work out by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Once a method is optimized for automation, there is no practical hourly wage which can compete with it.

      And no practical way of making more profit the next quarter by getting rid of more people.

      I gotta say, the businesses going into this rubbing their hands like Mr Burns on the Simpson's do not seem to realize that they are going to make a real problem for themselves.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    50. Re:Math doesn't work out by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Its disingenuous to tie it to the current debate over moving the minimum wage back up to a living wage.

      It is disingenuous to claim that the minimum wage ever was, or was intended to be, a "living wage". It is supposed to be an entry-level introduction to employment wage. Saying "moving ... back up to" when it never has been is silly at best.

      And kinda disingenuous to deny that there are people trying to live on the wages. McDonald's is not lying when they show actual adults on their recruiting posters. You figure they are only employing teenagers? We have three in our area, and not a teenager in any.

      And the better jobs? I dunno? do you? Gonna move across the country for a 10 dollar an hour job?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    51. Re:Math doesn't work out by countach · · Score: 1

      Actually, assuming reasonable rates of return on capital and a 24 hour restaurant the robot might be cheaper than paying 0.30c/hr.

      Of course once everyone is sacked from these jobs there won't be anybody with money to buy the product.

    52. Re:Math doesn't work out by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If my tax dollars were not subsidizing McDonald's and WalMart's employees lived, I might be a little more amenable to your position.

      It's not a position, it's data. You can actually measure that minimum wage makers are primarily teenagers, and that most people move beyond minimum wage after they've been working fora while.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    53. Re:Math doesn't work out by uncqual · · Score: 2

      Safety issues also work the other way - a robot "injured" by hot oil is cheap to repair, skin grafts and time in a burn ward is very expensive -- of course, the odds are that the robot wouldn't do whatever stupid thing a drug addled or drunk or just clueless employee did to get burned with oil in the first place.

      There have been very few serious robot accidents in the US in the last thirty years -- esp. when compared to the injuries and deaths to workers (often due to them or their colleagues not following procedures).

      Overall, safety is probably a net win for the robots -- they have been used in manufacturing environments for over 30 years and we know a lot about making them safe.

      What "public backlash" do you anticipate? I don't know anyone who, for example, complains that the products they buy that require welding are welded better and more cheaply because robots have taken over most tedious "mass production" welding.

      What are the "legal issues"? The staff reductions in fast food will probably just be done via reduction in hours and attrition -- it's a high turnover field. Not much risk of lawsuits over layoffs.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    54. Re:Math doesn't work out by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Why would you not want to order your food before you arrive and have it ready the moment you arrive? Do you lack and crave human contact so badly you really want to talk to a bored, disinterested, guy behind the counter who may, or may not, get your order right and who is difficult to understand due to his accent? You do know that when he says "Have a nice day." or "Enjoy your meal", he rarely means it -- he is just supposed to say that.

      99% of the time when I can use self checkout at a store I do -- I catch way more errors of "shelf price doesn't match scanned price" or "discount not taken" errors and get them fixed that way. Since these are computer, not human, problems, the same errors must happen at the manned checkouts but it's hard to stay as aware of what is going on when someone else is doing it.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    55. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when during those 22 times was it a realistic option to replace your workers with robots? What a lot of people are forgetting about here is that the issue is way more than the hourly wage. If we go with the $8/hour worker we have more than $8/hour. We have the hourly wage, the costs for the person/company that deals with paying that worker, benefits if the worker is full time, cost of the person creating the schedule for workers (less workers = easier scheduling), cost incurred if a person does not show up to work for any reason, cost of employee search if any employee leaves.

      Not all of these costs are realistic in every case, but the point is the situation is complicated and is more than a wage issue. To me, the big issue here is that the worker type we are talking about is unskilled. If this is all things like students that is one thing, but when you remove the adult unskilled workers without the ability to find a skill requiring job and replace them with robots....well, I think we will have a huge problem.

    56. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As is bandwagon jumping.

      LOL, captcha: fascism

    57. Re:Math doesn't work out by j33px0r · · Score: 1

      Self checkouts are wonderful if you only have 2-3 items to purchase at a supermarket, so long as none of those items require locating a hard to find produce code. In the US, unfortunately, it is common to find a shopper with a full cart for a family of 12 (only feeding 4 rather large appetites of course) struggling to get through a self checkout which ruins the experience for the poor souls behind them. This is further compounded by watching the 3-4 attendants necessary for supporting confused shoppers when you know that any one of those employees is many times faster at tallying up the groceries than a shopper on their own.

      I'm starting to suspect that the only thing that self checkouts are really good for is to save some folks the social embarrassment of buying tampons and similar private goodies for their spouse.

    58. Re:Math doesn't work out by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      Cut the CEO's pay. That sure hasn't grown in a direct relationship to inflation while the worker's pay stayed flat.

    59. Re:Math doesn't work out by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Very few people will need to work, but some number will want to work.

      I actually think that number is higher than most people think. There's a reason hobby-shops is a multi-billion dollar global industry. People hate to be bored. The moment all basic needs are met (hobby shops cater to the middle class), free time is not long spent idly, people want to feel creative, they want to make something - even if what they make cannot be commercially sold, they do it for the love of creation.
      Lots of home-crafting skills that were all but lost as clothes got cheaper has seen a massive resurgence (knitting and crochet for example) in recent years, because even though you cannot possibly hand knit a sweater for the price of a factory made one - there's a joy and a value in creating a sweater with your hands.
      Similar trends even reach into high-tek - look at the maker movement, 3D-printing and the like.

      Hell, have you ever seen a cosplayer show up with a commercially made costume ? Half the skill is handmaking everything and cosplay groups have maker-space like training sessions where members teach each other to work with various materials and what can be done with them.

      The entire FOSS software space is critically dependent (and has been for decades) on the multitude of people who, after working all day, will get home and keep writing code just because they enjoy it and love getting to write code THEY chose to write for a purpose of their own choosing - not tied to some corporate bottom line.

      The vast majority of people are never slackers for long, because we have an innate drive to be creative, that drive is what took us from hunter-gatherer into civilization and has driven progress for over 10-thousand years. It's not going to dissapear just because need gets removed, on the contrary, it will hugely expand. Historically - the greatest creative endeavours have not been driven by need but the absence of need. We achieve our greatest progress when needs are met. The driving force of all progress is boredom.

      One of the earliest examples happened some ten-thousand years ago in the fertile crescent. The ruins we dig up there have grain stores - because farming had gotten good enough that our ancestors were producing excess food that needed to be stored. So nobody ever needed to be hungry... and then we see on those ruins something never seen anywhere earlier: the walls are plastered. Plastering walls have zero practical benefits, it's purely an aesthetic thing - and it's an expensive thing. To make limestone plaster you need to keep a fire going at high heat for many, many days. It's a lot of labor for something that contributes nothing to your chances of survival. So it never happened until there was a community that had achieved near perfect food security with very minimal effort. But the story doesn't end there. To keep those fires going to bake the limestone into plaster... they had to get good at controlling fire to a level never before achieved. Very high heat over extended periods, entirely new fire-management techniques were developed to pursue this "useless" creative endeavor. The same techniques that, not long afterwards, would allow humans to build smelters and turn the stone age into the bronze age (and later the iron and steel ages). The things we do when we are bored, even the useless things, are when we make the discoveries that will lift us up to the next level of progress in the near future. Maybe for every person who figures out a fire-management technique that will eventually drive smelting a thousand pursued something long forgotten that had no future uses, but that's an acceptable loss - because we NEED the firemaker, even if we have to carry a thousand other people to get him and there is no way to tell him apart from the others until centuries later.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    60. Re:Math doesn't work out by martyros · · Score: 1

      In every single case (22 times) where the federal minimum wage was raised by law, economic growth and standards of living went up faster than inflation. Every single time.

      Do you have a good reference for this? I would dearly love to be able to post this exact sentence, with a link, every time anyone posts anything about raising minimum wage putting workers out of jobs...

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    61. Re:Math doesn't work out by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      That trend is global actually. Study after study have confirmed that moderate increases in minimum wage have a nett-zero impact on employment rates. A few studies suggest a very, very minor *increase* in employment following them, but this is not happening enough, or to a sufficient degree, that we can rule it out as pure chance. If there is any truth to it the likely mechanism is that the small increase in spending power at the bottom of the income ladder creates an increase in demand, which new businesses arise to supply - and they employ people.

      The main reason the predicted increase in inflation does not happen is because the potential profits from selling to all the people from all the companies earning the slightly higher wage far exceeds the potential increase in profit from raising prices to recoup the expense of paying your own (which would price you right back out of their range).

      It's better to sell 50000 items at a 1c margine than 500 items at a 1$ margine.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    62. Re:Math doesn't work out by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But when during those 22 times was it a realistic option to replace your workers with robots?

      Jobs have been getting automated since the Industrial Revolution. "Robot" is just a buzz word.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    63. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did people just start making more money at their existing jobs, without an increase in cost of living?

      The answer is yes. In every single case (22 times) where the federal minimum wage was raised by law, economic growth and standards of living went up faster than inflation. Every single time.

      Citation?

    64. Re:Math doesn't work out by dywolf · · Score: 1

      that's what people don't get.

      when they argue against MW increases they are actually getting the cycle backwards.

      the cost of living increases on its in a growing thriving economy.
      the minimum/living wage level has to be increased simply to match it, or else you get the system and cycles of poverty and inequality that we have now, which is a drag on the economy. boosting the MW actually helps continue that growing thriving economy.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    65. Re:Math doesn't work out by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If my tax dollars were not subsidizing McDonald's and WalMart's employees lived, I might be a little more amenable to your position.

      It's not a position, it's data. You can actually measure that minimum wage makers are primarily teenagers, and that most people move beyond minimum wage after they've been working fora while.

      The mistake you are making is assuming that all the McDonald's workers are making minimum wage. If you are making a dime over minimum wage, you aren't making minimum wage.

      And it doesn't follow that making a dime over minimum wage doesn't mean you are no longer qualified for social services.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    66. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you really want to talk to a bored, disinterested, guy behind the counter who may, or may not, get your order right and who is difficult to understand due to his accent? You do know that when he says "Have a nice day." or "Enjoy your meal", he rarely means it -- he is just supposed to say that.

      Maybe all the people you interact with appear bored, disinterested, and incompetent because they accurately perceive that you're bored, disinterested, and contemptuous of them? People aren't too eager to behave in a friendly manner or perform favors for people that treat them like garbage.

    67. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "those who hire unskilled workers"

      And then use their position and those workers' desperation for money to meet basic needs to depress wages to the point that their basic needs arent fully met and they are in a financial twilight world where their financial and real health slowly decline until they are discarded as broken human trash (assuming the state, a.k.a. everyone else, doesnt step up to the plate to subsidize this business by supporting the unskilled, underpayed worker).

      If you cant pay someone a decent living wage to do a job, that job shouldnt exist. I doubt most of the minimum wage jobs actually pay workers what they are worth, much less what they are making their employers, so Im much less worried about the disruption to these business owners who are abusing the labor market than I am about the laborers themselves at the bottom of the market who are actually having trouble getting by.

    68. Re:Math doesn't work out by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And it doesn't follow that making a dime over minimum wage doesn't mean you are no longer qualified for social services.

      I'm fine with that. I don't mind helping people who need help.

      My point was to explain why you can raise the minimum wage without seeing a huge effect on unemployment.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    69. Re:Math doesn't work out by uncqual · · Score: 1

      No, I don't attempt to establish a significant relationship with a worker at the front counter of a fast food outlet who I will likely never see again and who, due to productivity pressure, can only spend a few tens of seconds interacting with me and then only from a script. Nor do they attempt to establish such a relationship with me. I'm not rude or unfriendly to them, but I also don't attempt to engage them in conversation beyond the transaction at hand -- doing so is rude to them as if they spend too much time with customers chit-chatting they may be disciplined or fired. Honestly, why would I care if they "Have a nice day" (or they I), anymore than I (or they) would feel the same about the other 7 billion people on Earth?

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    70. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is disingenuous to claim that the minimum wage ever was, or was intended to be, a "living wage". It is supposed to be an entry-level introduction to employment wage.

      Firstly, THAT claim is disingenuous. The ENTIRE point of having a minimum wage is to set a threshold below which compensation is an abuse of power: FLSA's purpose, as confirmed by the contemporaneous Supreme Court challenge, was to prohibit wages so low that they required employees to operate "under conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standards of living necessary for health and general well-being".

      In other words, someone working minimum wage should be able to survive on that income by whatever society deems to be its "minimum" standards. If you can't rent a room in an apartment, buy food, clothes, and a bus pass, the minimum wage fails its essential legal purpose. That's where we are today.

      The idea that a minimum wage job is something a teenager or homemaker does for "extra" income is a more recent invention, and also a lie. Secondly, even if you buy into that lie, it doesn't make sense in an economy with more able-bodied workers than society's level of consumption requires. There AREN'T "employment wage" jobs, as you call them, for everyone to move up into.

      Saying "moving ... back up to" when it never has been is silly at best.

      When the buying power of minimum wage has eroded by more than 50%, and by your own admission, it was always below whatever threshold of "livable" you choose, that in itself is the problem. The purchasing power vector is headed in the wrong direction.

    71. Re:Math doesn't work out by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      And kinda disingenuous to deny that there are people trying to live on the wages.

      Who is denying that? People try all kinds of things. I said what the minimum wage is supposed to be, not what people are trying to turn it into. It applies to the job position, not the person holding the job. If you're 45 and a father of ten, or a 17 year old earning gas money, you get paid the wage for the job you're doing. Being 45 and a father doesn't necessarily make you a more valuable employee to MacDonalds.

      You figure they are only employing teenagers?

      That you want to pretend that I said that tells me a lot about this discussion.

    72. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the citation and not just pulling that out of your ass.

    73. Re:Math doesn't work out by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      Which always brings me to my strange idea of economics. I think that we should have a concept of making people as wealthy as possible, not the present day death march of making as many people as possible as poor as possible.

      Who is 'we'? The 'we' always wants a social/economic ladder where one can feel, I'm better than him/her. It's built into the human nature. Called comparison. So whatever you may do, we as a group, would like to see a lot of have-nots. It's like its' okay I lose one eye; if my neighbor can lose both...Sorry it may sound too cold.. but dig into the human psychology and the state of world today - that too given the amazing technological advance we made in the last 200/300 years (all the 1%.. 99% issue)

    74. Re:Math doesn't work out by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Christ. The Lidls in Germany have low-level slow lazy checkout morons. I NEVER go to a Lidl.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    75. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did people just start making more money at their existing jobs, without an increase in cost of living?

      The answer is yes. In every single case (22 times) where the federal minimum wage was raised by law, economic growth and standards of living went up faster than inflation. Every single time.

      Oooh, magical! Let's do it every year then and we'll have a utopia! </sarcasm>

    76. Re:Math doesn't work out by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Oooh, magical! Let's do it every year then and we'll have a utopia!

      You stupid sonofabitch. I bet you don't even realize that for most of the post WWII period, workers actually DID get raises every year. It's only because those raises have stopped that we need to be fiddling with the minimum wage at all.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    77. Re:Math doesn't work out by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And kinda disingenuous to deny that there are people trying to live on the wages.

      Who is denying that? People try all kinds of things. I said what the minimum wage is supposed to be, not what people are trying to turn it into. It applies to the job position, not the person holding the job. If you're 45 and a father of ten, or a 17 year old earning gas money, you get paid the wage for the job you're doing. Being 45 and a father doesn't necessarily make you a more valuable employee to MacDonalds.

      You figure they are only employing teenagers?

      That you want to pretend that I said that tells me a lot about this discussion.

      That you decide to make it some kind of pretense on my part and didn't even answer my other questions tells me a lot about your ability to discuss grown up talk.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    78. Re:Math doesn't work out by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Who is 'we'? The 'we' always wants a social/economic ladder where one can feel, I'm better than him/her. It's built into the human nature.

      "We" are the people who say that American workers are overpaid. Given the wage stagnation since the 1970's, it would appear to be pretty much officially sanctioned, and you see a lot of that in here. Hell, I've been in the workplace long enough to know that the folks at the top tend to get new job titles with promotions at the same time as we're being told there isn't enough money to hand out raises. I saw a lot of that at my place. And when I got good raises, which I usually did, it was at someone eles's disadvantage.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    79. Re:Math doesn't work out by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's why we've been breaking record numbers on people on food stamps [trivisonno.com] since the last wage increase, right?

      You dumbshit. When it was raised last, it didn't even go beyond the rate of inflation, so in fact, when the federal government raised it to $7.25, it was actually lower than it was in the 90s.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    80. Re:Math doesn't work out by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the citation and not just pulling that out of your ass.

      If you can't be bothered to highlight and search, then I doubt you'll be capable of reading and understanding any citation.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    81. Re:Math doesn't work out by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I like to order my food and have it cooked after I arrive. There is hardly anything as nasty as fast food that has been sitting 10 minutes or more. McDonald's fries straight from the fryer are yummy. 10 minutes later they taste like wax sticks with salt. I eat at McDonald's maybe once a month or so but when I do I make sure it's fresh because otherwise it's damn near inedible. I'm not there to help them run their store. I'm there to purchase food and service. Fast food restaurants where I live are generally very competitive, chic-fil-a drives service very hard and most of the others have striven to reach that standard. I do notice when I go to Atlanta that service is really shitty there but everything in Atlanta is shitty so I guess they're used to kissing peoples asses while they hand them money. I'm not so mellow about it.

    82. Re:Math doesn't work out by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You're already a robot so you should be fine with the situation.

    83. Re:Math doesn't work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minimum wage is just a red herring. Raise it to $15 an hour. Raise it to $30. Who cares? Prices will just raise to match, a lot of non-minimum wage workers will be VERY pissed and expect a raise, and every single job that was already going to be replaced is still going to be replaced. Raising the minimum wage does not change the work of a job and even a $1 an hour robots are better and cheaper long term than people, who are unreliable and inefficient in menial tasks.

      True automation has never really been a problem before. It's been limited in what it can do but we can practically automate anything that doesn't need significant human thought right now and much of that is without fundamentally changing the paradigm. Imagine what will happen when we stop trying fit automation into existing infrastructure and rework it from the ground up. Redbox like McDonalds are not that far off. Why have anyone man them at all? Just keep them stocked and powered. Once person could service an entire town or even more. This is the future and short of a global disaster there's no stopping it.

      People have long lived under the assumption that they mattered. They don't. Most people are worker bees and most of THEM are just doing make work. There are comparatively very few people that do anything meaningful. We really need to accept this as a society so we can solve the real problems before those worker bees rightfully revolt because they can no longer buy food.

  8. McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by blueshift_1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever does it first is going to cause a PR nightmare, but once that settles down - all of the competitors will be soon to follow the new norm.

    1. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by buk110 · · Score: 1

      My guess is on Wendy's. But the real trick will be how to make the drive-through person obsolete. Either through an app that produces a QR code that you scan - or a drive up touch screen - or something.

    2. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You just need voice recoginition:
      "I would like to order large fries".
      "Do you want fries with that?"
      "No, just large fries"
      "Two orders of large fries. Drive to the window."

    3. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My guess is on Wendy's. But the real trick will be how to make the drive-through person obsolete. Either through an app that produces a QR code that you scan - or a drive up touch screen - or something.

      Why doe that person have to be at the store? Link multiple stores together to a central call center that then transmits the order to the proper store.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by blueshift_1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So a fast food joint that finally understands my true desires?!?

    5. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some have already been experimenting with this to drive economics of scale.

    6. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smartphone app or touchscreen (Sheetz) to order. Swipe card, food is bagged then delivered. No swipe, food saved for next person (or until timer expires the food).

      If the drive-through was fully automated you could easily do more than a double drive-through because the space needed for the window employee to interact would be much reduced (or could be altered to allow remote operation with food distribution going overhead / underground)

    7. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      This sounds like the time I tried to order something at Monolith Burger.

    8. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Last time I ordered something at Monolith Burger, some apes just kept beating me with a femur.

    9. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is on Wendy's. But the real trick will be how to make the drive-through person obsolete. Either through an app that produces a QR code that you scan - or a drive up touch screen - or something.

      Why doe that person have to be at the store? Link multiple stores together to a central call center that then transmits the order to the proper store.

      So you propose all humans should ultimately work in call centres answering the telephone? No thank you.

    10. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Wendy's announced that they're replacing their front-line staff at 6,500 stores. Apparently it was rather forgettable, since no one here even seems to recall that Slashdot covered it less than two weeks ago. Given how forgettable that announcement was and that it's far easier to fire your back-of-house employees since no one sees them anyway, I'd wager that the anticipated PR blowback will blow over faster than you'd expect.

    11. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were doing this 10 years ago: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/outsourcing-drive-thru/

    12. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Copid · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the automated solution will be slightly better than the human currently is? I mean, at least it got the "fries" part right.

      The new thing of offering you some random product they want to push still highlights that weakness in the current system. "Hi, welcome to McDonald's. Would you like to try [mishmash of syllables that you can't correlate with anything on the menu]?" Ummm... No? I think?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    13. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      "Not sure".

    14. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    15. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      This sounds like the time I tried to order something at Monolith Burger.

      Here we go - as once featured on the Dr Demento show... Fast food Drive thru by Stevens and Grdnic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do you want fries with that?"

      The attitude problem of the marketers is what causes that issue of people wanting to drive into windows. "Do you want to meal service and a grass cut with your post?" is the reality of the largest postal company in my country.

    17. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is on Wendy's. But the real trick will be how to make the drive-through person obsolete. Either through an app that produces a QR code that you scan - or a drive up touch screen - or something.

      Why doe that person have to be at the store? Link multiple stores together to a central call center that then transmits the order to the proper store.

      Banks are already doing that. There is a call center of tellers to perform 90% of all transactions with an ATM locally to handle all the physical input/output. There are still branch managers onsite for the 10% that can't be handled by ATMs. Why staff 10 different branches when you can staff 1 centralized location and handle a "rush" at any given physical location?

    18. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/technology/11fast.html?_r=0

    19. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did this with local pizza huts. They backpeddeled later because offsite customer service personal suck balls.

    20. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Yeah, then shift the central call centre to India. I can just hear the voice on the other side already.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    21. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, then shift the central call centre to India. I can just hear the voice on the other side already.

      And reading from a script " Sir, you must first order burger..."

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    22. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? McDonalds in the Seattle area have had "fry-bots" and "drink-bots" for over a year.... I am certain these eliminated AT LEAST one worker in these locations, probably more.

      I've yet to see the outrage, just more consistently salted fries.

    23. Re:McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      when I tried to order a monolith burger, a bunch of apes showed up and beat me until I looked like a space baby / old man. Hal told me not to...

  9. Where are the robots from? by b0bby · · Score: 1

    My question is, where are the robots from? If they are being made in the US, the losses from fry-baggers could be largely made up by the increase in robot arm company employees/repairpeople. And if the robots can be exported, the economy overall could benefit.

    1. Re:Where are the robots from? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      If there's equivalent employment behind the robot arms, they will cost too much to be economically viable.

      That's the thing, some people will move on to better paying careers, many will just be out of work.

    2. Re:Where are the robots from? by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      Not true. Who builds robots? Other robots. French fry baggers are not competitive at robot building.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    3. Re:Where are the robots from? by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      If they are being made in the US, the losses from fry-baggers could be largely made up by the increase in robot arm company employees/repairpeople

      Really? I hear this argument over and over again, and I fail to see how it would work.

      At the risk of sounding like a stereotyping insensitive clod, the number of fry-baggers that have the skills -- or are trainable -- in making and fixing robots is likely minimal. Since all stats are made-up to order, let's assume 5% of the fry-baggers are employable or trainable to make and fix robots.

      What about the other 95%?

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    4. Re:Where are the robots from? by b0bby · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that it will help the fry-baggers, just that for the economy overall the losses aren't necessarily huge. The fry-baggers will probably have to do something else. Hopefully, without having to move.

    5. Re:Where are the robots from? by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      Common and popular myth, but still a myth.

      The Jobs Don't Shift Upwards. If 100 people are displaced by robots, only 10% may find jobs making/fixing the robots. The other 90% are displaced into the labor supply, which lowers wages.

      Robots/Automation for existing jobs Must Be Stopped.

      If not outright halted, then either tax it so goddamn much it's not economically viable, or make robots/automation programs forbidden for corporations to own - let people own robots on a 1-1 basis. Sure, you can hire my robot for $50k/year + medical (for me) + service plan (for robot).

    6. Re:Where are the robots from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be right, I heard that German fry baggers are much better at that task

    7. Re:Where are the robots from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a crazy thought:

      Maybe it's not sustainable to have an economy where people need to be employed to survive. As automation grows, perhaps we need to seriously consider a guaranteed minimum income for all people in society. We're all probably better off if these people stay at home, in their communities, and produce well-raised children than if they work 3 jobs, never see their kids, and produce children who end up never rising above where they are born.

      We could even make it where the guaranteed income is contingent on doing some degree of community work, whether that's tutoring, picking up trash, or something that actually makes places better to live in.

    8. Re:Where are the robots from? by Copid · · Score: 1

      If stopping it completely now is good, would rolling it back somewhat be even better? For example, if we eliminated certain farming technology so it required more people to grow crops, would it be good for us on the whole?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    9. Re:Where are the robots from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Robots/Automation for existing jobs Must Be Stopped!

      Throw your shoes in the robotic french fry maker!

    10. Re:Where are the robots from? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If there's equivalent employment behind the robot arms, they will cost too much to be economically viable.

      That's the thing, some people will move on to better paying careers, many will just be out of work.

      And we'll all reap the reward as the fast food places lower their prices - right?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Where are the robots from? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that it will help the fry-baggers, just that for the economy overall the losses aren't necessarily huge. The fry-baggers will probably have to do something else. Hopefully, without having to move.

      Where re the lowest people on the ladder going to move? To other towns where there are no jobs they can do, having been replaced by robots?

      I've been around a few years, and met and worked with a lot of people. There are people who are simply not cut out for other than menial work. That isn't being smug, it's just reality. We can go all rhapsodic about retraining people to (fill in the blank) but unless something is found for these folk to make a living, we are creating a permanent underclass of vritually useless people Perhaps large parts of America will look like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Then again, it has already started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      THere ar emany more, just go to youtub and seach tent city or shantytown. They will grow.

      But you can't get good discussion. most of the time you get people who think that jobs can be eliminated permanently with no repercussion,. We have done some amazing things with automation, but coupled with wanting to make people poor and dehumanization of the poor, we aren't having discussions on how ot manage this.

      WIll it be eugenics? Rapid depopulation in the shantytowns, perhaps some manner of gaseous event? If we get a hugne number of Americans permanently unemployed, a revolt is likely Desperate people do crazy shit.

      How will the corporations survive as they have less and less customers? As the automation works it's way up the pay scale - and it will - there will be more unemployed for the shantytowns. And less customers for the corporations. Or will if be a new day, when People can do more or less as they will, work as they wish, or even be idle if they wish.

      It's easy to throw out names, easy to not see past one's nose. This might be great, or it might turn America into a third world country.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:Where are the robots from? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Robots/Automation for existing jobs Must Be Stopped.

      If not outright halted, then either tax it so goddamn much it's not economically viable, or make robots/automation programs forbidden for corporations to own - let people own robots on a 1-1 basis. Sure, you can hire my robot for $50k/year + medical (for me) + service plan (for robot).

      Maybe I'm wasting my time thinking about this, but I don't think that this will work, from either a political or enforcement point of view. How would you write a law that had the effect that you want? You could say 'you can't replace a person with a robot', but the technology in restaurants (and offices and warehouses and factories) changes all the time; the number of employees changes all the time. the result is that people change what they are doing and what they are doing over time. If you employee 10 people this month, make a bunch of changes (technology, operations, menu changes, supply chain, etc.) and next month you have 9 employees, have you 'replaced a person with a robot'? Maybe, maybe not, and there is no way to draw a line. Maybe you have 9 because business is slower; maybe the lettuce is being washed and cut earlier in the supply line, does that count?

      The world is not static, and it's never clear when there is a 1-for-1 replacement of people with technology. We don't have lots of jobs that used to exist because they have been automated. The only way to have prevented that is to make everything exactly the way it was, and never do anything. That doesn't work.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    13. Re:Where are the robots from? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      If there's equivalent employment behind the robot arms, they will cost too much to be economically viable.

      That's the thing, some people will move on to better paying careers, many will just be out of work.

      And we'll all reap the reward as the fast food places lower their prices - right?

      Absolutely - no such thing as too much fast food in the world, is there? Sadly, the people no longer employed by the fast food places will likely be a major component of their customer base. After all, with gross Bob not spitting in the fries anymore, they might actually be O.K. to eat?

    14. Re:Where are the robots from? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      The other 95% are used as "source material" for the hamburgers, of course!

  10. Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Isca · · Score: 2

    The robot will be there for the long haul. Sure there will be some maintenance but it'll still be making fries 5 years from now, and efficiently doing so for all of that. Automation is coming and it has little to nothing to do with wages.

    1. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      And robots cannot spit in your food and are a lot easier to disinfect. Expect food safety to improve by another leap and bound when robots replace humans in food preparation.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      But, will the robot arm at the drive-through window still sell me drugs?!?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      McDonalds et. al. are about a predictable customer experience - God knows not an excellent one, just predictable. Robots should deliver that much better than high school kids.

    4. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Typically no one stands at the fucking fryer all day. They go from register to fryer to the shelf where the kitchen puts the food they've prepared and readied and over to hand you your food. They can automate the fryer and that'll make things easier for the employees running things but let's see that fucker fix my fries and grab my cheesburger and stick them in a bag with an apple pie and then hand me the bag and my large sweet tea. It's gonna take my order and my money too? I'd like to see that 35K robot.

    5. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by ThisIsAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Is the robot going to spend its wages at this fast food restaurant or any other fast food restaurant? If we all lost our jobs to automation, how exactly are we going to pay the automaton at the counter?

    6. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by theIsovist · · Score: 1

      Thank god most fast food workers are well out of high school. Most are in their upper 20s. Good jobs are hard to come by these days. I'm thankful every day for mine, even as I slowly sink towards lower class in this city.

    7. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by theIsovist · · Score: 1

      Because I forgot to add a source: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

    8. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you live? High school kids working at a mcdonalds? All fast food in my area is either 20(ish) and female or 50+ male/female who can't find work else where.

    9. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

      Easier to disinfect? I wouldn't be so sure about that.
      A food-service robot had better be very well designed not to have little nooks and crannies where bacteria can hide and grow. Pneumatics blow air around. Hydraulics have lovely oils that could leak. All joints need lubrication fluids that might not mix well with the secret sauce. And because the robots don't change with the shifts, it's the same damn robot, collecting more and more dust, grease, and biscuit flower from the surroundings in the kitchen, 24/7. Unless the robots come packaged with a crane to lift them up and immerse them in a swimming pool of disinfectant every night or so, keeping them all clean and free of E. Coli and other nasties is going to be a bitch for minimum wage workers with face-masks and spray-cans of industrial-grade Lysol getting that smell of hospital all over the food...

      One outbreak of food poisoning hits the news linked to an automated McDonald's over a "tainted" burger-flipper... you saw it here first.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    10. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You just pull a new 'condom' over it at the start of a shift.

      Look at how they sanitize surgical robots.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Small and clean stepper motors should be enough to lift some french fries and "nook and crannies" that can't be easily cleaned can be wrapped in disposable "clothes"/bellows

    12. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DESTROY. DESTROY HUMANS!!!

    13. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when the potato-fryer pops a gasket and dumps lubricant into your french fries?

    14. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It's gonna take my order and my money too?

      Order-fulfillment automation is an existing business. Little bins filled with product that spit one or two or three of their contents onto a conveyer taking everything to a central boxing location -- or bagging in the case of fast food.

      You need people refilling the bins, but one person doing burgers can multitask and refill the fry making machine every half hour or so with little interruption.

      And yes, it's even simpler for there to be a touch-screen to take your order and money acceptor to take your payment. If you haven't noticed, bill readers have gotten a lot better and more versatile in the last decade, and NFC makes paying by cellphone trivial.

      It may not be a $35k robot doing all of this, but it will replace enough people in the processing chain that it will pay for itself.

    15. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      With amount of creative thought that goes into so many of these posts, I wonder why more people aren't concerned with proposed solutions.

    16. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And robots cannot spit in your food and are a lot easier to disinfect. Expect food safety to improve by another leap and bound when robots replace humans in food preparation.

      I wonder how much fun it will be to give a bag of grief to a robot. I have a couple friends who I like, but are a pain in the ass to go to restaurants with because they are nasty to the help. Yelling at the robot making the fries won't be anywhere near as much fun.

      And I bet they have eaten some spit in their foods. Because they either make themselves a pain in the ass enough, or the waitress lets the cook know who's being a jerk. The places I frequent do give me better service, because I tip well, and am pleasant to deal with - some folks in here might find that hard to believe, but it's true.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      McDonalds et. al. are about a predictable customer experience - God knows not an excellent one, just predictable. Robots should deliver that much better than high school kids.

      We keep hearing this. There are no High schol kids in any of the 4 McD's in my town. I said 3 in an earlier post os I'm correcting myself. There are very few college students. It's mostly people who have fallen to the bottom of the barrel, and will be losing even that job soon.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The robot will be there for the long haul. "

      That's true. In fact it'll be there so long it'll be replacing more than 1 worker - it'll be running 24/7 after all, or able to.

      However in their mad rush to replace workers with machines, I wonder if these companies are thinking about the impact they will have on their electricity bill (Among other things.) Already that's a big complaint I hear them talking about, and the electricity rates always go up-up-up.

    19. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At times it can be excellent. Stopped at the one near the top of the Brenner Pass between Austria and Italy. Ordered a beer and fries. Found a nice seat overlooking the valley and snowy peaks. My order was brought to me.

      Beautiful scenery, beer, good fries, good service. Together, it made for an excellent experience.

    20. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by mongothesecond · · Score: 1

      Learn to hack the robots and re-purpose the distribution network for a purpose of your choosing.

    21. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      O.K. sad to say, I haven't been in my local McD's, ever. I know when _I_ was in high school, _I_ worked in about 3 different food service jobs (2 fast, 1 hotel restaurant), and all were 90% staffed with high school kids - low 20-somethings for management, and since the roast beef "chef" had to handle a sharp knife, he was an 18+ year old loser dude living 6 up in a trailer... Of my high school friends who had jobs (maybe 30% of kids in my classes) over half were in fast food.

      We do go to Wendy's quite a bit, and employees in the Wendy's we patronize are a mix, some definite high school especially in one particular suburb area, lots of younger people, and much more 40+ than I remember from when I was working there.

    22. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by tigersha · · Score: 1

      And you only have to program the robots once, not retrain them all the time.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    23. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Just invent a lubricating secret burger sauce and ..... profit!

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    24. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      O.K. sad to say, I haven't been in my local McD's, ever.

      No problem. I think what has happened to the HS students is related to the modern treatment of children, as well as more mature people dropping down the food chain, plus people who didn't plan well for retirement. Coupled with that is a marked tendency of older workers trying to stay in the workforce as long as possible is keeping other people from moving up, and younger people from getting jobs.

      It's possible all of those things combine for some of these problems.

      Because, yes, minimum wage should just be something for entry level workers. It's ending up otherwise.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      A glorified vending machine is what you describe. I don't see that competing with any kind of restaurant.

    26. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you've eaten some spit and semen too simply for being friends with such cocksuckers.

    27. Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Unless the situation has radically changed in the past 5 years, your wrong. The person on the register almost NEVER goes into the back and does any cooking, and the cooking crew NEVER comes up front unless there is something wrong. At least that's how a typical fast food place is run.

  11. Horsehit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were going to do this anyway.

  12. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy once, cry once. Ongoing maintenance is cheaper than $15 hour.

  13. Econ 101 stuff by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    It frees them up to do more productive and valuable work.

    Someone's got to build and program those robots.

    It should have happened a long time ago. It would have except wages have been kept artificially low.

    1. Re:Econ 101 stuff by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      So, what we need now is work for the 90% of displaced employees who are _not_ getting jobs building, maintaining, and recycling the robots.

    2. Re:Econ 101 stuff by codepigeon · · Score: 1

      It frees them up to do more productive and valuable work. Someone's got to build and program those robots.

      I don't know the last time you were at a McDonald's, but I don't see any of those workers taking up a class on robotics or embedded systems programming any time soon.
      Maybe you mean it will open up eventual programming and repair jobs for their children? The replaced workers will just have to resort to society supporting them financially for the next few decades until they die off.

    3. Re:Econ 101 stuff by idontgno · · Score: 1

      They become the burgers.

      Big McSoylent. Lovin' It!

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:Econ 101 stuff by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Someone's got to build

      In China.

      and program those robots.

      In India.

      That aside, how many of those jobs do you think there'll be?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Econ 101 stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will come a point where AIs will be going the programming based on general, plain English-spoken instructions given by a very small and rapidly diminishing set of employees.

    6. Re:Econ 101 stuff by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      It frees them up to do more productive and valuable work. Someone's got to build and program those robots.

      I don't know the last time you were at a McDonald's,...

      I actually prefer not to eat the food at McDonalds, so it's been a while, but....

      ...but I don't see any of those workers...

      Do you mean those 70-and 80-somethings who are working for something to occupy their time? Or supplement their Social Security checks? I don't want to tell them they should find something else to do, but maybe they should find something else to do. There might be some other people who really need that job.

      ... taking up a class on robotics or embedded systems programming any time soon.

      Or maybe you mean that other class of worker that can barely speak English, but is holding down two or maybe even three jobs to support their family. Some of them might actually be able to learn the skills needed to maintain and repair them, if not actually program them or build them. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss those possibilities. Maybe if they weren't holding down three jobs they could find the time to get the training? But we don't actually allow for that.

      Maybe you mean it will open up eventual programming and repair jobs for their children? The replaced workers will just have to resort to society supporting them financially for the next few decades until they die off.

      I expect we're already supporting them. Walmart employees on food stamps, e.g..

    7. Re:Econ 101 stuff by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      When is the last time you saw a new manufacturing startup in the U.S.?

      More likely built in Malaysia or Mexico. More likely programmed in India.

    8. Re:Econ 101 stuff by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      When is the last time you saw a new manufacturing startup in the U.S.?

      Tesla!

      Too easy. I hope you get a good grade on your homework now that I've given you the answer. ;-)

    9. Re:Econ 101 stuff by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Someone's got to build

      In China.

      and program those robots.

      In India.

      That aside, how many of those jobs do you think there'll be?

      Exactly. Somewhere along the line, we forgot that People actually have to buy stuff.

      And in an amazing event, we got a lot of Americans to believe that we need to be poorer in order to be wealthy.

      These Chinese building stuff - do they live in large expernsive houses and drive expensive cars and eat at nice restraunts and by new smartphones and tablets every year? No? Why not?

      The Indians, the same question applies.

      Because since they will have the jobs, American companies better hope they make up for the lost sales once provided by Americans who are now financially invisible.

      This is not a question of minimum wage, a question of liberal or conservative. It's an economic policy that is pure lunacy, that believes it can survive by making the purchasing half of the most basic economic equation ever made impossible for as many people as possible.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  14. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it's not as if there's a thing called an excess. And after a claim your premiums never go up, ever.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  15. Blaming minimum wage by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

    Minimum wage is a convenient scapegoat, but all businesses move to reduce overhead.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Blaming minimum wage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Greed will replace workers with robots, regardless of wages.

      Then you'll have an ever growing population of angry people not able to find or hold jobs while the rich continue to get richer.

      Can't imagine where this will end up.

    2. Re:Blaming minimum wage by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Minimum wage is a convenient scapegoat, but all businesses move to reduce overhead.

      Low-hanging fruit is most convenient to eliminate for improving profits. When you make "minimum wage jobs" into that low-hanging fruit, they'll be more likely to go. If you don't think that doubling minimum wage will make the choice between "eliminate employees to save dollars" and "redesign processes to save pennies" much easier, then, well....

    3. Re:Blaming minimum wage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well drones able to use machine guns, and maybe even rockets will probably be available for purchase by rich for protection.
      somehow i doubt there will be problems with angry and poor people for those rich folks

  16. Human beings have a cost associated with them by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    And when you pay below that cost, you're effectively asking for a handout, for the employee and their friends or family (or, in some cases, the government) to subsidize your business.

    If you can get a robot to do the job, good for you. People will earn good wages designing and building those robots, and maintaining them, and programming them, and so on.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Human beings have a cost associated with them by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I see a rise in independent restaurants coming. As if service isn't impersonal enough already.

    2. Re:Human beings have a cost associated with them by vux984 · · Score: 1

      People will earn good wages designing and building those robots, and maintaining them, and programming them, and so on.

      If these people could be getting good wages designing and building robots... what are they doing working at mcdonalds in the first place?

      Yes, some people will earn good wages doing robotics. But probably not these people. What is your plan for them exactly?

      Or do you think the 55 year old Filipino immigrant with weak english skills working the fryer during the noon lunch rush is a candidate for robotics? Programming robots? Get real.

      What about the 17 year old student doing fries at 8pm? Maybe one day ... but not today.

    3. Re:Human beings have a cost associated with them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we dont live for business. business lives for us. remember, when we worked the land, we created our own wealth, from our own land, and didnt need money to survive. once you remove people from productive farmland, you MUST make it possible for them to survive off earning money. otherwise, public policy should be to move people back to the land. if people are not cost effective for business, then we get rid of business, not people. businesses dont have human rights. but my argument will go nowhere, as no one understands that they are alive and matter, only care that businesses turn a profit. life doesnt turn a profit. life goes on.

    4. Re:Human beings have a cost associated with them by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And when you pay below that cost, you're effectively asking for a handout, for the employee and their friends or family (or, in some cases, the government) to subsidize your business.

      Already there: McDonald's http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/2... Walmart http://www.californiaprogressr... and more Walmart http://articles.latimes.com/20...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  17. Misleading Headline by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    It's cheaper to buy a $35,000 machine than to pay humans their current $7.25 per hour. The machines will pay for themselves in a little over two years at the current minimum wage (after factoring in SSI/SSD/Medicare), versus one year at $15 per hour. Either way, they would save money long before the machines' expected lifespan.

    It will always eventually become cheaper to automate menial work than to pay humans to do it. In a hundred years, nobody will be complaining about the lack of fast food jobs, just like nobody is complaining now about the lack of cotton picking jobs. The real problem is finding ways to pay for universal college education so that all the people who are no longer able to work their way through college can still afford to get the education that they'll require to get them to a point where they can contribute usefully to society in a post-menial-labor job market.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    1. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even at current wage, won't the robot be able to work 3 8-hour shifts a day? For a 24-hour operation, that's 3 employees replaced.

    2. Re:Misleading Headline by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Problem is, a college education won't be a guarantee of a job by then. Supply and demand - and when you try to pump everyone through college, without significantly increasing the number of jobs available for college grads (because those jobs are also being automated), a college degree won't be worth the debt it costs to get it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is finding ways to pay for universal college education so that all the people who are no longer able to work their way through college can still afford to get the education that they'll require to get them to a point where they can contribute usefully to society in a post-menial-labor job market.

      No, no, NO!. Why do Americans get this stuck in their heads?
      In the short term, we'll still need people to go to trade schools to become skilled labourers - plumbers, mechanics, nursing assistants, etc.
      In the long-term, there will be new types of menial jobs that don't require a 4-year degree.

    4. Re:Misleading Headline by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      The idea that a free universal college education will be the saving grace for displaced minimum wage workers is a pipe dream. I know IQ is a much-maligned concept, BUT many current minimum wage workers could not benefit from a college education even if it were handed to them because they lack the intellectual skill to learn advanced concepts. You are not going to be able to turn your average fry packer into a robotics engineer. Plus a lot of the fry packers already have B.A.s in English with no motivation to do any better. Realistically they are going to languish on welfare doing nothing useful and paying no taxes while being resentful of the 10% of the people who already pay 80% of the taxes.

      Basically we need a smaller population of brighter people and the only thing the lower half knows how to do is make babies.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    5. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging from all the whining I hear on various forums from young Americans, college education hasn't been a guarantee of a job for a while now, and it definitely stopped being worth the money at least a decade ago for the vast majority of people.

      Yet, for some reason, colleges - even liberal arts ones - seem to have no shortage of fresh meat for the grinder. It's like many 17 year olds are too stupid to do an extremely simple risk analysis before spending 80k dollars they don't have, creating a debt almost impossible to get rid of even through bankrupcy. I guess it makes sense for these people to go study medieval history and sociology...

    6. Re:Misleading Headline by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Never in history has a college education been a guarantee of a job.

    7. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would not worry about uneducated people when mcdonalds pushes them out of job,
      they can always be personal servants for rich doctors or robot maintenance engineers

    8. Re:Misleading Headline by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The real problem is finding ways to pay for universal college education so that all the people who are no longer able to work their way through college can still afford to get the education that they'll require to get them to a point where they can contribute usefully to society in a post-menial-labor job market.

      Ah - the Lake Woebegone effect, where all the children are above average.

      Problem is that a fair number already have a degree, and quite a few are simply not college material. People who are at the bottom tend to stay at the bottom, and the jobs they might be capable of doing will also be gone. Perhaps they might be useable as compost?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:Misleading Headline by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Realistically, they aren't usually open 24x7, but even at 16x7 operation, that's almost 3 employees replaced, because employees work only 5 days per week. So yeah, it's more like paying for itself after four months versus eight months....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:Misleading Headline by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Judging from all the whining I hear on various forums from young Americans, college education hasn't been a guarantee of a job for a while now, and it definitely stopped being worth the money at least a decade ago for the vast majority of people.

      For the most part, it is necessary, but not sufficient. In a lot of ways, it is like the lottery, just with better odds. You can't win if you don't play, but you may not win even if you do play. With the possible exception of parts of the computer industry, if you want a decent job, you have to have some kind of training. For most jobs, that means college. Without college, your opportunities are considerably fewer than they otherwise would be.

      As long as that is true, people will want to go to college, because that could make the difference between maybe getting a job and definitely not getting the job.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:Misleading Headline by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      In the short term, we'll still need people to go to trade schools to become skilled labourers - plumbers, mechanics, nursing assistants, etc.

      Nursing, maybe, but only because that involves interacting with people.

      IMO, mechanics are living on borrowed time. Robots do most of the work building most cars these days. There are only two major reason why humans repair them: 1. Insurance and warranties pay most of the costs, so there's little incentive to reduce those costs, and 2. There's a strong incentive to do the repairs closer to where the cars' owners live. As individual vehicles become less and less popular and borrowed self-driving cars become the norm, the need for fleet mechanics will probably change that equation.

      Robot plumbers will take longer, if only because every plumbing job is different, but we'll see them eventually.

      In the long-term, there will be new types of menial jobs that don't require a 4-year degree.

      In the long term, robots will replace all of the menial jobs. In the medium term, there will be new types of menial jobs, but it will be an ever-shifting landscape.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Misleading Headline by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The idea that a free universal college education will be the saving grace for displaced minimum wage workers is a pipe dream. I know IQ is a much-maligned concept, BUT many current minimum wage workers could not benefit from a college education even if it were handed to them because they lack the intellectual skill to learn advanced concepts.

      Although there are differences in people's intellectual abilities, there's every reason to believe that a much bigger difference in success rates stems from parental encouragement, early learning of important skills, etc. We could make a huge dent in that problem just by guaranteeing everyone a couple of years of pre-K education. And the earlier you pick up a concept, the easier it is. Lots of computer programmers start when they're kids. That usually happens because they have ready access to computers, plus the urge to tinker, much of which is learned behavior. All of these sorts of skills and drives can be instilled in kids from a young age, regardless of their IQ. We just have to be willing to make the effort. And if we do that, maybe they won't all end up as genius software architects, but they'll still be able to contribute.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:Misleading Headline by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >who are no longer able to work their way through college can still afford to get the education

      That is already everybody. In 1960 a person could pay a year's tuition at yale for just over 250 hours of work at minimum wage level. It was certainly possible to work enough hours in a year to be able to eat, wear clothes and cover other essentials and pay your tuition when only 250 hours were needed for tuition.

      Today, tuition *alone* is more than the total number of working hours in a year - and that's before you subtract time to sleep, let alone time to actually go to classes and study for exams.
      It's not possible to work your way through college anymore, so nobody does. They all do it by going massively into debt, and a job if held is purely to provide pocket money while studying.
      People now work for college AFTER graduating, indeed for the next decade at least.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:Misleading Headline by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Too late. College educations already are not a guarantee of a job, or a job that is worth the debt.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    15. Re:Misleading Headline by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      There are still plenty of smaller colleges and universities out there with sub-$10,000 tuition. Even at minimum wage, you can go to those schools by working just 50-66% of a full-time workload. They might not have names like "Yale", but you'll still get a decent education there.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:Misleading Headline by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Never in history has a college education been a guarantee of a job.

      Well, it's a guarantee of a job for the people who are tenured teachers, etc. :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, it's not even a guarantee of a job -now-, making the debt already not worth it to many.

    18. Re:Misleading Headline by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      In 1960 Yale's yearly tuition was $2400. https://yalealumnimagazine.com... About 18k in 2015 dollars.

      Minimum wage was $1/hour. Google 'Minimum wage 1960'

      That's 2400 hours. More than full time.

      Never trust where ever you got that bullshit again.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  18. Just a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If robots will replace 15 dollar-an-hour workers now, then they will replace 11 dollar-an-hour workers in a couple of years. I, for one, will not mourn the end of burger-flipping as a profession.

  19. Scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go ahead, buy those robots and we'll see what the end result is. My guess is they'll find out that the staff necessary to serve and operate all these robots won't work for $15/hour. The McDonalds CEO is clearly just trying to scare us into believing that it's somehow vital that he gets to pay workers sub-poverty wages in order for us to be able to buy 99 cent chicken-byproduct sandwiches. It's nonsense, and he knows it.

  20. no sense by rch7 · · Score: 2

    This scaremongering makes zero sense, there are plenty of countries with higher income than USA and they don't starve from unemployment, rather the opposite.
    Few positions that can be replaced by robots will be replaced anyway, as robots are getting cheaper and it makes business sense. Somebody capable of working in robotics will get employment and move up the latter leaving low qualification position for others. There are plenty of low qualification positions that can't be replaced.

    1. Re:no sense by cdecoro · · Score: 5, Informative

      This scaremongering makes zero sense, there are plenty of countries with higher income than USA and they don't starve from unemployment, rather the opposite.

      Citation needed.

      You're correct only if by "plenty" you mean 3-5. There are 5 countries with higher median income than the US: Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and Denmark.

      There are 3 countries with higher average wage than the US: Luxembourg again, Switzerland, and Ireland (according to the OECD). (Though this depends on who you ask: according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the US is flat-out No. 1 for average income.)

      All but 2 of those (Norway and Switzerland) have higher unemployment rates than the US.

    2. Re:no sense by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Yes, 5 is enough to see what happens - McDonald or whatever just pays more and these countries are just fine. No end of the world, economy is not destroyed, McDonald type joints are still open and hire people.

      And there is no point to talk about average income before taxes and before medical insurance when you speak about close to minimum wage workers. Income inequality is on higher end in the US among developed countries. E.g. medical insurance without significant deductibles/copayments/excuses/private insurance tricks is provided to minimal wage earners in most of these countries for small fraction of their wages if any, and quality of medical service is typically better than in the US (especially if you compare to Medicaid but not just Medicaid), and you are not forced into bankruptcy/homelessness/death in a ditch if you get long lasting illness.

    3. Re:no sense by cdecoro · · Score: 2

      Yes, 5 is enough to see what happens

      Again, there are only two countries making more money and with lower unemployment: Norway and Switzerland. And if you're considering just median income (to account for income inequality), there's just Norway. I hope you aren't under the impression that those countries' populations or economies (both with a population less than NYC, and dominated by oil or banking, respectively) generalize to the US.

      Ten years ago, I walked into a McDonalds in Zurich. The cost of an extra value meal was (in USD equivalent) about $12 dollars. As a poor grad student, I couldn't afford it. I suspect its more expensive now. (One source puts the cost of a Big Mac in Switzerland at about $7.50; again, that's without the fries and a drink.). The well-off Swiss population can afford such things. To the average working class American, a price increase of that magnitude would make a McDonalds meal a rare luxury. (Especially if that person has kids, who don't earn any wage, minimum or not.)

      You can argue all you want that if we just raised the minimum wage, had universal health care, guaranteed a universal basic income, etc., etc. that it would raise everyone's standard of living at some point in the future such that we eventually become like the Swiss and the Norwegians. But please don't pretend that the price increases that are the natural result of raising costs (of which wages are one of the largest for restaurants), to say nothing of the lost jobs that are now too expensive, wouldn't have a real and negative impact on the lives of poor people right now -- even if that negative impact isn't so bad as "the end of the world."

    4. Re:no sense by rch7 · · Score: 1

      You can make this or that excuse why this or that country is not good comparison - of course they are different and statistics accounts for different things and they are not easily comparable. But as you should have noticed yourself in Zurich, they live better in Switzerland, have McDonalds with clients, have people working and earning more in McDonalds and it works out for them just fine. And they certainly don't care why pure students or non-students from US can't afford McDonalds, it is not their concern. Median income doesn't account for income inequality, it is just medium and wages in McDonalds is far below medium and ratio of how far below medium is different.

      How can you loose McDonalds type jobs? Are they going to outsource them to China ;) ? No way, you will still have people who will eat in whatever places will be available if not McDonalds.

    5. Re:no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McD in Switzerland is indeed more expensive now, at about $15. And I don't think you can just copy the Swiss situation to the US. Sanders wouldn't like the Swiss banks, so he wouldn't have the source of money needed, the Republicans wouldn't like the Swiss social laws, Clinton probably would be the only one to appreciate it. But more practical, the Swiss have a rich neighborhood where they make their money. Mexico isn't exactly Italy.

    6. Re:no sense by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >. To the average working class American, a price increase of that magnitude would make a McDonalds meal a rare luxury

      Which is what it OUGHT to be and maybe if Americans figure that out, you wouldn't have such a major obesity problem anymore. Are you people allergic to the idea of a homecooked meal? People eating junk food because they don't have enough hours in the day from working 2 jobs with a 4 hour commute to somewhere they can afford to live may legitimately be able to say it's not practical, but the answer is not to make the junk food cheap - it's to make their income reflect hte actual profits it generates so that they can actually afford to work one job, get a car, and get home in time to cook food for themselves and their children.

      You know, like on a stove. Homecooking will always be healthier, safer, and far far cheaper than any other alternative.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:no sense by tigersha · · Score: 1

      I am on holiday in Switzerland right now, even as we speak. Yesterday my missus bought a frozen Pizza (long trip, hungry kids....). In Germany, where we live, it costs 2 Euros. Here it costs 5 Euros, 2.5 times more. Exactly, identically the same product. And we live close to the Swiss border (my wife works in Switzerland), so it is pretty much the most expensive city in Germany.

      If my wife did not work in Switzerland, with Swiss wages, there is NO way this three day trip would be possible. The town in Germany are making a killing with Swiss peple crossing the border to buy el cheapo stuff there, and the bastards even have the right to get back their VAT.

      You don't want to become like the Swiss. Everything is horrifyingly expensive here (and I hear Norway is worse). A house? Our house cost about 250K in Germany. Same one here would go for 500-600 and in Zurich for maybe 2 million. If you get one.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    8. Re:no sense by smugfunt · · Score: 1

      Norway and Switzerland. ... dominated by oil or banking, respectively)

      According to Ha-Joon Chang Switzerland has the highest manufacturing output per capita in the world. And it's not just chocolate and cuckoo clocks.

  21. Re:Where are the robots from? DeVry, that's where by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    the losses from fry-baggers could be largely made up by the increase in robot arm company employees/repairpeople.

    If that was the case they wouldn't be doing it, because that would be rolled into the price of the robot.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  22. A McDonald's can run on a single employee. by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    McDonald's already has touchscreen systems where customers can touch pictures of food and run their own card to order, I suspect these will be quickly rolled out in any jurisdiction that raises the minimum wage to $15/hour. Using pictures also gets around language problems. Fully automated, you would still need someone to load the raw materials into stacks and watch the customers, but far fewer employees would be necessary. Using a touchscreen in the drive-through would be an improvement over talking over the intercom, but multiple stations would probably be necessary since people are slow.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:A McDonald's can run on a single employee. by mykepredko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a case where I prefer interacting with a machine. The big touch board means that I can select exactly what I want to order (in my own time) and I don't have deal with correcting somebody through a 2" speaker or wait for the person in front of me to argue through their order. I know I'm not alone in this assessment of the touch board. I'm sure they're a hell of a lot cheaper than a $35k robot.

      So, if I was McDonalds (or any public service company), my approach would be to only install technology that provides the customer with a better experience and downplay the cost benefit issue (while taking more money to the bank).

    2. Re:A McDonald's can run on a single employee. by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      I know I'm not alone in this assessment of the touch board.

      You might be. This isn't the first time restaurants have tried this. People generally prefer to interact with a real person.

      And touchscreens in general suck. They get smeared up and filthy pretty quick, they're unresponsive, and they crash. I'd rather just ask the bored teenager for my Big Mac.

    3. Re:A McDonald's can run on a single employee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You already see people crashing and scraping the buildings, forcing them to use a touch screen from a car window is not the best thing to do... an APP for the resturant would be easier... that way you can order 3,4,5 cars in advance and just wait in line for it to be ready...

    4. Re:A McDonald's can run on a single employee. by mykepredko · · Score: 1

      I think McDonalds in Canada have a pretty good solution - and judging by the lines in front of them (instead of the person taking orders), I'm not the only one.

    5. Re:A McDonald's can run on a single employee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big touch board means that I can select exactly what I want to order (in my own time) and I don't have deal with correcting somebody through a 2" speaker or wait for the person in front of me to argue through their order. I know I'm not alone in this assessment of the touch board.

      Yeah. You also aren't alone in selecting exactly what you want to order in your own time. So you are standing there waiting for the guy in front of you to take his sweet time.

      Meanwhile, its McDonalds -- what the hell difference does it make what you order? They should just sell "McFiller" by the pound.

    6. Re:A McDonald's can run on a single employee. by jezwel · · Score: 1

      I've used touchscreens for a number of venues, including non-fast food such as Japanese restaurants - they love them. No communication breakdowns, itemised bill ready at the checkout when you press the button to leave. I'm there to interact with my companions, not a waiter.
      If I *need* advice on what wine to drink from their selection, I'll head to a restaurant that has waiters.

    7. Re:A McDonald's can run on a single employee. by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      McDonald's already has touchscreen systems where customers can touch pictures of food and run their own card to order, I suspect these will be quickly rolled out in any jurisdiction that raises the minimum wage to $15/hour

      The minimum wage part is a red herring. It has little to do with it; yes, there is a marginal increase in the pressure to automate when the wage is $15 versus $12, but really the automation is either worth it or not. The acceptance by the consumer, the effect on the flow of restaurant / speed of delivery, and the other costs and benefits (capex vs opex and finance and borrowing rates, insurance, maintenance, effect on vandalism, robbery, people stealing from the till, managing the employees, hiring and firing and getting sued) means that automation is a complicated decision not entirely based on the wage of the person. Yes, it will ever so slightly happen faster at $15 than $12, but not much; that is not one of the driving factors.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    8. Re:A McDonald's can run on a single employee. by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      May be they can use their personal touch screen - of their smart phone [ie hv an app which knows which store, what menu, etc.. yeah there is privacy issue..for some it may not be a big deal]

  23. I dont believe it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is the $15 an hour worker does more than bag fries all day. He cleans toilets, refills ketchup containers, wipes down tables and floors, kicks out the homeless dudes who treat your McDonalds like their own personal bedroom/bathroom, etc.... He's also smart enough to see that dead rat in the fries and not automatically bag him with the fries. And he does all that ever single day. Robots are probably a solid century away from that kind of versatility. The fast food worker isn't going anywhere. They might replace the dude at the register but that's about it. Every other process really involves occasional outlier situations like that rat in the fries that will require a human being.

  24. It's time for Manna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So at $15 an hour, it's cheaper to have robots they say. I say good. I don't want people wasting their time doing menial jobs. Much better to have them on permanent vacation.

    Will this inevitably lead to Manna? Maybe.

    http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

    1. Re:It's time for Manna by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      Came here expecting someone to link to an over-simplified, shallow sci-fi story with appalling characterisation and terrible dialogue. I see I was not let down in that regard.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  25. Terminator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Skynet starts at McDonalds!

  26. The minimum wage isn't the trigger by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also on the front page is how Foxconn is replacing manufacturing with robots. I can guarantee they're not paying $15USD/hr to employees. The talk about minimum wage is just to cut costs until the robots can replace the guys making $8/USD/Hr.

    There's a fundamental conflict in capitalism. As an owner, you want to cut costs, including wages. But wages are also known as "purchasing power". We've gotten past this by growth. Capitalism requires growth. But we're cutting so fast, im not sure we're growing fast enough to cover all the lost purchasing power. We'll see

    1. Re:The minimum wage isn't the trigger by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      And there are plenty of countries with a high minimum wage which haven't put in robots in their fast food outlets.

    2. Re:The minimum wage isn't the trigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're talking about Canada, mykepredko just said upthread that Canadian McDonalds' use touch screens instead of humans.

    3. Re:The minimum wage isn't the trigger by Tom · · Score: 2

      The other simple truth is that you can't keep up exponential growth for a very long time.

      Imagine the entire economy would consist of making and eating Hamburgers. Sure you can grow by 10% for a few years, by making and eating more burgers. If your imaginary economy is 1000 people and they start with eating 2 burgers a day, they can certainly eat a third one once a week or so. You can also invent new burger flavours that people eat just for the pleasure. But after growing for just 12 years at 10%, people need to eat more than 3 burgers a day. After 15 years, 4 burgers a day. And after 25 years, more than 10 burgers a day.

      In the real world, of course, growth works longer by inventing new things that we didn't need before and so on, but you can expand the argument to resources used or time spent on using all the things you buy. You can spread the growth over longer times, but the simple truth is that an economic model that relies on exponential growth as its core concept is fundamentally flawed.

      In the real world, the ugly truth is that economic crisis is the way in which capitalism avoids this problem. Every few years, we simply correct the growth curve downwards with a crisis. If our burger economy crashes every 10 years, destroying a third of the wealth (and production capacity), it can sustain itself and its growth curve almost indefinitely.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:The minimum wage isn't the trigger by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      Well, very little of the Chinese workers could afford to buy those iPhones they're making.

      Foxconn is now just making it an absolute rule.

    5. Re:The minimum wage isn't the trigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wages = purchasing power" applies to closed economies. But those workers who make iPhones aren't going to be able to afford one. It's Western world purchasing power and Chinese wages, and the two are diconnected. The result is a massive wealth transfer out of the US (and Europe, for that matter). Robots at least mean the rich capitalists are local. There *is* such a thing as a trickle-down effect, but currently that explain why the Chinese factory wages are rising when we cut taxes here.

    6. Re:The minimum wage isn't the trigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the true capitalist sales his burger business when he see growth is going to start to slow due to market saturation to rent seeking idiot who thinks the last 12 years of steady growth will continue forever. He then buys a street taco stand and starts all over because it's about the journey not the destination.

  27. BEWARE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maria w/o makeup looks a lot like this

    http://img.wennermedia.com/620...

  28. Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The whole push for a $15 minimum wage will been seen as a "Hold ma beer" moment for the minimum wage activists.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole push for a $15 minimum wage will been seen as a "Hold ma beer" moment for the minimum wage activists.

      Unlikely. If people were willing to learn about economics by looking at how past policies worked in the real world, we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. I have never heard an activist, of any ideology, admit they were wrong.

    2. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well lets hope everyone figures it out before it turns into a "Let them eat cake" moment.

    3. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except of course, there is no history of raising minimum wage resulting in lower employment LONG TERM
      The entire market is equally "handicapped" and very, VERY little changes in terms of net employment.

    4. Re: Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The robots will probably make the cake too.

    5. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      $15 per hour wouldn't even be the highest it's ever been. $15 per hour isn't a high number.

    6. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well excepting the fact that there are such studies

      http://www.frbsf.org/economic-...

      You don't have to be Milton Friedman to figure this stuff out.

    7. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Except of course, there is no history of raising minimum wage resulting in lower employment LONG TERM

      Actually, there is.

      Modest increases in the minimum wage tend to modestly increase wages (while doing little to reduce poverty). But big jumps tend to price a lot of unskilled and entry level workers out of the labor market.

      Most people claiming that minimum wage hikes don't cause job losses point to the Card-Krueger study of fast food workers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But there were a lot of issues with that study. The raise was minor, and they only looked at same-site employment. They didn't look at the long term effect of whether higher wages reduced the number of new establishments.

    8. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I don't remember a giant spike in unemployment any other time minimum wage went up although it has never doubled overnight but I think they are exaggerating as I have a teen ager who has worked at a couple fast food places they started him out at $8.50. I live in one of lower cost of living areas of the midwest I'm sure they start people higher in other places kind of self regulating minimum wage but instead of a fair minimum it's more like the lowest they can possibly pay and still expect to get someone.

    9. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

      Near as I can tell, the minimum wage is something akin to the Federal government acting like a Union on behalf of it's citizens. A mediocre union, although if you think about it there are a lot of similarities. A pension plan, the government sometimes stepping in when the employer fires you for protected class violations, etc.

      A union is a way to counteract employer's immense bargaining power ("take this job at this low pay or starve") with collective bargaining "if you don't pay us more you can't have ANY employees".

      I know what you're thinking - if the market were labor were completely free, where employers bid up the price they offer until they are offering just a little bit less than employer's true value to a firm - a minimum wage would create a shortage. (since employers cannot offer jobs to those who don't add more value than the wage is)

      But it's not a free market.

    10. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      The problem is there are millions of people who live on fixed incomes, like retirees and the disabled, who will now have an even harder time making ends meet with increased prices. Ostensibly, Social Security is adjusted each year to match inflation, but politicians have played with the formula that calculates this increase to the extent that it's grossly out of step with reality. Prices have gone up, as they do every year, except if you're a Washington bean counter, then they are exactly the same as last year. I'm not wildly optimistic that this trend will reverse any time soon.

    11. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Near as I can tell, the minimum wage is something akin to the Federal government acting like a Union on behalf of it's citizens.

      That is a good analogy, and like unions, it can work well as long as they don't go too far. Union overreach destroyed Detroit, and government overreach can cause harm as well. Pensions are good, but generous pensions funded by massive debt are not so good. A basic minimum wage is good, but while $15/hr may be fine in NYC or SF, it will be a job killer in the Mississippi Delta or West Virginia. Even $7.25 was a disaster for Puerto Rico. It is better for the Feds to set a floor, and then let individual states set it higher, as many already have.

    12. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean a "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country” moment? If minimum wage had simply kept up with the productivity increase of US workers, it would be around $20/h right now. Just like it is in some other countries, where fast food industry does just fine without raising prices. For example, when indexed to the cost of a Big Mac, the Australian minimum wage is well over twice the US.

    13. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by j-beda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      $15 per hour wouldn't even be the highest it's ever been. $15 per hour isn't a high number.

      It looks like the mimum wage was historically the highest back in 1968:

      "The minimum wage reached its (inflation-adjusted) historic high in 1968, when it was raised from $1.40 to $1.60 per hour. Adjusted for inflation using the BLS online inflation calculator that would come to $10.55 per hour in 2012 dollars."

      http://inequality.org/minimum-...

      Clearly, whatever mimium wage society thinks is appropriate, it should really be indexed somehow to inflation or agerage wages or something like that.

      I have always liked the idea of setting mimimum wages as some fraction of the top wage in a company, or as some fraction of the wages of politicians - though that would not work well in states with underpaid legislators.

    14. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Yeah. You know, most of the problems I heard of with Unions had to do with deferred benefits. If the Unions had focused their negotiations on "cash on the table" deals (or perhaps the laws had been written to discourage business deals where one party or both can easily renege on past commitments) things would have been ok. Some idiot thought it was a better idea to secure a "pension" requiring future payments (and therefore massive profits) from GM rather than a slightly bigger paycheck immediately and a good 401k matching deal.

    15. Re: Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys realize that the $15 min wage thing is something two states are doing. California and New York, two of the most expensive places on Earth to live. There is no credible federal legislation regarding min wage.

    16. Re: Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why unemployment in Seattle is so high! Oh, wait...

    17. Re: Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unions did not destroy Detroit. The companies did after decades of increased global competition and a complete and total inability to innovate. The world and the market changed around them and they said, "meh."

    18. Re: Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      California and New York, two of the most expensive places on Earth to live.

      Parts of California and New York are expensive. Other parts, like California's Central Valley, are poor, cheap, and economically depressed. $15 may make sense in SF or Anaheim, but forcing it on Medesto and Calexico may not work out so well.

    19. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by compro01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Foxconn (Who make devices for Apple and basically every other major electronics brand) is replacing Chinese workers (who make the equivalent of about $2/hour) with robotics.

      With that in mind, only an idiot would believe that keeping the minimum wage at $7.25 will save any jobs from being replaced by robots.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    20. Re: Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no systemic tradition of slavery in Australia, rather a tradition of fairness. It's a cultural thing. Much like how the maturity to tackle important issues like gun massacres in a meaningful way is unlikely to ever happen in the US. They lack the will as they are weak.

    21. Re: Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      If you pick one datapoint to describe a whole, the result you get is going to be even more nonsensical and insane than you are.

    22. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by superdude72 · · Score: 1

      A factory operating 24/7 on a massive scale with the goal of producing as quickly as possible is a lot different from a single McDonald's franchise.

      Let me give an example. I've had the most brain-dead job imaginable: Palletizing (stacking boxes on pallets) in a factory. We had robots to do that for the high-volume jobs. But for the smaller runs it was more cost effective to bring in a couple temps at $12 an hour than it would have been to build another robot.

      McDonald's is already very efficient. Most of the prep work is done, in advance, in a factory using robots. Preparing it for the customers requires relatively few employees operating well beneath capacity in order to serve the food as fresh from the grill as possible.

    23. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      The argument that companies would rather have nobody rather than pay more is ludicrous and is NEVER USED with any other commodity such as fuel or flour. It exists purely to allow fiscal hegemonies to keep a vendor (us) from raising their prices. If your employer could make do without you RIGHT NOW, you'd be out the door. But there are certain times when you need someone's help in order for you to make money. And that's not going to change. There will always be times when the owner of a business needs a human being to do something for him. And what we have to decide on is whether it's gonna be that guy who pays the worker, or whether it's going to be the taxpayer.

      Because starving potential thieves existing in large numbers is simply not an option, never has been. If 20 percent of your population falls into danger of starvation, your wealthy will be murdered and your government overthrown. No amount of Apache helicopters can fix a nation that has that kind of problem, and automation WILL bring us the potential for that level of problem. All that's required is a tiny dip in ambition among the investor class at this point.

      Someone's going to be feeding the working people of this nation. I propose that it should be the employer.

    24. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And, unsurprisingly, the source you quoted is a BANKER operation uninterested in jobs
      As opposed to, say, Dept of labor
      Minimum wage mythbuster, for instance. or Center for Economic Progress demonstrating that no such job loss exists and why the Bankers keep repeating the lie and...seriously. Do try some actual research for like, 3 seconds.

    25. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you look at the other reply to my thread, NO THERE IS NOT.
      There are some self serving promos by various rightwing "institute" non academics.

    26. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      The Obama dept of Labor ? and an organization pushing this ?

      Or maybe I could take the word of a Nobel Prize winning economist ?

      The inverse relationship between quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in economic science, which embodies the presupposition that human choice behavior is sufficiently rational to allow predictions to be made. Just as no physicist would claim that "water runs uphill," no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores.

      https://mises.org/library/econ...

      I see you found some of Mr. Buchanan's camp following whores.

    27. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      VON MISES INSTITUTE? BWAHAHAHAHHAA!
      Enough said. When you have to run to anti-academic sources, YOU LOSE!
      Not only not respected among economists, NOT EVEN LISTED in an academic journal!
      Citation is not even permitted in real Peer Reviewed journals of economics, because it is a PROPAGANDA OUTLET!!
      Again, BWAHAHAAHHAA!

    28. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Nice caps there. Really brings home your point and enhances your stature.

    29. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure you have the academic credentials of this "institute" right at hand, right?
      Oh, wait NO YOU DO NOT!

    30. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yawn, here why don't you try and figure out why what you are saying is irrelevant ?
      In the future it may help you to not make false statements
      Like this one of yours

      Except of course, there is no history of raising minimum wage resulting in lower employment LONG TERM
      The entire market is equally "handicapped" and very, VERY little changes in terms of net employment.

      You see all you did there was tell people you had no idea what you were talking about.

      Much the same way your screaming and whining afterwards has told people that to go with your lack of knowledge you have a lack of class.

    31. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      So, in fact, your "source" has no academic credentials at all, is an opinion outlet, paid for by the Ayn Randians who surrounded Alan Greenspan, architect of at least 3 economic crashes.

    32. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Actually, had you bothered to read the DOL article, you would know your premise is false, rises in minimum wage do NOT cause long term rise in unemployment.
      How about those ugly facts? Really put a damper on Austrian School dropouts.

    33. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1
    34. Re:Hold Ma Beer and Watch This! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may have being higher in 1968. But the increase was only 15% but now they want to increase 107%. It is not the minimum wage increase that is the issue it is the rate they are increasing it. That means that many more people will be making minimum wage.

      Also the politicians are doing this to increase taxes (so they can justify a bigger wage increase).

  29. It's' all fun and games.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until the robots get infected with a computer virus and spit into you food

  30. And yet.. by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1, Informative

    And yet, fast food workers are earning $15/hr or more in most other first world countries across the globe for a decade and their economies haven't imploded...

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    1. Re:And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      economies haven't imploded...

      Nice reductio ad absurdum there. Nobody said the economy would "implode". They're saying a lot of small businesses will have to make decisions that will negatively impact those people getting a wage increase. It has to be paid for somehow. Raise prices, lay off workers, or go out of business.

    2. Re:And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bullshit, 3 seconds on google show that fast food workers in the United Kingdom make $7.79 USD.

      Germany? $9.87 USD.
      France? $10.28 USD.
      Italy? Monthly salary of $333.52 USD. So unless they're only working 20 hours/month, it's no where near $15/hr

      So which magical first world countries have been paying fast food workers more than $15/hr for decades??

    3. Re:And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norway still pays around $20/hour at McDonalds for 18-year olds and their economy is terrible right now due to the oil prices. So $15/hr should not be a problem.

  31. It all started with Henry Ford. by mmell · · Score: 1
    He figured out how to make an automobile cheaper by hiring a bunch of unskilled labor and giving them the minimal training to be one part of the assembly line. No more need for artisans/craftsmen to slowly build automobiles.

    Several decades later, they (the automotive industry) figured out how to replace the (now expensive) laborers with robots.

    McDonald's et. al. have been pumping out cheap food by hiring a bunch of unskilled labor and giving them the minimal training to be one part of the assembly line. No more need for cooks to cook food.

    Several decades later, they (the fast food industry) figured out how to replace the (rapidly becoming expensive) laborers with robots.

    Anybody sensing a theme?

  32. Is McDonalds going to subsidize this? by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 1

    Sure, McDonalds might be able to afford purchasing the robots, but currently, 81% of their stores are franchised, not owned by McDonalds. I seriously doubt all of those stores can afford to purchase a $35k robot to replace every employee.

    This is pure FUD. Just a corporate shill trying to scare people away from raising the minimum wage.

    1. Re:Is McDonalds going to subsidize this? by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      Um if you look at how much those robots will save a store over 6 months, its would be a worth while thing for that 81% of them.that robot can work 24/7. 1 doing fries can save that store many 1000's a week alone. a robot that costs 35grand that can work 24/7 for 0$ an hour vs 3 employee's that work 8 hours a day @ 15$ an hour. that is 2500$ a week they save just for fries. The robot pays for it self 3-4 months.

    2. Re:Is McDonalds going to subsidize this? by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 1

      You can't know how much these robots will save a store over 6 months, because all he said about them was the price. Hard to determine what a robot is capable of based on price alone. Also not included is total cost of ownership or how a breakdown will affect the restaurant. (If an employee is out sick, you call in a replacement. but what do you do if one of your robots is broke?)

      It's also not as simple as replacing 1 employee with 1 robot because robots are specialized while humans are generalized. What I mean is that a fast food joint can run with 4 people. You don't really need a dedicated fry person since most of that job is just waiting for them to cook. Have one of the expediters watch the fries and drop more as needed. To run that same restaurant with robots, you would need a robot for each station (Presuming the robots are stationary). Fries, shakes, sandwich maker, breakfast etc. Then there's keeping things stocked. Gotta make sure you have enough buns, patties etc loaded in the robots. Are you going to have another robot to reload stock for the other robots? Who's going to clean the dining room? The bathrooms? Is a robot going to recognize and remove fecal wall graffiti, or is it just going to clean the toilet like it was programmed to do? To flat out state that replacing employees with robots will save the company money is pure speculation.

      What this guy said was purely reactionary, and there's a lot more to going full robotic than just "replacing employees with $35k robots", and seeing how McDonalds doesn't actually own 81% of it's stores, I seriously doubt this is anything other than fear mongering: "Oh shit, if they raise the minimum wage, I'm out of a job! Better tell my congressman I'm happy with $7.25 an hour!"

    3. Re:Is McDonalds going to subsidize this? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt all of those stores can afford to purchase a $35k robot to replace every employee.

      They will replace them one at a time, and they will do it with bank loans. The more it saves them, the more rapidly they pay off the loans, and therefore the more likely it is that they will be able to get a loan in the first place. A McDonalds down near LA someplace had a french fry robot back in the eighties and used it for years. Fries will get automated first, because they are super easy, you don't need any intelligence to speak of. Then it will be drinks, you want some fairly clever systems in place to make sure that works right so you don't make a mess, and it's a much more fiddly job than making fries.

      What he's saying is absolutely true. Raising the minimum wage will accelerate automation. But there is a more important takeaway from this discussion; we're screwed anyway if we don't figure out what to do about increasing joblessness worldwide.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Is McDonalds going to subsidize this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the guy making fries was just doing that full time and nothing else. Otherwise you still need someone else to do his other work. Or are you going to to give him 10 min breaks every hour that he was making fries. Can't imagine thats legal. He will just be given other tasks to do instead. Wipe a table, empty the trash.

    5. Re:Is McDonalds going to subsidize this? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Fries will get automated first, because they are super easy, you don't need any intelligence to speak of. Then it will be drinks, you want some fairly clever systems in place to make sure that works right so you don't make a mess, and it's a much more fiddly job than making fries.

      Drinks in McDonalds are already automated. For in-restaurant the patron is given a cup and they fill it themselves. For the drive-thru, they use the Automated Beverage System, I think all the human does is put the lid on the drink.

      --

      Enigma

    6. Re:Is McDonalds going to subsidize this? by kaybee · · Score: 1

      It is the former CEO, not sure what's in it for him to spread FUD. He is correct; one minimum wage across all skill and experience levels and across all cities and states makes no sense.

    7. Re:Is McDonalds going to subsidize this? by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 1

      What's in it for him to speak about this at all? He may be the former CEO, but I'll bet he still owns stock.

      Part of the reason that minimum wage was introduced in the first place is that employers were not paying employees a living wage. The same thing is happening again.

      A few people in this thread seem to think that not raising the minimum wage is somehow going to magically prevent companies like McDonalds from replacing staff with robots, but that isn't going to happen. Corporations exist to make money. Reducing costs is part of that. They WILL move to robots sooner or later. Saying we shouldn't raise the minimum wage, in an effort to stave off this threat is really just doing a disservice to those who currently have those jobs.

  33. It's all about who subsidizes whom by taustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even at $15/hour, it's not a livable wage in most places. You can't survive on it when your pre-tax, gross income is less than the average one bedroom apartment costs per month, as is the case in Los Angeles. So what happens is that people making minimum wage doing scut work jobs are subsidized by family, friends, or, far more often than not, the taxpayer. They can't afford a car, so they go to work on subsidized public transportation. They can't afford medical insurance, so they get subsidized by the taxpayer, or go to the emergency room they can't afford to pay for. They can't afford child care, so they sign up for subsidized versions of that, or their children grow up feral, and the taxpayer pays for keeping them in prison.

    All that so we can buy a cheap, mass produced hamburger for 99 cents.

    The problem isn't paying employees $15/hour, the problem is paying McDonald's a quarter of the true cost of making a Big Mac, so that the corporate investors can get richer.

    All big, national chains are heavily (if covertly) subsidized by the taxpayer. Sam Walton became a billionarire on those subsidies, while his employees were living on food stamps.

    If you can't afford to pay your employees enough to live on without subsidies, then your business model is broken, and you should be driven out of business by pitchfork wielding mobs.

    1. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      You can't survive on it when your pre-tax, gross income is less than the average one bedroom apartment costs per month, as is the case in Los Angeles.

      Why can't you survive in a studio apartment, or a bedroom in a shared apartment?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    2. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...as is the case in Los Angeles

      If survival is really on the line, leave L.A. At $15/hour, it would only take a few hours to save up enough for a bus ticket to somewhere with a lower cost of living. There's a difference between can't survive, and choose to stay and complain because it's easier than stepping out of your comfort-city.

    3. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear hear, I am tired of sponsoring the massive profits of Walmart, Mc Donalds etc ... though my tax bill, they are tax subsidized business that wouldn't be viable without tax payer paying their workers.

    4. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by roca · · Score: 1

      What are you actually advocating here? Abolishing subsidies, i.e. welfare? Making cheap hamburgers illegal? Raising corporate taxes? Pitchfork-wielding mobs?

    5. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by taustin · · Score: 1

      The average rent in Los Angeles for half of a two bedroom apartment is about what someone making minimum wage takes home. Studios are roughly the same rent as a one bedroom, only with less space. The old school rule of thumb on whether or not you can afford an apartment is that rent should be no more than 1/3 your take home, or 1/4 your gross income. That means someone making $15/hour can afford $200/month in rent. In reality, most people are paying at least 50% of their take home, and relying on the taxpayers for a lot of necessities.

      There are a number of reasons for this, but people demanding 99 cent hamburgers, and corporate execs expecting six or seven figure bonuses every quarter - at the taxpayer's expense - are the two biggest ones.

    6. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by taustin · · Score: 1

      ...as is the case in Los Angeles

      If survival is really on the line,

      As long as the taxpayers are willing to subsidize wealthy corporations, it's not.

      leave L.A. At $15/hour, it would only take a few hours to save up enough for a bus ticket

      Every dollar you save for that bus ticket is one less dollar in food you eat. And most of your meals only cost a few bucks, because all you have.

      You've clearly never had to make a choice between eating and a bus pass to get to work.

      to somewhere with a lower cost of living.

      LA isn't even all that exceptional as far as rent as a percentage of income goes in big cities. In not-big cities, jobs are scarce. And you arrive with, at best, the cost a Big Mac in your pocket, so you'll be sponging off the taxpayer until you find a job. Again.

      There's a difference between can't survive, and choose to stay and complain because it's easier than stepping out of your comfort-city.

      Most people making minimum wage would love to move somewhere cheaper, except wages are lower, too, and moving costs more than they have. It is literally "put $5 towards that magic bus ticket to nowhere or eat dinner" for many.

      Entitled snowflakes who have never had to work to eat are incapable of grasping even the simplest economics.

    7. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by taustin · · Score: 1

      What I'm "advocating" is people - everyone - not being so fucking cheap. Skip the fast food, not because it tastes like shit (it does, but bear with me), but because the true cost of making it is several time as much as you pay for it. Instead, go to places that pay a decent living wage, and buy stuff whose costs reflect the actual cost in human labor to make, instead of the cheapass crap that Wally World sells.

      The minimum wage employees aren't the only ones being subsidized by the taxpayers, so are all the customers of places like McDonald's and Wallmart, who rely on those subsidies to get richer.

    8. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...as is the case in Los Angeles

      If survival is really on the line, leave L.A. At $15/hour, it would only take a few hours to save up enough for a bus ticket to somewhere with a lower cost of living. There's a difference between can't survive, and choose to stay and complain because it's easier than stepping out of your comfort-city.

      You're a fucking retard. Hopefully your gene pool will go extinct before you ever get laid.

    9. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Even at $15/hour, it's not a livable wage in most places. You can't survive on it when your pre-tax, gross income is less than the average one bedroom apartment costs per month, as is the case in Los Angeles.

      Are you kidding me? You measure "most places" by Los Angeles?

      The problem isn't paying employees $15/hour, the problem is paying McDonald's a quarter of the true cost of making a Big Mac, so that the corporate investors can get richer.

      MacDonald's is a franchise operation, and the operators have thing profit margins. And if the costs of those franchisees go up, they pass that along directly to their customers, who are mostly low income themeselves.

      All big, national chains are heavily (if covertly) subsidized by the taxpayer. Sam Walton became a billionarire on those subsidies, while his employees were living on food stamps.

      Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Sam Walton didn't ask for those food stamps, and he didn't need them. If you don't like food stamps, just work towards eliminating them. No civilized country has a $15/h minimum wage.

      If you can't afford to pay your employees enough to live on without subsidies, then your business model is broken, and you should be driven out of business by pitchfork wielding mobs.

      I'm sure you will do just that. It's not corporations, it's people like you that make life at the bottom end of the economic spectrum so miserable.

    10. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by ooloorie · · Score: 0

      Entitled snowflakes who have never had to work to eat are incapable of grasping even the simplest economics.

      Yeah, "entitled snowflake" describes pricks like you.

    11. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by taustin · · Score: 1

      I'm one of the middle class who subsidizes the billions in profits for Walmart and McDonald's. I'd give your left nut to be entitled. I really would.

    12. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

      What are you actually advocating here? Abolishing subsidies, i.e. welfare? Making cheap hamburgers illegal? Raising corporate taxes? Pitchfork-wielding mobs?

      None of the above. I think the capitalism is what it is and cannot be expected to do anything more than it already is, which clearly is not enough for the majority of human beings on this planet. So we must face this truth, accept this reality, and begin to do something to improve the situation without going into conflict or class warfare. We must not waste any effort on a tug of war or robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is a dilemma that in many ways resembles "musical chairs" just like we played in nursery school. Only now, I propose that we stop removing chairs every time the music starts up again. Rules like that only lead to war. Lets agree on steps that we can take as a society, not just an economy, and try to all agree on ground rules that do not aggravate an already difficult situation. Lets all stop beating each other up and just work on doing things that help the situation, not hurt more people. Remember, in nature, life has existed for billions of years without minimum wage, welfare, or capital. Money problems are rarely solved with money...at least not for very long. My idea is that we start by giving people permission to be exactly where they are right now, whether they be rich or poor, productive or not, employed or unemployable and stop blaming people for their own suffering. Nobody prefers to be suffering, poor, down trodden, etc. so if you can't help out then zip it up. People need to be treated as equally entitled to pursue happiness and fulfillment even if they cannot manage to create opportunity. Lets stop the abusive defensiveness because it will only lead to a reign of terror. Its not necessary to chop off any heads if we agree to work on solutions that don't include throwing half the people off of this ship of fools.

      Do the math people: 7 Billion people, 1 billion jobs, most of those are not for profit government jobs, and all of them are expected to be paying a pension without the possibility of interest being paid on low risk savings accounts. Do the freaking math. Capitalism in no way is designed to solve this situation for humanity. This does not mean that we must replace capitalism, we just must accept the truth about this reality and start to take care of human beings - without expecting them to cough up a lot of dollars that don't exist. Lets get real, and stop beating each other up because there ain't enough money to go around.....there never was and never will be. But that doesn't mean that we can't live happily together in this reality. We decide when its time we evolve beyond an addiction to funny money and loaded dice.

      That's my two cents. Now I'm down to zero cents.

      But I can do a great deal to help the situation, even if I'm broke. People are worth more than money, especially at times when nobody is hiring. If you wanna win, then measure success with something in abundance. If homelessness was treated like a valuable resource instead of a symbol of our fear, guilt, and failure, then perhaps it wouldn't hurt us all so much. Give people a break and stop blaming. It just doesn't help one bit, so its better to stay out of the way if you can't do something that helps. Nobody needs to blame you either for being self sufficient. It's not your fault either. It goes both ways. Lets be on the same team, from the very start and not waste any time or energy on disputes.

      Easier said than done, but that's what I think. That's where we begin.

    13. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The middle class is a huge recipient of government subsidies. And your faux concern for "the poor" is really just a feeble attempt to justify your own greed and entitlement. Beyond that, you evidently have the kind of trouble you accuse other of having: "grasping even the simplest economics".

    14. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't afford to pay your employees enough to live on without subsidies, then your business model is broken, and you should be driven out of business by pitchfork wielding mobs.

      Actually, it works the other way. The mobs are the customers who don't want to pay more than a dollar. When you ask them to pay four dollars so that your employees, who should never have been anything but teenagers working part-time and certainly should never have been lifelong employees and breadwinners, the customers go find somewhere else to shop. Then you go out of business.

      Don't expect McDonalds employees to be breadwinners, and don't expect customers to be willing to pay breadwinner salaries to eat McDonalds' food. Fast food jobs are training jobs for youth, to get them prepared for real jobs later. Nothing more.

    15. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minimum wage jobs are for students and teenagers. I don't want to pay more because someone with poor life choices thinks I should support their family.

    16. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree, and precisely for the reason that started this article. We're not subsidizing those low-paid employees to help the big companies profit, we subsidize those low-paid jobs to keep those people competitively priced. We'd still need to subsidize their health care if they were unemployed after being replaced with robots, after all. So it's not like this subsidized healthcare is a benefit to Walmart.

      That said, I wouldn't disagree with taxing Walmart more, but via sales taxes. Compared to smaller shops, Walmart employs less people per $ sold, so shifting employment taxes to sales taxes (with no net changes in total taxes raised) effectively shifts the tax burden from shops with many employees to shops with few employees.

    17. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      You can't survive on it when your pre-tax, gross income is less than the average one bedroom apartment costs per month, as is the case in Los Angeles.

      Why can't you survive in a studio apartment, or a bedroom in a shared apartment?

      Excellent question. What is the socially acceptable situation that people that work at McDonalds have to live in? I vote for a box in an alley. Too harsh? Ok, they can live in unheated worker dorms in the basements of office buildings. Oh, you mean that these so-called 'people' have families they are trying to support? Damn you and your needy requirements. Ok, all 5 of you into the studio apartment, but I better not hear a peep out of you.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    18. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't afford a one bedroom apartment, find roommates - that way two individuals don't need their own separate kitchens, etc.

    19. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QUOTE: "Lets all stop beating each other up and just work on doing things that help the situation, not hurt more people. Remember, in nature, life has existed for billions of years without minimum wage, welfare, or capital. Money problems are rarely solved with money...at least not for very long. My idea is that we start by giving people permission to be exactly where they are right now, whether they be rich or poor, productive or not, employed or unemployable and stop blaming people for their own suffering. Nobody prefers to be suffering, poor, down trodden, etc. so if you can't help out then zip it up. People need to be treated as equally entitled to pursue happiness and fulfillment even if they cannot manage to create opportunity."

      RESPONSE:
      - In nature, most problems are actually solved by killing something to eat it or hurting it and running away. Don't know how well that would go over among people. Soylent Green doesn't sound too appealing.

      - "... we start by giving people permission to be exactly where they are right now..." ? Giving permission? I don't require permission to "be exactly where I am right now." The writer seems to conflate purported/expressed social acceptance/support with the fact of BEING ALIVE.

      - "People need to be treated as equally entitled to pursue happiness and fulfillment even if they cannot manage to create opportunity."
                I think that the writer is saying that we should be respectful, not critical. However, the writer's sentence seems to imply that if I am not treated as equally entitled to pursue happiness and fulfillment" that I will be unable to be happy of fulfilled. I don't know about you, but I am going to do whatever I damn well want to in order to seek happiness, whether or not anyone treats me as "equally entitled" to do so.

      I am already equal to others. Sometimes, though, I have more or less money or opportunity than they do. Equality isn't about stuff, it's about your fundamental nature as a person. (Note: "nature," not "value," as a person.)

      AC - Boise

    20. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big elephant in the room are the people who don't provide $15/hr worth of work, productivity, or value in any role. As automation progresses not just the indignant, learning impaired, and mentally ill will fall in to this category but fairly ordinary people at the bottom of the ladder.

      I think the bigger issue is not that these people should not be taken care of, but by who and to what extent. Friends and family are certainly an appropriate source of support, and arguably the government as well. Corporations cannot and should not be expected to ensure the overall well-being of the general populace except through taxation. Who populace would McDonald's be expected to sustain? Certainly the people in developing nations would be more needy than those in wealthy nations.

      To suggest that only those that do not work deserve these subsidies is also patently unfair. These subsidies are little different than the basic income being suggested by many, with the caveat that they cannot be easily misappropriated to things such as luxuries, drugs, etc which many of the destitute have a propensity for over necessities.

      The debate these days is not on the existence of subsidies, but who paying out and how much.

    21. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Remember, in nature, life has existed for billions of years without minimum wage, welfare, or capital.

      I'll grant you the first two, but capital has existed for as long as life itself. The process of evolution can be viewed in terms of accumulating and maintaining means of production, mechanisms for taking what nature provides and turning it into something more useful to the organism. The concept is just as applicable to single-celled organisms as it is to entire societies.

      Even if you're not willing to generalize quite that far, hand-tools are unambiguously a form of capital, ergo capital has existed at least since early proto-humans started making and using tools.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    22. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And nobody understands the real reason why the push to raise minimum wage to $15 is... you get a lot fewer government subsidies (welfare) when you make 30K/year.

    23. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by kaybee · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that if a Walmart employee receives a government subsidy then Walmart effectively received a subsidy?

      The government offers free money to people and that presumably allows them to accept a lower wage from Walmart than they would otherwise accept. The employee applies for the job and accepts the wage. The government subsidizes their lifestyle. And that's Walmart's fault?

    24. Re:It's all about who subsidizes whom by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      There are enough teenagers to do all these jobs ? And doing them will not harm their academic performance ? Sounds like typical right-wing idiot bullshit to me.

  34. Robot maintenance technician III, 2nd class by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Oh good, One Night at Freddy's, now with 15,000 new locations!

    Given the pace of technological change, if it's economical at $35K/year now, it will be economical at any rate in very few years.

    Those support jobs might to be better paid, but fewer.
    And not everybody has the aptitude to be trained for that job.

    Also, isn't this like the 4th "ROBOTZ are coming to TAKE YER JERBS!" story on /. today?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Robot maintenance technician III, 2nd class by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Also, isn't this like the 4th "ROBOTZ are coming to TAKE YER JERBS!" story on /. today?

      Yes, but the real question is...who's going to be buying their stuff when no one is longer working. I'm strongly starting to see that some form of mincome is going to become the norm. It might take another 4-8 years but when they're talking about 50% of the jobs being replaced here in Ontario by robots by 2025, it means that an unemployment rate that high is going to cause massive social problems. I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing the mass-rollout of 40% in business taxes when that happens either.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  35. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except that it's not a straight-up comparison between the employee and the machine. When the machine doesn't make fries, it's idle. When the employee doesn't make fries, they're cleaning, etc.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  36. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    Sure seems like it would cost a lot more than $35k.

    True, but that means the employee(s) would make way, way less than $15/hr. at their new job - stamping out license plates in prison.

    Pretty sure that's not what most folks would want to end up doing...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  37. But, I don't want a robot arm messing with my food by kheldan · · Score: 1

    The first time I find a dead bug or small animal (or parts thereof) or some crud from some robotic arm in my french fries, I'll sue the living fuck out of them. Of course it's totally irrelevant since I don't eat anything from McDonalds anyway (I like to eat actual food, not pseudo-food), but if they start replacing all their staff with robots, then they're ensuring that I'd never go there for anything, ever. Same goes for a real, actual restaurant: I want a human chef creating my meal, and I want human waitstaff to deal with. If I have to sit there and order off a screen, imagine some robotic arm making my steak, and watch some robotic cart deliver the dish to the table, then it's a non-starter, I'd sooner stay home and make my own steak. At least that way it won't end up tasting like gear oil.

    Of course I think we'd all be better off if the fast-food industry died anyway; it's all pseudo-food; none of us should ever eat that crap. Stay home and cook your own food. Much healthier, and far less expensive.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  38. how can you blame them? by supernova87a · · Score: 1
    These are pretty rational decisions. Robots don't:
    1. -- take sick days
    2. -- file frivolous lawsuits
    3. -- form unions
    4. -- expect rising wages for the same performance
    5. -- need transportation/healthcare/benefits equal to salary
    6. -- etc. etc. etc.

    Even the workers getting fired would employ robots for things in their personal lives for the things they find dull, dirty, dangerous.

    The real question is: are we in a world where the supply of people/population is excessive for the amount of human-required labor demanded? If that is the case, then we're in for a period of shrinkage and serious conflict among the classes...

    1. Re:how can you blame them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet. They don't do those things yet.

  39. Oh no, don't take away those sweet McDonalds jobs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or on second thought, do. Fuck it. Since when was the existence of human fry box stuffers ever a source of social good? It's like mourning the coming of the billboard, because people are losing jobs wearing sandwitchboard ads and yelling "step right up!". Yeah, we didn't mourn, because we always knew it was a terrible way to use a human being. Easy-to-mechanize McDonalds jobs are just like that.

  40. Drop off in fast food employee quality lately? by swb · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or has the quality of worker at fast food places really hit rock bottom in the last couple of years?

    I try not to eat it, but sometimes its that or go hungry and I've noticed that the service in a lot of fast food places (many places throughout the metro area I visit) has gone right into the toilet. Employees that can hardly grok an order if its not "number 3 with coke" and this includes ordering stuff right off their own menu.

    I've ordered countless McDonald's lattes "large latte, no flavor, whole milk" -- and had the employee then ask me what flavor and did I want skim milk or sound confused because I gave them the entire order with answers to their questions. And then watched as more than one employee at different locations managed to not be able to work the totally automatic, touch-screen driven Franke espresso machine.

    And at some locations I'm at more often, the turnover is unbelievable, with successive waves of employees seeming to be worse than the previous ones, and this is at presumably "prestige" locations in wealthy suburban malls.

    About the only place I haven't seen this downward spiral has been at Starbucks or similar chains (Caribou). I don't know if they screen better or what. I do notice their employee base seems to include a lot of older people (like, over 35).

    While I'm sure the fast food industry would like to hold down wages to avoid capital spending on machinery (even if they are wonder robots from the future), I wonder if some of their real motivation isn't just trying to make the business run without dealing with people who seem to be borderline mentally deficient.

    1. Re:Drop off in fast food employee quality lately? by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or has the quality of worker at fast food places really hit rock bottom in the last couple of years?

      It's not just you. Now, I don't know where you live, but I live in South Florida. I will say it with conviction: The people staffing the franchises (Burger King, McDonalds, Wendy's, Taco Bell, Subway) * are rude, the way they present themselves is appalling. And worst of all, they treat customers like the customer is bothering the worker. They roll their eyes when they have to do actual work, like taking an order or putting one together.

      The non-franchises seem to not suffer from this. My favorite burger joint is called Char-Hut, it's a South Florida thing. Clean, attentive, efficient, pleasant staff. Like a blast from the past. Like the franchises were 20 years ago.

      It's enough to drive one to despair. This.. condition.. of a downward spiral of society is spreading to other sectors, not just fast food.

      I feel like I'm trapped in Idiocracy.

      * These are stores I've personally visited and observed.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    2. Re:Drop off in fast food employee quality lately? by swb · · Score: 1

      I don't get a perception of people being surly or not wanting to work.

      It's more like they're operating beyond their cognitive limits and just aren't capable of doing the job well.

      Maybe the MBA process geniuses have made running a fast food place overly complex. Maybe the economy is good enough that the fast food places can't find anyone competent to work at their wage rates. Or perhaps more disturbingly, the socioeconomic strata that has always worked at fast food places has degraded, and this is what society is now producing.

    3. Re:Drop off in fast food employee quality lately? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I feel like I'm trapped in Idiocracy.

      You are

    4. Re:Drop off in fast food employee quality lately? by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps more disturbingly, the socioeconomic strata that has always worked at fast food places has degraded, and this is what society is now producing.

      From South Florida's perspective, I think your last blurb there is the correct one.

      And as it spreads to other jobs.. well, $DEITY help us all.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    5. Re:Drop off in fast food employee quality lately? by swb · · Score: 1

      You know, I read a post-apocalyptic story like that once, about virus that had the effect of reducing most people's IQ by double-digit percentages.

    6. Re:Drop off in fast food employee quality lately? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You've got cause and effect backwards. As fast food companies have been depressing wages (paying minimum wage which was stagnant while inflation wasn't) - the quality of people they can actually GET for that money has gone done. With each year, as the wage gets worth less - the level of idiot that can get something better goes up.
      It's a classic peanuts and monkeys problem.
      What's worse is that, as working conditions (of which pay is a major part) decline, worker turn-over goes up. You get fewer and fewer lifers, people have barely mastered the job and they move on to somewhere else. When you pay so little, competing with you for workers is also cheap. Plenty of restaurants figure out that paying 2c an hour more than you, they can steal all your best workers and still end up paying less in total since YOU paid for their basic training - giving them that nudge more to lift them up to the level of a slightly better restaurant is a lot cheaper when the basics were already paid for by you.

      Now you would think this would incentivize MickeyD's to pay more, but there's two other forces at play. The first is shortsightedness. The wage bill every month is much more immediately visible than the total cost of labor turn-over per annum so the latter can often be underestimated by people whose jobs depend on the profits for the four months in the next quarterly report. The other is supply and demand. When there are so many people ready to step into a job as soon as it's vacated, having all your best workers poached doesn't appear to be a crisis because you're never short-staffed.

      So of course, the service level your customers get goes down - but lets face it nobody goes to mcdonalds for the service anymore than they do for the food - they go there for speed and predictably getting a full stomach. Service declining is a small enough influence in customer decisions (those who would avoid mcd's over service have been avoiding it over crap food for decades anyway) that it doesn't matter.

      But yeah - you got the cause and effect reversed. If anything, increasing the minimum wage will likely improve the service quality at your local mcd's significantly by slowing down turn-over and making it more expensive to poach any worker there who is actually good at the job.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:Drop off in fast food employee quality lately? by swb · · Score: 1

      I've considered that -- the wages being too low to attract competent help, but I'm skeptical that explains all that I've seen.

      For one, I see a ton of fast food places advertising higher than minimum wages -- $10+ dollars per hour. Maybe that's still too low to attract competent people, but it's above the minimum wage.

      Two, the poaching argument makes some sense, but ultimately I would expect any appreciable level of churn to actually result in slightly better employee competence since they would end up with hybridized skills -- ie, learning the system at places A, B and C ought to be make them marginally better as there's skill overlap, the process at most fast food places isn't that different, which ought to make learning C after learning A and B better since they would be able to focus on the unique aspects of C and focus less on the commonalities.

      I'd also expect poaching to have something of limited impact, since I would imagine low wage fast food workers are somewhat geography bound and likely to stick to jobs within a certain geographic area. Nobody is quitting McDonalds for a Taco Bell 10 miles away over 25 cents an hour.

      And the thing with service, you do go to McDonald's or similar fast food places for the service -- brisk and efficient. I've been like the second guy in line and waited 10-odd minutes to get my order taken and receive my food, when they used to turn something like that around during a slower period in less than 5 minutes.

      And it's not just the lowest end of fast food places I've seen this at, it includes "better" counter service places like Smashburger where you order at the counter and they bring your food to the table.

      I'd guess the answer is really multifactorial -- low wages attract low grade employees, a high demand for workers in the sector has probably made getting a job there so easy that people may view it more as temping, a job to be taken and then walked away from when they decide its no longer desirable. And I have a hard time escaping the notion that the socioeconomic demographic of "fast food worker" has literally gone downhill with declines in education quality and all the other socioeconomic toxins of the working class.

    8. Re:Drop off in fast food employee quality lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just you. Processes and tools have gotten nothing but better. Food is served faster,safer,and with more consistency than ever.You're just used to the fact that everything just works now, so any change is accentuated.

    9. Re:Drop off in fast food employee quality lately? by kaybee · · Score: 1

      Yes, at least in America. I was recently in Dubai and the fast food employees there absolutely loved their jobs and were happy to be there. With few exceptions you don't see that in the US.

  41. Robot's ready to be trolled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't wait for the Youtube videos of edgy teens trolling the hell out of bots. How much damage can a $35K robot do to a fry station? Secret key combinations crash order kiosks! Leaky robot cooks fries in hydraulic fluid. What could possibly go wrong? Who could have known? Who is John Galt?

  42. McDonalds already was 1st by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    McDonalds won't be 1st, but they will be 2nd
    Whoever does it first is going to cause a PR nightmare, but once that settles down - all of the competitors will be soon to follow the new norm.

    McDonald's already was first. They had a robot making french fries in SoCal for years.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:McDonalds already was 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their drink machines are automated too. Whatever shows up on the screen when you order is what the robot pours. There's a little converyour belt thatdrags the cup under the ice hopper, the ice gets automatically dumped in, then it's moved to the proper fountain and filled. I haven't once gotten the wrong drink since they automated this.

    2. Re:McDonalds already was 1st by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Same here, they installed one at the McDs near me. Lovein' it

  43. Automation is a GOOD SIDE EFFECT of minimum wage by Robotbeat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Automation is a good thing. That a livable minimum wage encourages some companies to automate is also a good thing. We MAY need to use other policies to maintain full employment, but at this point, I don't see why anyone should be making just $15/hour.

    A big criticism of a minimum wage is that it's "not a free lunch" and just causes inflation. But if a minimum wage encourages automation, then it actually increases per-person productivity, thus partially paying for itself and keeping a minimum wage from being purely inflationary (there will, of course, be some amount of inflation due to a minimum wage increase, but nowadays a small amount of inflation is actually a good thing).

    If we're paying just, say, $2/hour for people to work menial jobs, which is far below a livable wage, then they are, de facto, being subsidized in some other way. For instance, government assistance through subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. Or perhaps they're living off of charitable organizations. Or perhaps they're living off the good will of their family and/or friends. But paying a sub-livable wage is being subsidized in SOME WAY, perhaps even just being taken from that person's health. It's not a society-optimal solution.

    In our society, even low-skilled workers' productivity has increased due to technology. But because there are so many low-skilled workers, their bargaining power is low, and thus their wages don't increase. Thus something like a minimum wage is necessary in order for those people to make a livable wage and to not be on foodstamps, etc.

    Again, I see automation in response to a wage hike as a good thing. Ultimately, provided we maintain full employment, this will help everyone. Given our modern technology, human labor is worth more than $5/hour even if the workers do not have the bargaining power to get a higher wage. So employing people at below $15/hour in positions that could be automated if they were paid a livable wage is actually a misallocation of human resources. In a sense, by NOT paying workers a livable wage and NOT automating more, companies are, in fact, having their labor subsidized by the rest of society (government, family, friends, charities).

  44. Come on Slashdot.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping for a video of the robots or an explanation of how they work, not a link to some right wing Fox News nonsense...

  45. People gotta work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't shop at the self checkout stores and I won't go to a robotic restaurant either. If people don't go, then that 35k robot will start being a lot more expensive.

  46. And the first Civil anti robot revolution... by Majestix · · Score: 1

    ...will be over fast food. Not the building of automobiles. Not the manufacture of complex goods. All over the flipping of a burger, the dropping of a basket of fries.

    If it does come to pass, i would go to one of those mcdonalds once, just to see how it is. Then i'd never go to mcdonalds again. My doctor would be so happy.

    --
    --- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
  47. No, no it did not by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Random Olds invented the automobile assembly line. Ford perfected it. But the assembly line dates back to around 1800...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:No, no it did not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be Ransom Olds, not Random Olds.

    2. Re:No, no it did not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, relative to the age of the universe, it's a clear and rapid trend with 1 very distinct point.

  48. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Ongoing maintenance is cheaper than $15 hour.

    You're assuming that the bean counters haven't cut out ongoing maintenance. That's an expense — an unnecessary expense. Might be better to let the machine break down and get it repaired for $50 per hour.

  49. 5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    government caused this problem by not allowing wages to settle at $5/hour

    All wages at $5 an hour do is make the rest of us support the workers via the social safety nets.

    And if you take the social safety nets away, then you have people who are earning $200/week for 40 hours labor.

    That means no medical care, rent is impossible to pay in many circumstances, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

    Even as it stands now, we subsidize those corporations with our taxes; that's the only thing that makes the wages they pay now survivable in any real sense of the word in any urban environment. Small town or country living, maybe you can make some kind of sane go of it for less than $10/hour, but it's definitely the exception, not the rule.

    For McDonald's and the like, when the cost of functionally adequate automation falls below the cost of employment, they're going to move to automation. We either figure out how to handle the consequences ahead of time, or we take the beating when it happens without any fallback position. My guess is that it will probably be the latter, inasmuch as politics-as-usual always seem to target only the nearest term headlights-in-the-tunnel.

    Also... speaking now with my AI researcher hat on: I think it's a slam dunk that the automation that will suit the fast food service industries is going to arrive very, very soon. With other service industries soon to follow. This problem is basically on our doorstep right now. Most people fail to see it because it represents a paradigm shift - things will be as they have never been before in history, and it's just very difficult to imagine fundamental changes in one's worldview that have no precedent.

    Grab the popcorn and lock your doors. Show's going to start shortly.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take away those social safety nets, the person that is getting by will realize they can't find room or board, and there are not jobs to be had... so they turn to crime.

      The only reason why the US crime rate is so low is because of the incarcaration rate, which the US has more people locked up than the rest of the world combined.

      Drop the social safety nets... the taxpayers will pay somehow, and that most likely will be with money spent to warehouse more people, with new private prisons.

    2. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say the same to many ppl around me here in silicon valley, but you'll be surprised how many of them are completely unaware of impact fro robotics. to add to the woe, given the gridlock in congress its super unlikely that anything will be done at all to fix the problems of technological unemployment.

    3. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People who make $5/hour are generally students who stay at home and have little to no bills. Pretty much everything they make is net income.
      That's why it's a starter job who's main purpose is to generate glowing recommendations and to look good on resume to some other real job application a year later.

      No one else SHOULD be taking the job. If they are, that's a different social problem (i.e. lack of jobs).

      But eliminating these stepping stone jobs just screws over youngsters as they try to get their foot wet in the job market. You're not being compassionate by raising the minimum wage - you're screwing them over. Besides, if you wanted to be compassionate, why not raise it to $500/hour? Think of how much better off they'll be. No? Why not? Because it's more than what you make? So what? Going to put in a cap so you don't get jealous? Kinda petty, don't ya think?

      Let the market regulate these things. If you eliminated the min wage entirely, do you think anyone would work for $0.25/hour? Of course not - the companies would be forced to raise their wages to attract anyone at all. The reason the wage is low, is because people willing to work for that wage! Who the heck are you to tell them they're wrong? Businesses never pay minimum wage to works they want to keep anyways.

    4. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People who make $5/hour are generally students who stay at home and have little to no bills.

      The majority of minimum wage earners in the USA are adults, and around a quarter of them have children.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What is their definition of 'adult'? Over 18?

      A quarter of them made a huge mistake.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      the companies would be forced to raise their wages to attract anyone at all

      I've found that they'd rather complain about how badly they need foreigners because "Americans won't do the job (for the price they want to pay)"

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Pollux · · Score: 2

      I think it's a slam dunk that the automation that will suit the fast food service industries is going to arrive very, very soon...Grab the popcorn and lock your doors. Show's going to start shortly.

      Completely agree. Here's the McDonalds of the future: You go on your smartphone, open the McDonalds app, tap "Big Mac Meal," and 10-20 minutes later (depending on location), a drone tracks your GPS location by your phone and delivers you your meal. Drones travel to-and-from designated locations containing automated kitchen robots creating all the food. People looking to sit down to eat will go to that location, where a small establishment will be available. You just walk up to a terminal, swipe your card or e-pay with your phone, tap your order, and one-to-five minutes later, out it comes on a belt from the kitchen. (Computers will probably do a good job tracking & preparing food to meet anticipated demand, but it cannot be perfect.) Space needed for kitchens can be reduced down to about 1/5 the size, reducing the size of the establishment by about 1/4. One staff will work on-site to clean the establishment, a second will continue to refill food supplies in the machine, and a service repair staff member will be on-call to manage multiple sites. Indoor locations, like at airports, will be kiosk-size machines, probably with a condensed menu with the most popular items, and without the drones.

    8. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what's going on. Right now McDonanlds, Walmart and others are using the government to subsidize their low wages because most of their employees qualify for food stamps and other assistance. Minimum wage should not be set based on jobs.

      The other issue I have is this bagging Fries bullshit. Sure you spend $35k on a robotic arm but it's not like the guy you paying to bag fries is only bagging fries and that's what's so disingenuous about these bullshit coached comments from the Republicans.

    9. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall hearing that the average age of minimum-wage workers in the US is 35.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I'm going with 'Citation needed'.

      If true, it says more about the wide ranging lack of skills in America than anything else.

      3.5% of American workers are making minimum, a person must really really suck to stay there. If 35 was the true number that would have to mean that many 16 year olds are able to get more than minimum. Which must make being 35 and making minimum really sting.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re: 5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      US crime rate low ???? Its at third world levels.
      No other first world nation has anything like it. Shit, even the gun violence there puts afghanistan to shame.

    12. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, if you wanted to be compassionate, why not raise it to $500/hour?

      Where is this coming from? This is the second time I've heard this moronic rhetoric, and I find it hard to imagine this sort of idiot lightning striking twice.

    13. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well if this is correct then they're right. Something to keep in mind though, a lot of the min. wage workers who are that old have either useless degrees(gender studies, the comparative philosophy of harry potter., etc) or people who are doing it just for some extra cash on the side. In my neck of the woods in Canada, there are very few teenagers who are working PT. Most of them are all in their 30's, same with the people working in big box stores(usually $1-3 above min wage). Teenagers don't get those jobs these days because the jobs are already taken.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >What is their definition of 'adult'? Over 18?

      The mean age of fast food workers in the USA is 29... which means a helluva lot of those people are in their 30's and 40's.

      That's what they mean by "adults".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by dj245 · · Score: 1

      government caused this problem by not allowing wages to settle at $5/hour

      All wages at $5 an hour do is make the rest of us support the workers via the social safety nets.

      And if you take the social safety nets away, then you have people who are earning $200/week for 40 hours labor.

      That means no medical care, rent is impossible to pay in many circumstances, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

      Even as it stands now, we subsidize those corporations with our taxes; that's the only thing that makes the wages they pay now survivable in any real sense of the word in any urban environment. Small town or country living, maybe you can make some kind of sane go of it for less than $10/hour, but it's definitely the exception, not the rule.

      For McDonald's and the like, when the cost of functionally adequate automation falls below the cost of employment, they're going to move to automation. We either figure out how to handle the consequences ahead of time, or we take the beating when it happens without any fallback position. My guess is that it will probably be the latter, inasmuch as politics-as-usual always seem to target only the nearest term headlights-in-the-tunnel.

      Also... speaking now with my AI researcher hat on: I think it's a slam dunk that the automation that will suit the fast food service industries is going to arrive very, very soon. With other service industries soon to follow. This problem is basically on our doorstep right now. Most people fail to see it because it represents a paradigm shift - things will be as they have never been before in history, and it's just very difficult to imagine fundamental changes in one's worldview that have no precedent.

      Grab the popcorn and lock your doors. Show's going to start shortly.

      There are limits to automation. I can't begin to guess where those limits might be for the food service industry, but automation in food service won't be a quick revolution. It will take many years to push on those limits.

      As an example, we run a machine shop. Most of our machines are automated, some completely and some less so. The technology exists for us to replace one or more of machinists (~$30/hr plus benefits) with robots that pick up product from one machine, and move it to another. We could replace some of our 3 and 4-axis CNC machines with 5-axis machines that can turn raw material into nearly-finished product and eliminate multiple operations. We could purchase 5-axis polishing machines to polish the parts after machining and replace hand-polishing. Only some of these things make sense financially however, and automated manufacturing is a very mature industry.

      Some of the things that are predicted for automated food service will happen very soon. Some will happen decades from now. And some will never happen.

      The coal industry has been gutted over the last 10-15 years due to economics and government regulations. Thousands of people lost their jobs. I work in the industry but there is no sense complaining about it. It's a done deal. Some politicians paid lip service to training and developing alternative industries. Yet there is very little financial support for actually making that happen. The green movement won. Congratulations to them, they fought a very good fight and were very convincing and persistent. Political winners rarely take care of the losers, however. I don't expect any significant special assistance for coal industry workers, and the best that food service workers can probably hope for is to be allowed to go on disability for the rest of their lives. That's just the way it is.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    16. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by kria · · Score: 1

      Other countries have addressed the "starter job" versus "adult job" issue by... having two minimum wages, dependent on age.

    17. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      It says more about the lack of jobs than lack of skills. I work in a tech job that pays pretty well, but I could probably train anyone of average intelligence to do this work in a few months. And that has been the case with practically every job I've ever held and most that I've seen. The problem of getting a good job is usually an issue of opportunity. Which is why minorities with strongly negative stereotypes struggle, they aren't given the same opportunities. And it's also why social networking is such a huge factor in landing a good job, if people making hiring decisions have a positive preexisting relationship with an applicant they are more likely to be selected.

      Youth engagement in the labor force has been relatively low for awhile now. Teenagers simply can't compete when their competition has more experience and a higher need for the job, and hence a better work ethic. If I'm hiring and I could pick a teenager who lives with their parents or a single mother in her 20's, I'm going to pick the single Mom. The teenager is more likely to look for a reason to call off work, while the Mom will probably ask for more hours. The teenager is probably attending school and so only available for specific hours. Basically the Mom needs the money from the job to get by and provide for her child so she'll be more motivated to not lose the job. Whereas the teenager wants the money but has less motivation to not screw it up because their still living in a safety net.

      That isn't to say that all teenagers are layabouts, and all single Moms are workaholics. I would hope that all employers actually interview potential hires to determine which is a better candidate. But I can easily see how when the job market is rough for adults that it is going to translate into an even tougher market for teenagers.

      What makes it all worse is that minimum wage jobs are kind of a trap for skilled workers. The smart economical move if you lose your job and have trouble finding an equivalent job quickly is to take something that pays less to reduce the rate at which your savings depletes, while you continue to search for a job. The trap though is that people then presume that because you took that low paying job, that you must be less capable and so you get passed over.

    18. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Can you get that or similar information from a _reliable_ source?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If you can really train any average schmo to do your job in a few months it's going to suck to be you very soon.

      Don't assume because you have an easy, phone it in, job that all are. Most tech jobs are not.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      About 1 in 5 fast food workers is a crew chief, 1 in 10 fast food workers in an assitant manager, about 1 in 20 is a manager. They don't make minimum wage.

      Dishonest argument noted. Shift from 'minimum wage' to 'fast food worker'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re: 5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      That statistic is directly from the BLS and only counts minimum wage fast food workers.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    22. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in a tech job that pays pretty well, but I could probably train anyone of average intelligence to do this work in a few months.

      But is your employer willing to pay for it? There are plenty of tech jobs out there, but most of them include no provision for training. That means that only someone who had been doing that exact job in the past would stand a chance at being hired. In the current economic and political landscape, companies would rather leave a position unfilled for years than spend months training someone and risk that they may not be able or willing to handle the particulars of the job. A lot of tech hiring is speculative based on anticipated future need, so there's little risk delaying the hire date if it can help you get a more exact match, especially if the need is questionable. With such a large pool of unemployed and underemployed tech workers out there, the advantage is to the employer. On the plus side, experience with specialized fields or technologies can make you a lock for many positions. Hundreds or thousands of miles away. Moving someone thousands of miles is more viable than training these days.

    23. Re: 5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Cite it then. It's not that I don't trust you, I don't trust anyone.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    24. Re: 5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      There is a link elsewhere in this thread. I got the statistic from that. Politico verified the number and agreed with it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    25. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      There are limits to automation.

      There are indeed. However, those limits are moving constantly, and in the less-limited direction. While worker costs are steadily increasing on multiple fronts even without wage increases.

      Don't assume automation won't get to a point where it can't do what's required in a job that is essentially repetitive in nature. That's an extremely poor bet. Not only is more competent, acceptably abled automation going to happen, it's going to happen fairly soon in the fast food industry, where many franchise instances create significant financial motivation for automation manufacturers -- two to three years is my estimate.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    26. Re: 5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      After much digging, I found your source...Bill Maher.

      The truth of the matter is that the average _restaurant_ front line worker is 29. That includes servers and cooks at real restaurants, who generally make decent money for their skill levels, not minimum wage.

      http://www.politifact.com/pund...

      Politico was very generous calling it 'mostly true'. As I said, dishonest argument noted. It was even worse than I thought. They not only conflated minimum wage FF workers with all FF workers, they conflated all restaurant workers with minimum wage FF workers. Lying sacks of shit IMHO.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Agripa · · Score: 1

      So the workers displaced by automation can work for law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons instead.

    28. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      While it's relatively easy and simple work it is tedious as hell, and it would seem that the people in charge only aim to make it more so. Some of it can be automated although the requirements change so frequently that we've never managed to get a fully functional set of scripts running properly. Most of the work though involves analyzing dense documentation that is written in the most weasel worded fashion while attempting to be technical, and that comes from both the customer and the requirements group. There is other more standard work that we do but the above is what keeps people from wanting to work here. When I took the job three other people had already turned it down once they realized just how grinding it would be, and that was in the midst of the economic crash.

      Actual programming I would say is a little more challenging than the maintenance and security fap that I do now. When I was in programming though, we'd get new recruits in frequently that just had a few months of specialized training on top of a HS degree and they'd work out just fine. The only job in tech that I'd say requires a lot more experience and training to do passably well is design and possibly extremely specialized stuff like assembly on obscure systems. Those kinds of jobs though are a small minority when you look at the whole of the IT field.

    29. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Seeing as you switched to such a terrible job, I'm going to guess you aren't a very good programmer. What makes you qualified to rate programmers? Programmers with HS plus a few months of training are fucking useless.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:5$ / hr is not sane in the current economy by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      The work is a lot less pleasant but the benefits are better in every possible measure. More and better vacation and sick leave. Better health insurance coverage, and significant 401k matching. Pay after a few years on the job is now almost triple what I earned as a programmer.

      Most programmers are working on business software which isn't rocket science, or really even model rocketry level, tweaking UI elements and changing logic to match new business rules. While the term "code monkey" may be unnecessarily derogatory, there is a reason it was coined in the first place. I was a programmer for six years and I wouldn't mind doing that work again if the benefits were similar or better. But as it is I'd rather work a couple more decades in a grinding job and then retire than take a more pleasant job but spend the rest of my life on the job.

  50. First they bag fries.. next they.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First they bag fries.. next they.... start forming Unions... then they start to make picket lines...

  51. Need to replace CEO CFO with robots first by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Talk about wasted money. Overpaid senior execs actually reduce the ROI of any business, as numerous studies have shown.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Need to replace CEO CFO with robots first by jafac · · Score: 1

      Well, ROI isn't really what this is about. Overpaid execs is all about The Hype Train (TM), and building investor excitement, and pumping the stock price. The Hype Train (TM) is why stock PE ratios have been insane since about 1996. The more they kick the american worker in the nuts, the more erect the investor class becomes - because they no longer need to compete with a large, empowered middle-class for access to political power. They don't have to out-bid their own workers while attempting to influence politicians. The value of the stock goes up, the low-tax income of the overpaid exec goes up, the income of the board members go up, and the value of the congressmen and senators blind-trust investments roundly go up. Win-win for the ruling-class and investing-class, lose-lose for the working class.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    2. Re:Need to replace CEO CFO with robots first by Tom · · Score: 1

      It's long been known that C*O wages are insane.

      The problem is that they're caught in not just one, but two positive feedback loops.

      Firstly, the people on the board who decide these wages are often C*Os somewhere else, where the guy they decide about now is on the board. In other words: It's a small incest fuckfest where you want to give gratiously so that you are given in return.

      Secondly, with wages as they are, if you want to hire a good C*O, then this is what they cost, because this how wages are. Any single company trying to reduce C*O wages to sane levels would be left alone, without good candidates, because they can all get crazy wages elsewhere.

      This is where a prime example of a system that has caught itself in a deadlock. Someone needs to step in from the outside to stop it. Stock holders can't - they are largely part of the problem. So the government will have to, but it won't because they're all bought, corrupt and incompetent.

      So it's going to end as it always does. It will continue until it becomes so unbearable that the whole system needs to change and people die. In arbitrary order.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Need to replace CEO CFO with robots first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robotic arm rolls some dice, a speaker on the top of it says "synergies" - job done.

    4. Re:Need to replace CEO CFO with robots first by kaybee · · Score: 1

      Build an awesome CEO or CFO robot and I guarantee you they'll buy them.

  52. good news by johnwerneken · · Score: 0

    one day people will create and keep each other company - goods and services will be provided by automation.

  53. And in related news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in related news that is still on the front page of slashdot, Foxconn has replaced about 60,000 workers with robots to save money and they made less than $3 an hour on average.

    The costs of automation is coming down regardless and keeping wages below living is not doing anyone any favors except the same guys who are rushing to get the robots anyways.

    Better to just hurry it up and get it over with and force them to finally accept the reality of the situation and force the transition of the world economy away from one where we are forced to work and into one where they have to accept the reality that many will not be able to work as they have no jobs to take. Either that or we adjust the hours worked down and minimum wage up to such an extreme that it still allows for an active job market at which point many of us would love to see full time considered 20 hours per week and minimum wage set high enough that you could survive even only working 20 hours at which point we just postponed the inevitable and will still have to make the transition shortly down the road when even those jobs are automated away even if we started adjusting hours and pay scales further, we will still hit that point.

  54. Let's not be fooled... by lionchild · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's not fool ourselves, replacing the minimum wage worker at McDonald's with a robot isn't a new idea. They've been working on that since the early 2000's. The increased minimum wage has been a slight, if not small, acceleration to the plan to do so.

    Even when they were paying less than $8/hour, they were thinking they wanted to have a one-time-cost robot to do the work for them.

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    1. Re:Let's not be fooled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a lot like getting married - maintenance is the bitch.

    2. Re:Let's not be fooled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, but robots aren't a "one-time-cost" item. They need regular maintenance, repair and electricity, and they will not last forever. They may be cheaper than humans, total cost of ownership, but only for specific tasks. Businesses have been looking at ways to replace humans with automation for longer than the turn of the 21st century. The problem is always the initial capital needed to implement the automation, to suffer through the inevitable quirks and tweaks needed in the first few months/years of operation that also hit the bottom line, and the planning for regular maintenance, support and operating costs.

      If it was such a practical idea, they would have done it by now. The technology to automate timed tasks has existed for a very long time, and that's exactly what you're talking about as far as McDonald's cooking goes. The rest is just assembly and delivery, and we've had those tasks down pat for even longer. Again, if it were practical to do it, we'd have fast-food vending machines worldwide by now!

  55. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure seems like it would cost a lot more than $35k.

    True, but that means the employee(s) would make way, way less than $15/hr. at their new job - stamping out license plates in prison.

    Pretty sure that's not what most folks would want to end up doing...

    So essentially moving the cost burden from the private industry to the state? Always find it curious that we oppose elements of a social system and then end up paying for it anyhow, but in some other way.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  56. The UBI drones are having a meltdown by bettodavis · · Score: 1

    At reddit and other places. Apparently the layoffs+robot-ization of a Foxconn factory in China and this comment from a McDo suit made them freak out about machines stealing our jerbs.

    The fact that these are low skilled or burguer-flipping jobs seems to have passed largely unnoticed.

    Oh, and the fact UBI doesn't really work for big-enough population countries like the USA (do the math: 300 million citizens x 10K USD per annum = 3 trillion freaking dollars).

    1. Re:The UBI drones are having a meltdown by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Only people of working age would get a UBI. Yours is a common misunderstanding of the concept.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  57. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When the machine doesn't make fries, it's idle. When the employee doesn't make fries, they're cleaning, etc.

    If by "cleaning" you mean browsing Facebook while smoking pot behind the dumpster, then yes you're correct.

  58. Who is going to buy the fries? by irrational_design · · Score: 1

    I don't eat at McDonalds since I make enough money that I can eat at places that cost more but, in my opinion, have higher quality food. If most people who eat at McDonalds make less than me (maybe they are in blue-collar or minimum-wage jobs?) and their jobs all get automated then who is going to be buying the fries?

    1. Re:Who is going to buy the fries? by j2.718ff · · Score: 1

      and their jobs all get automated then who is going to be buying the fries?

      We should start making robots who can buy french fries!

  59. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wazzzup fugger!

  60. Related news: foxconn by DavidMZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Foxconn cuts 60000 jobs, replaces them with robots

    That means that robots can be cheaper than a $320/month wage. It's not a minimum wage issue.

    1. Re:Related news: foxconn by ocsibrm · · Score: 1

      It was never *truly* a minimum wage issue. People framing it that way simply don't understand that once a 'employee' that can work 24 hours a day and make no mistakes along with being relatively close to the cost of the imperfect human ones came along that companies were going to switch to it. Why pay someone 320 bucks a month to do a job when I can pay 400 bucks a month to have a robot do it twice as well. And they won't try to kill themselves.

    2. Re:Related news: foxconn by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I wonder... do you think the Foxxconn suicide rate will go down now ? Or do you think the execs of that evil company can even drive robots to suicidal depression ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re:Related news: foxconn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Workers are changing shifts and require time off for meetings, toilet and lunch breaks. Automation means some procedures can be run non-stop. This means more intensive use of other resources.

      The automation may also improve quality or uniformity of a product while increasing the cost, but making the product or service more valuable to the consumer.

  61. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    There would be at least a few people depending the size and location of the restaurant. At least, you need someone to collect cash to help move the line alone. Someone that can repair or step in for the failed robot, and perform the role of cleanup and closing for the night. So while I doubt you can have a human-free working environment, if you did, you can bet on everything being done remotely overseas.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  62. Re:But, I don't want a robot arm messing with my f by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

    Same goes for a real, actual restaurant: I want a human chef creating my meal, and I want human waitstaff to deal with.

    A big portion of the process is already automated - ever seen a point of sale system at a restaurant? Or do you think that bakeries knead dough by hand? Or wash each dish by hand?

  63. Wendy's, McD's, it all comes from the same place by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    Drive thru?
    How quaint.

    I expect nothing less than delivery from a central location by 3D-printed drone direct to wherever I am in 15 minutes or less.
    Boom. Just replaced 15 McD's in the greater metro area, along with 95% of the staff.

    During down times, the robots work on my plan to build [REDACTED] from baby [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] the [REDACTED].

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  64. Already happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this already happening? If you manage to catch a glimpse into the average fast food restaurants kitchen/drive thru it isn't uncommon to see machines filling the drinks and handling at least part of the cooking process (lifting fries out of the oil when done, cooking burgers, toasting bread, etc). It wouldn't be too difficult to at least partially automate quite a few other processes (burger/sub assembly, ordering, etc) though we're probably a few decades off from automating the entire restaurant.

    1. Re:Already happening by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

      Fast food automation? Well yes and no. A human grabs the bag/box of frozen fries and scoops some into the basket. Then the human pushes a button to say fries and the basket lowers into the hot oil for a preset time period and raises back up at the end of it. This allows the restaurant to take human skill/error out of the cooking process. The human empties the basket into a pan, applies seasoning and proceeds to bag as ordered. Someone still has to stock that freezer, empty used oil, clean the fryer and refill with fresh oil. Stock bags and seasoning, remove and replace same. This is all just for fries. It would seem that there'd be a lot of effort and capital required to automate all of that.

      Think about coffee from a vending machine. Other than stocking and servicing the machine now and then it is pretty well automated. I won't drink the swill it vends and neither do tens of millions of other Starbucks customers. So, good luck McDonalds with dumping human employees.

    2. Re:Already happening by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've made french fries for a living and all of these problems can be utterly eliminated by clever packaging. The fries get parked in the freezer, the oldest fries get removed first and they go to a slacking rack before frying so that they cook properly, and then they go through the process you describe. Except I actually had to take fries out of oil when beepers when off. But if you just replace the brown paper bags with a recyclable rectangular plastic container, or even a reusable one, then a robot can trivially handle the stocking, the slacking, the dumping, etc.

      Most of the other problems can be solved essentially the same way. Cooking a burger can be done by formula, but you could actually use either IR temperature measurement or even visual processing to determine whether the burger had been cooked (in addition to cooking time... but sometimes grills go wrong, and sometimes they go wrong in parts) and then assembling the burger could be made trivial by loading the ingredients into magazines. Sure, some worker (or some more expensive, delicate robot) in a plant somewhere would basically have to file and collate lettuce leaves and tomato slices, but that's hardly a show-stopper. Actually, tomatoes and onions could probably be sliced by the machine, and could certainly be automatically loaded into a magazine by a slicer.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Already happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I noted it will be decades until an entire fast food restaurant could be automated. However I can easily see a situation where an entire restaurant could be operated by 2-4 employees now. One or two employees feeding ingredients (hamburger buns, frozen patties, lettuce, condiments, etc) into a "food-o-matic" machine which then would cook, assemble and wrap the items, and another one or two employees shoving them into bags and handing them to the right customers. Stocking is probably already managed via computer, simply placing a barcode scanner next to the food-o-matic and having the employee scan in items as they are used would give a logistics database all of the information it needed to keep the restaurant fully stocked. As far as quality (coffee machine example) the reason why current automated food is terrible is because it is a low volume and done by relatively small companies (comparatively) with limited resources. Large scale automation done by multi-billion dollar companies would likely be indistinguishable from what we already receive.

  65. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2

    A lot of large movie theatres run their projection rooms that way. The whole thing (projectors, servers, ingesting new movies, setting up playilists, starting shows, monitoring for presentation issues) is done by remote network operations centers and none of the on-site staff has anything to do with projection and movie presentation at all.

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  66. All talk by jandrese · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last time we had a discussion about raising the minimum wage (decades ago) McDonalds actually demonstrated a fully automated restaurant. It promptly went back to wage slaves once the talk died down. Now they're so lazy they're not even bothering with the proof of concept store.

    If these robots were practical at the price he is quoting they would be in use today. Payoff period would be 2/3 of a year instead of 1/2 a year, but that's barely any difference. This is a scare tactic pure and simple.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:All talk by ledow · · Score: 2

      Is it?

      Other countries have brought in minimum wages much higher without issue from places like McDonald's. UK current minimum wage for over 21's is GBP 6.70 which is about $9.86, for over 25's is GBP 7.20 ($10.59), and it's legally prescribed to rise every year. But even here there are campaigns for a "living wage" higher. There's not really any great fuss from places like McDonald's or other "minimum wage" employees.

      The robots, however, just keep getting cheaper. My bank has gone - in my lifetime - from a whole row of manned desks to one "real" counter, a line full of automated stations and a minimum wage employee asking you to use them. Soon that employee won't be necessary. Then the counter. Then the bank itself.

      I can't see how a basic service industry, one that doesn't need a bucket of talented human input to operate, really has a future in that kind of place. Banks are salesmen of money, and yet they have no salesmen. McDonald's going "no-chef"? Not unimaginable in my lifetime, I think, even if it means a couple of guys out front to service the machines and help you press the right buttons for a few years.

      These machines pay for themselves not in wages (it probably costs that to maintain it) but in time savings, processing, pensions, working envrionments, etc.

      I've long said that if I won the lottery, I'd buy a restaurant and automate it. Still have a "waitress" and people going back and forth to a kitchen, but why can't I just have a menu on a screen in the table. Walk in, tap-tap, see the ingredients, swipe a card, wait for it to arrive. Want more, swipe it. No mistakes by the waitress or ordering something that's not in stock. Automated bill splitting ("I'm off, what did I have? Here... swipe... that's mine paid"). No waiting to catch the waiter's eye. No checking of allergens and going over the menu ten times. And, as someone with an Italian girlfriend who often has family over, no having to translate the menu for everyone. Moving table? Press the options and swipe the same card at a new table. Want to cancel something because Fred isn't coming? Do so. Want that thing you have every week? Suggested for you as you sign onto the table.

      Quicker, smarter, easier. I'd put it in the table, and have waitresses deliver it but... let's be honest... you can easily automated that kind of thing from kitchen to service to ordering without even trying. The bigger problem is really that you employ a (very bored) human to make sure nobody smashes up the place or smears crap over the tables.

      I'm sure it hits McDonald's bottom line but it's nothing that their competitors don't suffer equally, and it's nothing they can't lose in an extra 10c on your burger price. Let's face it, even if the prices doubled, you're unlikely to go elsewhere, are you? And if all the fast food double their prices to compensate, it really makes no difference to where you go. That's not what they're worried about.

      But what they're saying is that having a human in the loop - at any price - is actually worse than just having a dumb machine. Imagine the training, food hygiene, pension, staffroom, etc. costs. Personnel is almost always one of the largest expenses in any business whatsoever.

      Payoff of automated services is well within its lifetime and doesn't do away with humans entirely anyway. In fact, it means you need a few skilled, more expensive humans (one qualified and trained field service engineer probably earns what a entire restaurant of "you want fries with that" kids costs). But if you can replace even a couple of humans with an automated, smartphone-connected, NFC payment kiosks, your queue at lunchtime goes down dramatically and your sales go up. It's a no-brainer.

      I think the only thing stopping them is "being first" in the field and worrying about some kind of Luddite "sabotage" (look up the origins of the word) backlash.

    2. Re:All talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew a guy in college who purported to make the tech for your restaurant. He got millions of dollars of buy-in and then went to jail for fraud.

    3. Re:All talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pensions? Who has pensions anymore? We're expected to dump our money in the stock market and gamble for our retirement.

  67. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Sure seems like it would cost a lot more than $35k.

    It is not likely anyone will burn the restaurants. Fast food joints already have high turnover, and few employees are there for a long term career. So you bring in a robot to make fries, shift the ex-fry-maker to sweeping the floor, and reduce your workforce through attrition. By the time the next employee quits, maybe a floor sweeping robot will be available. There will not be a big mass layoff, just slow dwindling of entry level jobs.

  68. Do we outsource the robot overlords? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For McDs or any fast food restaurant that automates, you will still need that cute customer service person to keep return business. At least until this generation dies off, as we might think we are all using our phones 24/7, we do have to look up and smile no and then. Customer interact is important, but yeah i would probably prefer a consistsnt hamburger.

    Btw why does a quarter pounder taste better in Montana than Oregon or Kansas? They are actually editable in Montana

  69. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Most McDonald's restaurants are owned by franchisees. That's not their problem.

  70. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    Given that those restaurants are owned by franchisees, it doesn't affect McDonalds. Besides, nobody is going to fault them for hoodlum behavior.

  71. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    Where are you? In the US, "excess" is called "deductible".

  72. Sad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is sad news for English majors.

  73. What Do We Want? Patience! When Do We Want It? NOW by JoeMirando · · Score: 1

    Time to boycott. Even if just all the Slashdotters boycotted, it'd be something to see. Or perhaps organize a drone-enabled protest outside.. ;) These jobs used to be filled not just by school kids and retirees, but by anyone looking to get by or pick up a little extra cash. Today there're more and more people clinging to these jobs as their last hope. Things have changed. On 'our' side, its gotten worse. On management's side? Well, let's just say that if the minimum wage had kept pace with the cost of living from 1978 on, $15/hr would look like a sweet deal to them. I'd gladly pay 2 bits more for a burger knowing it was going to a real flesh and blood person rather than to grease and pneumatics upgrades. Anybody feelin' the Bern? ;)

  74. You know what else saves money? by JenovaSynthesis · · Score: 1

    Shopping at the grocery store for infinitely more nutritious food than the poison McDonald's serves.

    --
    Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch :)
    1. Re:You know what else saves money? by geek · · Score: 1

      Shopping at the grocery store for infinitely more nutritious food than the poison McDonald's serves.

      Glad someone pointed this out. McDonalds competition isn't other chains at this point. Its the grocery store where I can buy 10 times the food for the same price and spend just a few extra minutes cooking it rather than driving to go get it. Feel better afterwards and not get sick. I'll also get exactly what I want without having to haggle with some teenager over why my wife doesn't want onions on something.

      Go ahead and automate. I don't go there anyway.

  75. Re:Where are the robots from? DeVry, that's where by b0bby · · Score: 1

    Well, largely might overstate it, but there's got to be someone getting that $35,000. Someone has to design it, and make it, and install it, and maintain it. And like I said, if you're developing a new market and that leads to exports, it could be a net win for the US economy.

  76. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the state runs prisons directly it's public expenditure, which is communism and encourages homosexuality.

    If the state pays twice as much to corporations which run prisons that's private enterprise, which is 100% American and apple pie and NUMBER ONE!!!!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  77. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

    Penal labor is outlawed in most states, except in very specific circumstances.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  78. Re:Automation is a GOOD SIDE EFFECT of minimum wag by ThisIsAnonymous · · Score: 1
    In all seriousness, what exactly was it that you were trying to say? Are you for minimum wage, no minimum wage, more automation? I couldn't follow. For example, what does this mean?

    Again, I see automation in response to a wage hike as a good thing. Ultimately, provided we maintain full employment, this will help everyone. Given our modern technology, human labor is worth more than $5/hour even if the workers do not have the bargaining power to get a higher wage. So employing people at below $15/hour in positions that could be automated if they were paid a livable wage is actually a misallocation of human resources.

    Are you saying they need more than $15 per hour, or between $5 and $15 or something else?

  79. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by funwithBSD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Generally speaking, the fry bagger does not replace just one employee for $15, but two, possibly 3. There are many locations where they are open more than 16 hrs a day, and some 24hrs.

    And $15 employee does not cost $15 per hour, it is more like $25 with payroll taxes, SS and benefits added on. $30K a year becomes $50K a year.

    So that is $50K a year, X the number of shifts.

    In reality, having actually worked at a McDonalds, it takes a full employee only during the rush hours to run the fryer and bag the potatoes. So call it 1 to 2 FTEs.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  80. Robots@McD's by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

    1) I never, ever eat at McDonalds/

    2) I will never, ever eat anywhere that has dumped humans in favor of robots.

    Business people need to recall that without employees there aren't customers. When we get to the point that robots are doing everything who will be buying your products?

    1. Re:Robots@McD's by Copid · · Score: 1

      I will never, ever eat anywhere that has dumped humans in favor of robots.

      Is that rule only for restaurants or does it apply elsewhere? For example, would you hire a contractor who digs your sewer line using a bunch of guys with shovels over one who uses a diesel powered excavator with a single worker simply on humanitarian grounds? There's always a tradeoff between capital and labor. You could run a McDonalds with fewer workers and increased automation, or you could go whole hog in the other direction and heat the fryers using electricity from humans on bicycle generators. There's a sweet spot in there somewhere for every business.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    2. Re:Robots@McD's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I'm surprised you haven't starved already because there probably isn't an industry in the western world that hasn't replaced a majority of its workforce with "robots" (automation). Agriculture used to employ almost 50% of the US population back in 1870, today it employs less than 2%. Fast food restaurants used to purchase base ingredients and prepare them all in house. Today most are pre packaged, breaded, seasoned, boxed and frozen in facilities a hundred miles away from the restaurant by an army of machines.

  81. Re:Automation is a GOOD SIDE EFFECT of minimum wag by Robotbeat · · Score: 2

    In all seriousness, what exactly was it that you were trying to say? Are you for minimum wage, no minimum wage, more automation? I couldn't follow.

    For example, what does this mean?

    Again, I see automation in response to a wage hike as a good thing. Ultimately, provided we maintain full employment, this will help everyone. Given our modern technology, human labor is worth more than $5/hour even if the workers do not have the bargaining power to get a higher wage. So employing people at below $15/hour in positions that could be automated if they were paid a livable wage is actually a misallocation of human resources.

    Are you saying they need more than $15 per hour, or between $5 and $15 or something else?

    At least $15/hour.

    If we had adjusted minimum wage for per-capita gdp growth (a kind of measure of economic productivity) since the 1960s, it'd be up around $20/hour or so. $15/hour is comfortably below that, so I'm certain a $15/hour minimum wage would not bring devastating inflation or anything like that. We can, as a society, afford to pay people at least $15/hour. And with more automation, we could afford to pay even higher wages.

  82. Both wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government did cause the problem, indirectly: The 30 hours a week give a right to benefits law means lots of people get nickled-and-dimed doing multiple jobs of less than 30 hours a week each. Amend that law to always give benefits in proportion, or just repeal it because the people it seeks to help get no benefits now either, and suddenly the minimum wage rise might not be necessary. So this is a government-induced tragedy of the commons and the fix is not more rules, it's owning up to the failure of previous rules and fix-or-repeal them.

    And hey, while at it, fix your voting system so that you allow more views than just the two kinds of self-serving stupid you currently limit yourselves to.

  83. Forgot something? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

    No mention of Google in the title. That's weird.

  84. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

    When the machine doesn't make fries, it's idle.

    You assume that making fries is all that it can do...

    https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY

    This won't be out next year, or in 5 years, or probably even 10... But I'll bet in 20 it will be...

    Raise min/wage to $15/hr and cut that time in half...

    Take a more advanced version of this, put 4 of them in a McDonalds, and you really only need a manager.

  85. Humans cost money by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Have you seen where the rise in prices has been the most rampant? Yup - the medical field. You can complain all you want about lawsuits, but the real cost of medicine is flesh-and-blood humans to take care of you. And they don't come cheap.

    You will always be able to go out and have a (time/cost adjusted) $300 meal for two with personal service to your table. If you want a $5 bag-o-food, you're going to get it from a machine.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Humans cost money by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      If I want a $5 bag-o-food, I'll make it myself for $2.

    2. Re:Humans cost money by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of things that go into medical costs. Most of it is various kinds of scam. It's amazing that getting a tumor removed costs 100 grand or more but you can get two bags of silicon installed for 10 grand or less. One is covered by insurance and guess which one? It's like getting a dent repaired, the first thing the body shop asks is whether or not insurance is paying for it. If it's an insurance job they start running the bill up.

  86. so pay people to make robots by j2.718ff · · Score: 1

    Throughout history, we have automated many of our jobs. If the next stop is to be served food by robots, so be it. Over time, our economy changes.

    1. Re:so pay people to make robots by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      A hot waitress in a tank top and mini skirt is still awfully hard to replace with a robot. Real Dolls don't do it - yet.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:so pay people to make robots by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So hooters jobs are safe then.

      Good to know...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  87. Nothing to See Here... by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only news here is a former McDonald’s CEO got some air-time on FOX Business Network’s "Mornings with Maria", saying something that happens to dove-tail with Fox's anti-everything that keeps its audience agitated and receptive to ads for Cialis (for daily use) and other products directed to the aging demographic that sits at home watching cable news all day.

    Flash: There are already automated order-taking machines in McDonald's restaurants throughout Europe. And automated check-out lines in Supermarkets throughout the U.S. And robots welding cars together throughout the world. Progress marching on, regardless some barely adequate minimum wage.

    OTOH, whether people LIKE robot-made-and-served food remains to be seen. The only thing that's certain is robots are far more sexy in the Board Room than people. Nobody gets props anymore for motivating people to be more productive, not when there's a guy with a fancy suit and a toothy grin from Acme Robots showing fancy color pamphlets to a hungry Vice President who wants the Big Promotion.

    By the time the dust settles and McDonald's is shelling out support contracts to third, fourth, and fifth-party vendors who show up as reliably as a Comcast repairman, the VP with the great idea will have moved on, maybe to run HP (another nail in that coffin). And who keeps the McDonald's running when the robots break? That same tired assistant manager you always see picking up the slack at the fryer or turning the key when the cashier fucks up. At least he'll be making $15 whole dollars an hour for his trouble.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    1. Re:Nothing to See Here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automatic order making machines aren't any more complex than a touch-screen tied into a web-page interface with some back-end code to take payments and print out an order. Domino's (pizza) and the other companies already have smartphone apps to allow orders to be made, paid for and delivered to the home.

    2. Re:Nothing to See Here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only thing that's certain is robots are far more sexy in the Board Room than people."

      Have you seen the human excrement that 'works' at most urban McDonalds? Give me a robot, please!

    3. Re:Nothing to See Here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to look at aging demographics, look at the Democrat party's candidates for President - all two of them.

    4. Re:Nothing to See Here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and yet, the line is always long and the parking lot is always full. Yes sir, Mr. Human Excrement, sir, I WILL take fries with that. And some stuff off the dollar menu, why not. My brain might say no, but my stomach and my kids say hell yes. No, thank YOU Mr. H.E., and yes you'll see me back again tomorrow.

  88. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    And then, hopefully, those former employees get thrown in jail.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  89. "We don't serve your kind here" by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    HEY GUYS! I JUST SOLVED THE PROBLEM!
    To prevent robots from coming in and stealing your job, just put a robtots.txt file in your root directory.
    Don't want self-driving cars driving down your street? Just post a robots.txt
    Don't want drones flying over your house? robots.txt!
    Even stops Google.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  90. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    Right, because franchisees can absorb any amount of extra costs before they just say "fuck this for a game of cricket" and give up.

    Is slashdot the venue for a virtual DeVry reunion or something?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  91. How's that minimum wage law working for you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please excuse my cursing, but... Dumbass Fucktards.

  92. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    Ideally? Yes. From my experiences (and those of my friends) that's not terribly accurate. Plus, you can still have a few people on staff for full-time cleaning, if you want.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  93. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by rdelsambuco · · Score: 2

    You don't need a manager, you need another robot.

    --
    I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
  94. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's nonsense and it's very destructive and it's inflationary and it's going to cause a job loss across this country like you're not going to believe

    That, translated from Republicanese means "Businesses won't make as much profit, and business owners will suffer"

  95. Why doesn't the industry JUST DO IT? by rdelsambuco · · Score: 1

    I'll share something with the fast food industry: I don't eat fast food now, and I'm not going to start if they hire robots. Put up, or shut up.

    --
    I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
  96. No! by mxyztplk · · Score: 1

    No worker's comp insurance!
    No worker's comp insurance claims!
    No overtime!
    No lunchbreaks!
    No discrimination lawsuits!
    No sexual harassment lawsuits!
    No unions!
    No calling in sick!
    No goofing off!
    No incompetence!

  97. Yet Another Living Wage Scare Story by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    We seem to be averaging one of these "fast food robots will kill jobs if workers are paid more than a pittance" stories every few weeks.

    I predict we are going to continue to get these stories trying to drum up fear of a living wage for workers, until the "Raise the Wage Act" finally passes.

    Perhaps if the fast food executives were to tell us the magic wage that would guarantee that robots will never take jobs slinging burgers we can have an honest conversation about this.

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    1. Re:Yet Another Living Wage Scare Story by rdelsambuco · · Score: 1

      I think the answer is zero dph.

      --
      I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
  98. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by WarJolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    2 robots at $70k is still cheaper than one employee. One for cleaning and one for frying.

  99. And the robots are unlikely to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spit in your burger.

    1. Re:And the robots are unlikely to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know one manager in the San Diego area (he was nicknamed "sperm sample" by his workers) that regularly did this to customers he didn't like.

  100. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The one I worked at 10+ years ago was still 100% manual. They are out of business now and closed. Probably got the bill for the upgrades for what you mention. But I look backwards in the new theaters when they start a movie, and there's someone in the booth.

    And for the recent re-plays of Legend, they were all print-only, so the smaller theaters must still handle prints

  101. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the thing though, that $15 wage is a strawman. They are already planning on buying the robots, they're just using the wage increase as a smokescreen. If the wage continues to stagnate they will still buy the robots and dump those workers! They've been talking about centralizing the drive thru to a call center so they don't have to staff the window for years.

    Personally I think robots are the worst thing they'll ever do, for a lot of reasons.

    Robots won't stop teens from coming into the store and spray painting penises on all the terminals.

    Robots won't notice when the homeless guy who smells like a tuna sandwich that's been in the sun for a week decides to take a nap in the store.

    Robots won't stop the aforementioned homeless person from shitting on the table.

    Robots have no idea how to deal with humans who give no fucks and want to be destructive.

  102. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Daemonik · · Score: 1

    Better buy 5 fry bagger robots, because at least 3 will be constantly down for service during the lunch rush.

  103. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Daemonik · · Score: 1

    Consider that the low wages is a large part of the high turnover.

  104. That may be true... by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 1

    But those people who don't have jobs now won't be able to eat at McDonald's, and I'm pretty sure the robot doesn't eat...

    --
    It started back in Team Fortress Classic
  105. Somebody tell In-n-out! by NuShrike · · Score: 1

    http://www.triplepundit.com/20...

    If you've seen In-n-out, always crowded, very cheap food, a lot of workers.

    1. Re:Somebody tell In-n-out! by TheSync · · Score: 1

      In-n-Out has higher quality food & higher pay than McDonalds, at prices for food that are not much higher than McDonalds.

      However, McDonalds has 100 times as many locations, and is mostly franchised rather than fully-owned like In-n-Out.

      My impression is that In-n-Out only has locations in the most profitable spots (highest revenue potential versus rent). It also concentrates on a very small menu, and is often overwhelmed with customers (which is part of the "appeal"). The closest In-n-Out to me is twice the distance as either of the two nearest McDonalds.

      Also cups and burger wrappers used by the In-N-Out Burger chain are printed with small references to Bible verses. I don't think McDonalds would allow a franchisee to do that.

    2. Re:Somebody tell In-n-out! by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Their service is actually terrible because of the wait time (15-20 minutes around meal time). They might pay each employee more, but they make for it by being drastically understaffed.

  106. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

    While in other states it's very common.

  107. $15 is too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These morons rioting for $15/hr don't realise that this will accomplish NOTHING. The cost of life will simple go up in accordance to the increased minimum wage. All this will do, is make life more miserable for people who earned more than minimum wage, because suddenly everything cost more and they aren't paid more.
    We see this every year in Canada when the minimum wage goes up a little, price of food go up, price of services go up, price of goods go up... Basically everything that needs someone somewhere do make/do/provide, goes up.
    So have fun being unemployed.

  108. Re:But, I don't want a robot arm messing with my f by Ksevio · · Score: 1

    I think you misunderstand the purpose of "Fast Food". People don't go there for the fine dining experience, more of a quick meal.

  109. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by danceswithtrees · · Score: 1

    Here's the thing though, that $15 wage is a strawman.

    I agree with you about this. With tidal changes in technology and how civilizations do things, there have some businesses made obsolete. For example buggy whip manufacturers with the advent of the car. With robotics and AI, what if humans (labor, thought, creativity, bargaining, etc) are the buggy whip?

  110. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    Personally I think robots are the worst thing they'll ever do, for a lot of reasons.

    That is because you only see in black and white...

    Robots won't replace 100% of workers at McDonalds, just most of them...

    Here's the thing though, that $15 wage is a strawman.

    No, the $15 wage is pushing companies to action. Lots of companies weren't moving very fast on this stuff, but now they are. At $7.25/hr lots of companies were just sitting around with the status quo. At $15/hr, they have done the math and will get off their butts and change things.

    The $15/hr thing was much too big of a move. $10/hr likely would have caused fewer disruptions.

  111. Adidas by elistan · · Score: 1

    And in related recent news, Adidas will be moving shoe manufacturing to Germany and the US by replacing USD $1 to 3/hr workers in Asian factories with automation. (Estimated wage - the BLS data is only as recent as 2009.)

    Here is the text of a Bloomberg article from 2013 (since going to the website itself didn't load for me) discussing "Asia Soaring Wages" where people make USD $226/mo in Indonesia and USD $10/day in Thailand which is apparently a significant increase (or not, depending on who the article author talked to.) China factories outsourcing to Indonesia and Thailannd factories is discussed. The drive to automation is discussed.

    Automation is certainly not anything new. Even without minimum wage increases it's still an inevitability.

  112. Not Just One employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But at least one employee per shift.

  113. Re:But, I don't want a robot arm messing with my f by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The first time I find a dead bug or small animal (or parts thereof) or some crud from some robotic arm in my french fries, I'll sue the living fuck out of them.

    But this kind of thing already happens, even with human workers.

    Of course it's totally irrelevant since I don't eat anything from McDonalds anyway

    Oh, so you won't.

    Seriously though, these restaurants will probably be cleaner than the ones you're used to, because the equipment won't have to be designed to accommodate humans. It can have splash shields and the like that would prevent them from doing their jobs. Each function could well end up being served by a sealed unit.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  114. And then the obvious happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like mass food poisoning due due to understaffed restaurant not doing proper maintenance.

    Mob Result: "Avoid McBurgers Inc" and then sales go down the drain. Recent events in Fast food should be foretelling.

    1. Re:And then the obvious happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to the mass food poisoning happening now when employees don't bother to wash their hands after taking a shit? At least the machines won't have that problem.

  115. (warning: autoplaying video) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not an issue if you've set flash player as a click-to-play plugin like you should.

  116. 15$ only really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15$/per hour is too much in USA then, really ?

    I wonder why all Mc Donald in EU countries did not already all close then, the cost of work ( including minimum wage + charges ) is way higher than15$/hour there.

    Especially in countries like Switzerland or Norway.

  117. On target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the 1950s, Henry Ford II, the CEO of Ford, and Walter Reuther, the head of the United Auto Workers union, were touring a new engine plant in Cleveland. Ford gestured to a fleet of machines and said, “Walter, how are you going to get these robots to pay union dues?” The union boss famously replied: “Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?”

    1. Re:On target by SuricouRaven · · Score: 0

      Thirty seconds of googling shows that almost certainly never happened.

    2. Re:On target by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1
      Wikipedia says:

      He is remembered for a famous exchange with a Ford executive when Ford was automating its production lines. Leading Reuther into a great hall filled with machines, with just one or two human workers programming them, an executive joked, "How do you plan to get these boys to pay your union dues, Walter?" Reuther looked around, shook his head, and said, "How do you plan to get them to buy your cars?"

      Raw Deal: How the "Uber Economy" and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workersby Steven Hill (via Google Books) relates the same (doesn't allow copypasta, or I would have) story, so 30 seconds of Googling proves it almost certainly did happen.

    3. Re:On target by drcesteffen · · Score: 1

      Taking things to the extreme, subsistence wages means zero market for manufactured goods. And taking things to the other extreme, the alternative of zero employment in manufacturing means zero market for manufactured goods. So manufacturing companies in the process of automating will have to produce less and less at either a lower and lower price or for fewer and fewer people making it harder and harder to pay off their investment in automation. In other words, they will lose their economy of scale making capital investments harder to pay off. So the extreme cases imply that manufacturing companies, or more correctly all luxury suppliers, are eventually doomed to shrink unless people can add value in a non-manufacturing capacity. Seems unlikely. More likely is that extreme cases don't generally produce the correct answer when the system has non-reinforcing feedback, and the economy definitely has non-reinforcing feedback. Which implies that since both supply side economics and demand side economics are based upon extreme cases, they will probably not give a correct answer either.

      Also, unless each robot has to file an income tax return, the government will lose tax base and either will have to increase taxes on the rich, will have to live within a shrinking budget, will have to print more money, or will incur a ever increasing debt. Incidentally, a similar thing happens when a job is outsourced to a different country. Unless each outsourced employee has to file an income tax return, the government will lose tax base and either will have to increase taxes on the rich, will have to live within a shrinking budget, will have to print more money, or will incur a ever increasing debt.

    4. Re:On target by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia lacks citations.
      Raw Deal may have citation, but I'd have to buy it to find out.
      The Economist article has no citation, and specifically describes the story as "apocyphal."
      This site does seem to have done a little research into it, with lots of citations.
      http://quoteinvestigator.com/2...

      The earliest reference to the story is differently worded ("Fords" not "cars") and describes an exchange between Reuther and an unnamed Ford manager, not Mr Ford himself as some later versions say. Later retellings continue to embellish and reword. Even when Reuther personally retold the story it changed slightly each time.

      This suggests that there may have been an encounter that started the story, but it is almost certainly did not involve Ford himself and all other elements of the story should be considered as possible but unreliable. It might be even be an encounter that Reuther made up entirely - he never stated the name of the person he was speaking to or the date of the encounter, and there is no known witness aside from himself.

  118. And? by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

    It's cheaper than hiring 3 people at $8 too. The only question is exactly how much you're saving.

  119. How Low? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The true minimum wage is always zero.

  120. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Except that it's not a straight-up comparison between the employee and the machine. When the machine doesn't make fries, it's idle. When the employee doesn't make fries, they're cleaning, etc.

    When the employee makes fries, he makes a mess. When a properly designed machine makes fries, it won't. A decent machine will be largely self-cleaning. The employee has to clean the fryolator nightly (if only to de-sludge and replace filters, and put the same shit oil back.) And then he has to clean the wall behind the machine, and the floor under the machine. At least, you pray that this happens nightly. During my stint in fast food, that was the practice, but it does not happen everywhere.

    You're damned right it's not a straight-up comparison. The machine reduces your cleaning needs in the bargain.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  121. Who do you suppose eats off the dollar menu? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Yeah because Mcdonalds has never heard of using a spreadsheet.

    These companies are acutely aware of the cost of labor at all times, just like they are with the cost of food... if they can cut costs, they will, it means more profit for the folks on top.

    You're absolutely correct, and if only one company cut thousands of human positions to improve the bottom line, the economy could probably withstand it.

    Ironically, the replacement of the workforce's lowest wage earners with robotic devices will negatively impact places like McDonald's first.

    The robot workers are not fast food consumers. Though the initial ($35,000) cost will go to a developer/manufacturer, any savings associated with a diminished human workforce will not necessarily be reabsorbed by the industry.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  122. Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this time and energy we devote to making garbage for everyone to buy, could be spent on meaningful things. We're a pathetic race of creatures.

  123. Maintenance is cheap... when they work. by XXongo · · Score: 1

    Buy once, cry once. Ongoing maintenance is cheaper than $15 hour.

    I'm not sure about that. Maintenance is cheap... when they work.

    And the other problem with robots is that they're obsolete in two years, and you need to buy an upgrade, or another one.

    1. Re:Maintenance is cheap... when they work. by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      >And the other problem with robots is that they're obsolete in two years

      Since when? You're confusing internet facing software, which needs security updates all the time. Cell phones, that seem to be on a 2 year replacement schedule. And, lastly computers in the 90s and early 2000s, which had much faster replacements every year. When a robot does it's job it doesn't go obsolete, and if it does, there is something so much more efficient that it is worthwhile upgrading anyway.

    2. Re: Maintenance is cheap... when they work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entire manufacturing industries disagree with you. I've seen 8 year old robots tailored to a specific job still in use with maintenance and repair.

      Sure it's not the latest technology but it's reliable, does what it needs to do. Many times the need to replace is driven by changing needs in manufacturing. When was the last time there was a major change in the fry making process?

  124. Misleading by um...+Lucas · · Score: 3

    if McD's cost is $35,000, and they're open 16 hours per day, then it pays for itself in less than a year with employees making less than $8/hour.

    (8 * 16 * 365 = $46,720)

    I know that for myself, I go to McDonalds embarrassingly often, and I would absolutely not go if that were the case, just as when I go to the super market, I intentionally don't use the self checkout lines. I don't care if its cheaper, and even if they extended a fraction of the savings to me, I'd RATHER help kids keep employed and have some money to spend. And even if they're not kids, I'd rather they get paid the money, than just give huge bonus' to the C-level guys for thinking "hey, lets automate away everyones jobs! what could possibly go wrong with that? oh and while we're at it, lets support politicians who want to do away with social safety nets! Like anyone actually needs those things!"

    And I wish I was sarcastic about that...

    1. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use the self-checkout lanes, either. Not because I'd "rather help the kids be employed" (a laudable goal), but because the self-checkout machines are CRAZY HORRIBLE ANNOYING! They really need mute buttons, and they really need override options for the (low-quality) weight sensors in the bagging area. It really really sucks having the machine yell at you for having the temerity to move something from one bag to another!

    2. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm on the other extreme - I'd rather self-checkout at most places given the option. If grocery stores gave a longer stretch for more bags, I'd do all my checkout that way so that I could pack things properly and efficiently

    3. Re:Misleading by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1

      There will probably have to be more than one robot at each location - the same robot can't flip burgers and clean floors simultaneously.

  125. The Robots I Would Fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be barber or hairdresser robot. Imagine the robot having some sort of malfunction and slitting your throat, or cutting your ears off. Fuhgeddaboudit!

  126. robots don't buy burgers and McCafe, either by swschrad · · Score: 1

    and they eat electricity and you have to have an IT guy zipping to all the stores to reset the beasts when they flip stuff all over the building. actuators break. crappy programming freezes them.

    yeah, good luck with that. maybe the robots will lurch over to the Wendy's kiosks on "break" and run them over, too. lawsuits!

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  127. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by reboot246 · · Score: 0

    Consider that's why they're called "entry level jobs". Fast food jobs have always been where a large number of people have their first work experience before moving on to more lucrative careers. Nobody in their right mind would consider flipping burgers for a career!

    But maybe that's all you can do. Maybe you didn't pay attention in school. Maybe you have no ambition to do better. Maybe you didn't try to learn any job skills at all. Then it sucks to be you. I don't owe your lazy ass anything at all.

  128. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2

    Kinda like buggywhip workers burning down the buggywhip factories in 1903. Good luck.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  129. Employees are human shields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times do we hear that additional health or safety regulations would "kill jobs".

    When these franchises are "staffed" by a half-million dollars worth of robot arms, they aren't going to have a leg to stand on.

  130. Shooting themselves in the foot by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

    Who do they think their customers are? Make all the low income people unemployed and they won't be able to buy your shitty food.

  131. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    With robots, I don't have to worry about workers spitting in my food.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  132. More than just Sam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Sam Walton became a billionaire on those subsidies, while his employees were living on food stamps.

    Not to mention the rest of the Wal-Mart board members who got rich, like Hillary Clinton.

  133. so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how are those robots going to stop the nigro population to rob the LIVING SHIT out of this dude stores? because theres a chance this gets real funny real quick

  134. Welcome to the future by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    Fast food restaurants ARE going robotic. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Raising or not raising the minimum wage is a red herring. Just look at what has happened in the auto industry. Sure there are people still working on the assembly line but when you have a robot that can perform 100,000 welds absolutely perfectly the writing is on the wall.

    Eventually these fast food robots (McBots?) will be able to make a batch of fries with greater consistency than a human can. Without any waste. Without dropping any hairs in there. Without any cross contamination between the cash drawer and the fry station. Without using the bathroom or blowing your nose and forgetting to wash your hands. Without calling in sick.

    Raising the minimum wage merely gives these companies cover to accelerate the whole process. "Why, if we have to pay $15 an hour we'll be out of business. You leave us no choice but to automate!". Even if the minimum wage were only $5 an hour eventually the process will be automated. It's just a matter of when.

  135. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and while these greedy MFs are evil incarnate, I still think the robots would stop putting cheese on my god damn hamburger, and get my order correct instead of a fish sandwich with extra "mayo."

  136. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Not really. The owner has to pay taxes, some of which fund the prison system.

  137. Scare Tactics by uncleroot · · Score: 1

    The minimum wage in Australia is more than $16/hour US and the McDonalds there do just fine. Do not listen to their scare tactics. http://xpatnation.com/how-does...

  138. drive through call centers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need for automation, drive through can be outsourced to call centers according to this 2006 article...
    -slew

  139. Good luck with that! by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Ed will soon find out that robots are not all they are cracked to be. This $35K does not cover maintenance and obsoleteness. Then the work area needs to be setup just right and every slightest mishap results in lengthy work shutdown if not property damage. Want to add new items to menus? Hehe!

    Those factory robots are maintained by full time stuff with 6 digit salaries. Thinking the same is going to be practical in a franchise run by a high school dropout in a poor neighborhood is delusional.

    Looking forward to eating in Burger King.

  140. His dreams will be crushed by kimvette · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    So sad - he will never achieve his dream now!

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  141. Robot spit in food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as the $35k robot can spit in everyone's food the same as a $15/hour paid employee does I fail to see the problem

  142. Re:But, I don't want a robot arm messing with my f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't look too closely at the little green things in the tarter sauce on your fish sandwich. Just sayin'

  143. 110,000 workers reduced to 60,000 by Foxconn by mxyztplk · · Score: 1
  144. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Average employee age in fast food is now about 35, everyone can't be an astronaut, we just don't need enough of them. You whole theory is based on nonsense.

  145. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Cleaning? You obviously haven't been to a McDonald's in a while...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  146. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by whoda · · Score: 1

    Except that it's not a straight-up comparison between the employee and the machine. When the machine doesn't make fries, it's idle. When the employee doesn't make fries, they're cleaning, etc.

    Go use a fast-food restroom and check its' cleanliness.
    While there, notice that it takes 2 minutes to get hot water to wash your hands, which means none of the employees has actually used any hot water recently to wash their hands...

  147. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Janitor

  148. Re:But, I don't want a robot arm messing with my f by whoda · · Score: 1

    Or they just re-heat pre-prepared foods from Sysco and plate them uniquely.

  149. I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wonder how many hamburgers a robot arm buys?

  150. The Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solution is very easy. The President Cliton do an executive order making using of robots illegal in the restuarante. Then presto problema is solving!

  151. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or perhaps you are a woman of color with a child, and nobody else will hire you because of that. Those lazy fuckers, how dare they be so lazy that their skin is colored?

  152. Correction by future+assassin · · Score: 1, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Freedom-fry bagging robot overlords

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can these robots also bag slippery nuts?

  153. I'm not impressed by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when employees leave a fast food restaurant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvLDFtaL5HI. I might get my fries from a robot arm, but who's going to be there to stomp the roaches?

  154. Because they totally weren't going to hire robots. by LetterRip · · Score: 1

    Robots make economic sense at even 5$ an hour. It is complete and utter BS that it is the 15$ an hour that is driving the interest in robotics.

  155. odious by JackSpratts · · Score: 2

    nothing more odious than a plutocrat whining about the rising cost of peons.

  156. McDonalds vs. Foxconn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is Foxconn replacing its workers with robots because of $15 minimum wage or because of health care costs under Obamacare?

  157. Pay the CEO minimum wage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No stock options, bonuses, or anything else but minimum wage. See how easy it is to live on that. Make sure the CEO has to pay for benefits too. That will shut them up really fast.

  158. He is a moron. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Really, so he thinks you buy a $15K arm and it magically does what it is told? it takes a lot of hours of programming at $190 an hour. It takes a LOT of maintenance at $125 an hour. Oh and if you think local health departments will give a free pass to automation... Nightly Sanitization, replacement of the plastic coverings to protect the food from the operating arm shedding paint flecks, shedding oil, etc... Food processing on a LARGE scale with robots where profit levels are far higher as that robot is making hundreds of thousands of product a day between cleaning and maintenance evenings is hugely different than one that is making hundreds a day that are not all 100% identical but can have almost random requests. the software will have to be far more advanced, and absolutely more expensive. All of your product now has to be in standardized containers increasing the cost... no more pickels in a 5 gallon bucket, but now pickles need to be stacked in a dispenser package. Pickles now triple in price. etc....

    Sounds like a CEO shooting off his mouth about a technology he knows absolutely nothing about but thinks you can go to Robots-R-Us and buy what you want and install them ready to go.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  159. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Really? cutting costs means it spits hydraulic oil in your food. Mmmm hydrocarbons.......

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  160. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    And the owner now has to pay SIGNIFICANTLY more taxes as all those robots are now a Taxable asset. Employees are not.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  161. Bad business? by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Robots don't buy hamburgers.

  162. $15 has nothing to do with it by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Blaming this trend on higher minimum wages is ridiculous. Lets say you've got a $35k robot capable of performing as fast as a human at a task where it can stay busy all day. At someplace like McDonalds, that robot is probably going to be working, what, 16 hours a day, 360 days a year? That doesn't just replace one full-time human, it almost replaces three. Amortize the purchase price across a single year and it only costs $6.07/hour. Assume it lasts just three years and you're down to only $2 an hour.

    There's just no way humans can compete at repetitive jobs once robots get good enough. At the worst raising minimum wage just accelerates their adoption by a few years. If they would make sense today with a minimum wage of $15, then it won't be more than a few years before they'd make sense with a minimum wage of $7.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:$15 has nothing to do with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really making any point? I never blamed anything on anyone, I was pointing out the facts about hiring an employee costs a lot more than their paycheck makes apparent. Or were you just targeting my post to make a talking point when tons of other posts actually pound on the question of minimum wage? If so, go bother them. Stay on topic, start a new topic or GTFO.

    2. Re:$15 has nothing to do with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If business waited for the best possible future price point then nothing would ever get done. But you know this and you're being a faggot about it. Go back to sucking Trump's dick.

  163. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by nsuccorso · · Score: 1

    ...and the temperature of the water has nothing to do with how well it cleans hands. So yeah, pretty scary stuff.

  164. I won't go by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine and I have decided not to go to any robot-run restaurant or fast food place, basically because of the anti-worker attitude this embodies. When a place we go to switches over to automated food prep, that'll be the last time we go to that place.

    Yes, I know that in a robot-restaurant the food may be made more uniformly or more sanitary and orders may be less likely to be messed up, but displacing tens or hundreds of thousands of minimum wage workers in pursuit of a few more dollars seems like a shit move to us. So we'll just go to places where there are humans.

    We may end up paying a few more bucks for our food, but we'll do it. This race to the bottom for profits helps no one but some shareholders and CEOs, but our hearts don't bleed for them, sorry.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:I won't go by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      This is precisely the right attitude - although why anyone would eat at mcdonalds even while they still do employ humans to manufacture their borderline inedible garbage is quite beyond me.

      I understand that it is increasingly hard to actually find reasonable food in American suburbs - it's not too bad if you can be bothered to drive downtown, but that's normally quite a long way. This is the real problem. The very fact that much of the food produced by restaurants in the states can even be manufactured by machines demonstrates just how dreadful most of it is.

  165. You are a technical person? hahahahaha by Texmaize · · Score: 0

    With that level of understanding of technology, my guess is that you are a millennial. Let me help you out, pumpkin

    1. Robots won't stop teen from coming into the store and spray painting penises on the all the terminals.
    You may want to read about image recognition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... For noticing changes to a surface, this is actually an easy thing for the computer to do these days. Picking a signature out of random mosaic is pretty hard, but if you add something to a known pattern? Not so much.

    2. Robots won't notice the homeless guy.... Again, see the image recognition ideas above. For the average guy on these forums, not very hard to program in a routine that shows the an unchanging image state in a booth for time X. Also, they have this little thing called electronic noses, which could find a tuna smell quite readily if that is really a concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    3. Won't stop pooping on table: Not only would the nose find it, but the computer would have even called the cops before he finished dropping his load.
    Btw, your pimple faced unmotivated Millennial friend is probably not going to bother to do anything about tuna man, since like, that would take effort. Can't have that.

    4. Robot would not know how to deal with the destructive....
    Actually, the robot would know. It would call the police, or deploy a non lethal countermeasure without any prejudice. IN fact, judging by the various destructive riots and "protests" given savages in the last few years, it is the police and government who does not know who to deal with people destroying the stuff of other people.
    Let me go as far to say is that YOU are the reason Skynet eventually evolves.

    --
    "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
    1. Re:You are a technical person? hahahahaha by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, the robot would know.

      In the general case? Not with any current levels of technology.

      We need AI of the level of sophistication to be as adaptable to input that is not expected in a given context as an adult human mind. We're at least 2 decades from there.

  166. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    They've been talking about centralizing the drive thru to a call center so they don't have to staff the window for years.

    Why haven't they? It seems like the technology has been there for years.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  167. I got just one question. Who is going by pjv936 · · Score: 1

    to clean the kitchen? Robots only do what they are program for. They won't notice anything out of the ordinary. One other thing a rich person can be replace by a 2yr old. They are equally self centered.

  168. Re:But, I don't want a robot arm messing with my f by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Oh shut the fuck up. You know goddamned well what I mean and you're just being a difficult douchebag on purpose.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  169. Re: And then those employees burn down your resta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McDonald's corporate owns all the real estate.

  170. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Keeping 1 manager on duty would though

    captcha: reject

  171. Fresh Food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean McDonalds will have fresh food again instead of made-yesterday-and-stored-in-the-drawer-under-a-heat-lamp that they changed to several years back?

    If I want re-heated soggy leftovers there are lots better places to go than McDonalds.

  172. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are overlooking the fact that the restaurant does not need cooking machines running 24/7. A restaurant is not a mass production factory. It's limited (low volume) production. If you spend $35k on a fry machine, that only cooks one large batch of fries per hour, and the machine requires daily cleaning (by a human) and monthly maintenance (by a technician), and requires some annual repairs (by a technician), it might actually be cheaper to hire a part-time person for $10/hour. Humans are very flexible in the tasks they can do, but machines and robots are much much less flexible.

    When there are robots which can completely run the kitchen and the dining room, and the only humans left are management and robot technicians, then you have something to worry about.

  173. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McDonalds restaurants have sinks in the kitchen and usually one near the drive-thru. They do not have to walk out to the lobby to wash their hands while prepping food.

  174. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by gweilo8888 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps, or perhaps not. $70k is the equivalent of 2 1/3 years of a $15/hour wage (eight hours per day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year). So even in a perfect world, it'd take 2 1/3 years to break even, assuming you can only replace one employee's job with each robot. And that also assumes that your robots never need maintenance, adjustment, calibration, cleaning etc., nor do they use any power or consumables.

    That's a pretty unlikely scenario, to be honest. Far more likely is that your two robots will set you back the equivalent of around three years before you've saved a cent. After all, while you got rid of the unskilled labor to assemble burgers, you replaced it with skilled labor to maintain the robots, and you probably have to pay that skilled labor for their travel time and expenses servicing robots at many, many locations around the country. (No single location or district is going to provide sufficient work for the robot techs to live locally, so they'll be traveling to and from your stores for a large proportion of their time.) If much maintenance, calibration or cleaning is needed at all, you'll find the projected cost savings quickly vanishes.

    And then what's the service life of the robots? Answer that, and you'll know whether this is going to be worth the PR downside. If a robot lasts ten years and pays for itself in three, you've got a good argument for phasing out the meat puppets it replaces. If it takes three years to pay off, but you're having to replace it after just four or five due to its service life or obsolescence, well, that's another matter entirely.

    But then all of this is pulling numbers out of our butts -- both on your part and mine -- and has little to do with the real world.

  175. Robots buy fries ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see how many robots will buy hamburgers and fries... when humans are taken out of the equation...

    These b... dead m_rons don't seem to understand that the people they're doing without, will not have money to buy their "food" so McWhatever will lose customers.

    Shooting oneself in the foot.

  176. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by uncqual · · Score: 1

    The machine doesn't need to be trained when the prior machine quits. The machine works all three shifts a day and doesn't need a lunch or coffee break. The machine doesn't take maternity leave (although, if it did, that might be an advantage - you have to rent another robot for 12 weeks off but then you have two robots 12 weeks later might be a good deal). The machine is probably able to produce exactly the right number of fries at the right time because it isn't distracted by having two jobs. The machine probably responds much more accurately to "discard stale fries" rules and algorithms that request smaller batches of fries because demand is low.

    (I'm pretty sure I've had quite a few fries at two in the morning at rest stops along toll roads on the way to my destination from a delayed flight that would have been much better if a machine ran the process as it would have applied the "rules" for stale fries which, obviously, the highly unmotivated worker behind the counter didn't.)

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  177. They already can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $35000/365 days in a year / 24 hours in a day = $4.01 per hour. However, it's actually lower than that, because the 35K can be amortized over the course of say 5 years, making the capital cost around $0.80/hr. Even with 40 hours of repair service a year at $25/hr, that's only adding $1000, which could correspond with the payroll taxes saved on the employee.

    The reality is robots only work where the human experience is unimportant. McDonald's franchisees can risk an inhumane experience for the consumer, but this is not yet widely culturally accepted and there would be some loss of customers to competitors with fully human staffing.

    1. Re:They already can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      easy to solve, just separate small part of each restaurant with human staffed sub-restaurant, with only one employee, call it "platinum club mcdonalds" with separate lounge and add to every order made there and packaged by real person 100% "platinum club membership" "surcharge" (double prices)

      poor people will go to robotic part of restaurant
      rich people that would go to fully human staffed restaurant and pay more for that can just go to fully human stuffed "sub-restaurant" insetad

  178. money by Smiddi · · Score: 1

    They will then complain when there is no-one with enough money to buy their products. Employing more people is good for the entire economy plus its a social responsibility

  179. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by mark-t · · Score: 1

    No robot ever made so far can clean with the same degree of robustness as a human. Humans are intelligent, and can often adapt to changing circumstances seamlessly. Robots not so much.

  180. Don't forget power consumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much do you think all these new robots are going to jack up the electricity bill?

  181. Robots don't spit in your food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really want this to happen. Order at a kiosk and a robot makes your food. No more waiting for someone learning the register to mess up your order and no more getting sick from the fry cook that showed up to work sick. And the best part is the robot won't drop your burger on the floor, pick it back up and serve it to you. Nor will it have the tendency to spit or flick boogers in your food. I can't wait!!

    1. Re:Robots don't spit in your food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And while you're ordering at a kiosk a former, now out of work employee will mug you and steal your food.

  182. It'll even out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually. God, i can hardly wait until this all becomes passé, which it will. Pretty much ready to vomit on the hype and the sickening greed.

  183. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a $35k robot can replace a $15/hr human today, then an $18k robot can replace an $8/hr human tomorrow. If the argument against minimum wage increases is increased use of automation, I think we're arguing about the wrong thing.

  184. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ED-209 disagrees. You have 20 seconds to comply.

  185. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by funwithBSD · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why?

    The robot that fills the baskets with fries does not brake down that often.

    It is not precision engineering here, it is sticking the right weight of fries in the bag. Ever watch "How It's Made"? They show lots of machines that do exactly that, hundreds of times an hour for things like bagged candy. The only difference is they seal both ends of the bag.

    And believe me, they spend a LOT of time training people to do it right, even a 5% overfill makes for losses, 10% underfill makes for pissed off customers who think they were cheated.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  186. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool video. I was expecting to see the robot bitchslap the guy who was pissing it off.

  187. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are forgetting payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, etc.

  188. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Hylandr · · Score: 2

    You can write off a percentage of your assets as a depreciation of value every year.

    If you save that money it can go towards investing in a new robot in a certain number of years. The cost of maint, power and upgrades is the cost of operation of business and is exempt from taxation. You only get taxed on your *net* profit. Which *will* hike dramatically.

    Now you will have tech-managers running a store.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  189. bad math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy has bad math. Even if an employee works 40 hours a week, every week of the year, they would barely make $28,000 a year. Even if you're generous with benefits, say $5,000 with a year, still not $35k. Do, this corporate shill is full of shit.

  190. Re: And then those employees burn down your rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not here in TN, they don't.

  191. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were there 1.3M whip makers? I thought not.

  192. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by fche · · Score: 1

    "eight hours per day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year"

    Those are not constraints of a robot's work schedule.
    Or perhaps you're suggesting they unionize?

  193. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But we know they won't save any money. It'll go to bonuses. That VAX in the backroom was good enough in 1979, it's good enough now. I know this. Err replaced our last PDP11 lay year

  194. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The owner is in Ireland. It only rents to the local business - coincidentally for the same amount as what would have been the net profit this year.

  195. Robots require maintenance ya dingbat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather McDonalds replace the food serving with robots and hire smarter people to just maintain the robots instead.

  196. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Hylandr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's more to hiring people than just giving them a paycheck. On average, an employer has to pay an additional 2/3's of the employee's pay in taxes, insurance and in some places other benefits.

    But lets forget all that for a moment and stick to the numbers we have, while thinking in MAN HOURS:

    35k divided by 15 an hour is 2,333 *man hours*
    Most stores at peak times have 5 crew members.
    That's 466.6 hours of operation for 5 people.
    Assuming there are 5 people running a 24/7 store that's 19 *days* of operation that will be required to return on that investment. ( Gross )

    But without people the costs of operation will drop also.
    - You wont need the space or restroom facilities for a crew.
    - Without people Minimal HVAC will be required.
    - Robots can certainly run 24/7
    - The building size for a drive through only restaurant can now shrink.
    - Multiple lanes with highly efficient production will shorten wait time and provide much more consistent quality.

    Cons:
    - You still need someone to unload trucks, restock machines, and maintain the automated devices. An owner can pay one person minimum wage to do the rounds, responding to alerts for low stock or malfunctioning equipment etc.

    Additionally, I KNOW someone won't be spitting or adding any other 'secret sauce' to my food in the back.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  197. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by zabbey · · Score: 1

    My local grocery store replaced half their cashiers with self checkouts terminals years ago.

  198. Strike reloaded by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Once there will only be a single human to supervise robots, strikes will become effective again. A single man will lock out the whole company.

  199. Karma by worldthinker · · Score: 1

    I find it funny that these companies in the rush to automate exploited wage slaves out of their jobs forgets that the very product they sell depends on PEOPLE buying it. The more they push such people off of payrolls, the less number of people that will buy their product.

    Fortunately, the current CEO of McDonalds has already discovered immediate increases in revenue and profits by increasing wages and benefits of their frontline workers.

    http://www.politicususa.com/20...

    1. Re:Karma by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, the current CEO of McDonalds has already discovered immediate increases in revenue and profits by increasing wages and benefits of their frontline workers.

      http://www.politicususa.com/20...

      Maybe that's why this guy is the "former" CEO. Henry Ford paid his workers above the going rate so they could actually purchase the goods they were making. But hey maybe, all those savings by displacing the workers can be used to pay increased taxes to feed the people who no longer have jobs.

      Maybe it's time they start teaching in the MBA programs that if you displace all of your workers to increase profits, eventually you won't have any profits because there won't be anybody to purchase your goods and services.

  200. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

    All of which will be applicable to the service techs.

  201. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

    Nope, but it was represented as one robot replacing one person, so I continued that logic. However, given that most restaurant business happens in three relatively short periods (and that most fast food employees are part-time), the eight-hour day for the human is already overkill. The robot will be sitting idle most of the day, just as the few humans manning the restaurant outside of peak hours already are.

  202. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When there are many robots, the laws will change to favor the businesses, as they always have.

  203. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

    As noted in a reply above, the payroll taxes, insurance, etc. will now need to be paid to the highly-skilled robot tech instead of the unskilled burger-assembler. Also, you're assuming that one robot alone will be able to replace the entire staff of the store. (That's almost certainly not accurate.)

    And you assume that the stores will also be going take-out only, otherwise you still need HVAC, restrooms and space. And either cleaning robots capable of dealing with humans' sometimes-disgusting habits, or human employees to do the cleaning part, still.

    Also, it's rather an interesting assumption that the person capable of repairing these magical, majestic robots will find their job so easy and unskilled that they'll actually be minimum wage. That, again, seems rather unlikely.

    You're right that nobody will be spitting in your food, though. They'll be dripping machine oil into it, instead. Mind you, somebody in one of the suppliers could still be spitting in the raw ingredients or on the pre-prepared items (buns, patties, etc.)

  204. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    There are companies dedicated to taking care of a building and they have a call center to address issues quickly.

    Cleaning will not be a problem.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  205. Re:Australia has US$15 minimum wage by aberglas · · Score: 2

    Called the "Living Wage", introduced long ago. Includes free medical, and free schools that are not too bad even in poor areas. And overtime pays more.

    Hasn't destroyed the economy. Unemployment low. Although crappy hamburgers might be slightly more expensive.

    We have some problems with long term unemployed, especially Aborigines. But none of the working poor that the US has.

  206. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by tshawkins · · Score: 1

    That only works becuase of digital projection, nothing but bits to move around, fast food has ingredients that need assembling etc, that drop on the floor, the get jammed in the dispensers, that don't get cleaned out of the nozzles, and thus spread food poisoning etc, it's a whole different ball of wool.

  207. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    stamping out license plates in prison. But you get an doctor that does more then the ones that take the mcd's mini med plan

  208. New Jersey Gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My full-serve gas in New Jersey is cheaper than what my two children pay for self-serve in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The only thing that would happen if self-serve comes to New Jersey is that the present full-serve price will become the self-serve price.

    1. Re:New Jersey Gas by mink · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. The two times I neglected to gas up in PA I got fucked so bad in NJ.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  209. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Need to swap the lenses in and out for 3d and non 3d movies.

  210. Where there's robots.... by thundercattt · · Score: 1

    There will be some jerk with a laptop doing some hijacking for kicks. You know that McDonald's will jump on the wifi bandwagon in some regards for the robot.

  211. Re: And then those employees burn down your res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes they do. The restaurant is "independently operated" but the franchisee owns zip except the right to use the McDonald's name.

  212. Re: And then those employees burn down your resta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where there 7 billion people on earth? Thought not.

  213. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Franchisees own the right to operate under the McDonald's name and little else. The real estate isn't theirs.

  214. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Hylandr · · Score: 2

    "Highly-skilled-robot-tech"

    I know a few mech techs that are perpetually out of work and happy to take 15 an hour. Thing is these robots will likely be modular. Pull the failed part, put the new one in. Green light everything and return the old part for the core-charge.

    No 'highly skilled' anything.

    I admit to the math error. Let me hit that one again.

    5 x 35,000 == 175,000 Cost ( assuming it includes installation and facility modifications )
    11,666 Man hours. ( Omen maybe? )
    486.08 Days to realize a profit. ( 1.33 Years )

    Thing is, you start realizing a return on the investment via reduced overhead as soon as operations commence. The work was either financed or paid in one lump sum.

    Depending on the power draw these things may draw $100 per day for cost of operation. That's 6.6 hours for a human employee.

    It's still more profitable by far to replace everyone with Robots. Notice that 6.6 is just a little under the current federal minimum wage. That bot is working for $4 an hour and won't call in sick, play hooky to get laid, complain, steal, or sue the company etc. ie. is MUCH less a liability that the flesh-bot.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  215. French fry machines 15 years ago by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    I used to go to a store where after we finished shopping, we could buy french fries from a machine which deep fried individual portions and cooked them. It was cheap and easy.

    Consider a simple machine which would lift a potato and pass it over a row of blades and then a single blade perpendicular to the row. This would cut multiple fries side by side. Let them drop into a basket which is then lowered into oil for two minutes. Using a rectangular vat, it should be possible to queue 4-8 orders in a relatively small bath of oil similar in size to what would be expected in a consumer deep fryer. Lift the basket from the oil, move it over a "salting area" and grind salt or shake salt onto them and flip the basket into a cardboard box and voila.

    Fries are the easiest issue to solve.

    Cycle the oil automatically by using two separate vats to keep the machine in operation at all times. Release oil that has cooled through a drain valve which pumps into a "bio-diesel dispensary" so that people driving biodiesel cars can be kind enough to dispose of the oil for McDonalds or buy a diesel generator to run the restaurant itself. A McDonalds delivery truck could pump some more oil into the tank on delivery. An intelligent design would automate this so the truck could be self-driving later on.

    Burgers aren't a challenge either, automatic sauce dispensers are easy enough. If the burgers are frozen in stacks where the stack itself is engineered, you could have a stack that appears like a roll of 100 burgers (or more) which can be dispensed one by one onto a belt. The belts can feed a cooker (I'm assuming some sort of microwave oven?), the hardest part is the cheese which tends to be a bit sticky, but if the cheese is shipped as a block instead of slice by slice, then the cheese could be managed by using a Norwegian style wire cheese slicer mounted inverted. Onions can be cut more or less the same as potatoes.

    Other deep fried foods are easy enough.

    So far as I can figure, most parts could easily have "self cleaning" using disposable or washable sanitary wipes after each portion is prepared. The remaining part... less so.

    In Europe for years, we've been using computers or telephone apps to order fast food (at least in Scandinavia and I first saw a touch screen ordering system in Strasbourg 10 years ago.

    A conveyor belt system can easily allow food to be prepared and loaded onto a tray as it's prepared.

    A second conveyor belt system can solve most of the waste disposal issues and can even properly sort recyclables.

    For most of the cleaning of the restaurant, I recommend a rooba type robot capable of lifting chairs by their legs while vacuuming and washing the floor. Again pretty easy design... especially with the new Microsoft vision SDKs coming as part of the Hololens development kits.

    Windows on the inside of the building should be pretty easy... adapt the roomba to have a squeegie. I am curious to try this one and will likely do so next week.

    Bathrooms can be mostly cleaned using some of the "self-cleaning bathroom" technologies found at some of the European public facilities. It's not perfect, but it does work well enough.

    I honestly don't see why it should be necessary to need more than one or two employees on staff at any time... and they should follow the steps told to them by a computer.

    Of course, it would be better to pay that employee $15/hr before it becomes minimum wage and $20/hr when it does so a professional of some type is in the position instead of an unskilled laborer. They would spend most of their time managing when things go wrong and handling things the robots aren't versatile enough to do otherwise.

    As for "robotic arms" ... that's a stupid ass idea for people who don't think far enough ahead to properly design a restaurant to not need humans.

  216. A better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Throw the asshole CEO in the fryer. Problem solved.

  217. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

    Some projectors don't require a lens swap. The Real D Z-screen (the most common 3D projection technology) just slides in front of the regular projector lens. It runs on a little track like an upside down curtain rod or a sliding closet door, so the switch from 2D to 3D takes literally two seconds to accomplish.

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  218. How many robots would it take to run a McDonald's? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    Sure, a $35,000 robot could run the fry station. At the McDonald's where my teenage son works, they already have a robot that prepares drinks for drive-thru customers. But they still need 2-3 employees to work drive-thru.

    Those who cry that robots will soon take over all our jobs, forget just how many jobs there are in even a single McDonald's store. Taking orders, making shakes, fries, sandwiches, washing dishes, cleaning floors and restrooms (theoretically, at least), taking out trash, filtering fry oil, restocking condiments, baking cookies, and on and on. These $35,000 robots can each take over a single job. But they aren't as versatile as a human being, who can switch from job to job as needed.

    Automation is hard and expensive. It will be quite a while before McDonald's no longer needs teenage employees.

  219. unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the uncomfortable truth: like the article says, less than 4% of the workforce actually works for minimum wage. And what the article doesn't tell you is that within 6 months, half of those people are promoted. Minimum wage is not supposed to be anything but entry-level. Barely anyone works for minimum wage. It's only purpose in the debate is to evoke sympathy.

    The reason wages are low is actually very simple: immigration. Take Australia, for example...they have strict immigration policies, so they aren't dumping millions of low-skilled workers into the job pool every year, driving down wages. As a result, over time, their workers become MORE skilled, not less, so their wages rise naturally over time. Australia has a minimum wage right now around $15, no legislation required.

    Leftists are constantly trying to flood the labor market with low-skilled immigrant labor to get votes...and in the process they are destroying the wage market, and making it difficult to earn a living wage. Less than 4% of the population works for minimum wage, and every time you raise the minimum wage, you force more of them out of the jobs market. Which is why youth unemployment is out of control. But the real motivation of this is even more sinister. Most union contracts are indexed to the federal minimum wage...so raising that a few dollars will result in MILLIONS being sent to the unions and, of course, back to DNC coffers.

    Raising the minimum wage isn't being done to help the poor and it won't; it's being done to help unions and democrats at the expense of the working poor. (And to give the appearance that Big Brother Democrats are looking out for you.) That's the truth.

    1. Re:unions by worldthinker · · Score: 1

      The real issue is "Living Wage". $15 an hour which is just starting to gain traction isn't even enough money to rent a family sized apartment in many cities. And $15 was a substantial amount over the current Federal minimum wage. When the minimum wage is hiked, the wages above it are also often hiked. The key is to get people closer to a Living Wage which is closer to $25/hour in some cities. As we've seen, the market failed to provide a living wage for a substantial portion of its citizens with more and more falling into the crevice of poverty.

  220. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, but that's cleaning environments designed for human operation. No humans means the environment can be designed specifically to be operated in and cleaned by robots. I don't expect the kitchen to look anything like an existing kitchen if such a thing takes off.

  221. I can make their robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should design the robots they will use. The Urinator-5000, and the Spitburger Deluxe. I can make a killing on the spit and urine refill cartridges.

    Profit!

  222. problem with the logic by sxpert · · Score: 1

    there's a big problem with that logic...

    so, you don't have employees that you pay 15$ / hour... means you have no customers to eat the junk food coming out the robots.
    it's as simple as that...

    unless, you end up paying way more taxes for the state to give to all those people that you fired, so that they can come in your mickeyD and eat the burgers.

    think a little bit more, and it's similar to giving those burgers away, and stop using money altogether...

    1. Re:problem with the logic by kaybee · · Score: 1

      It's simple. If you pay $15/hr it comes out of your own pocket. If society takes care of the unemployed the burden is forced onto everybody else too.

  223. F&B Here by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

    As someone who has worked in F&B, that is Food and Beverage for those of you who have never been a part of the Hospitality industry, I've thought about robots in the workplace for a long time. And by a long time I mean going back to when I was reading sci-fi by Harry Harrison who wrote about such places that were purely staffed by robots.

    Knowing the nuances of F&B I honestly question that any of the robots that we have these days could replace a human worker. That is just because you see a "robot" that is able to flip some burgers is doing it's thing over and over and over but can it go to the back of the shop to get the frozen burgers out of the freezer? Can it clean up the burger that fell on the ground (oh it will happen) and is starting to stink? Can it do any of the other jobs that it has not been designed for?

    There likely will be a point, very likely in my lifetime, that we have robots that are sophisticated enough to replace low level workers. That time is not yet. For right now my burgers are going to be made by humans and personally, downvotes incoming, I'd like them to be paid well.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    1. Re:F&B Here by eWarz · · Score: 1

      You aren't thinking outside the box. The robot IS the freezer. Food comes in cartridges that are promptly loaded by the sole human being working there. The robot assembles food inside a chamber specifically designed for that type of food, so it will never drop the food or make it the wrong way. This isn't about a robot that acts like a human, this is about a robot making food.

  224. Customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When five people are left holding all the money, what will they do with the rest of us?

  225. CEO Robot by nikanth · · Score: 1

    Cant we make a robot to do the CEO job?

  226. finally by Tom · · Score: 1

    It's been long overdue that we replace mindless jobs with robots. There are so many jobs out there that should not be done by human beings.

    The main reason it hasn't happened is that we cling to this outdated model of having to work for a living. Just for the moment make one step away from the hyper-competitiveness we've all been brainwashed into. Consider the productive output of your country to be a team result. (funny how "teamwork" is en vogue when it comes to producing something, but not when discussing the profits from it). Now consider the crazy idea of distributing the profit, or let's say half of the profit, among everyone in the country simply as a way to say that all of us in one way or the other contributed to it. Let the filthy rich keep the other half, fine with me, we don't have to put them up against a wall.

    Imagine (to quote Lennon) if everyone in western countries were given a small income by the government, simply for existing. No conditions. Maybe you are working somewhere, maybe you are an artist, maybe you just make people happy around you, maybe you are taking care of a home and children. It doesn't matter, one way or the other, you are contributing to society.

    If people had enough to survive, they would not be so willing to do mindless jobs for tiny money. Companies that rely on shit jobs would be faced with two choices: Pay enough for them to make it interesting for people to take the job, or replace them with machines. The amount of innovation this pressure would generate, can you imagine?

    Let McD replace workers with robots. I'm sure 90% of the jobs there can be automated and it would be better for humanity if they would. A thinking, feeling being should not flip burgers for eight hours a day.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  227. Robots don't spit in burgers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want that type of niche service you are going to get charged for it.

  228. Get robot's to eat McDonald's, now that's useful by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1

    Good, maybe these robot workers can tell their robot friends about McDonald's so THEY can eat there, thus eliminating humans from the McDonald's equation at all, now that would be useful

  229. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy, tax antisocial behavior by taxing robots at $350000 per robot replacing a human worker ;)

  230. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

    ITYM DeFry. [cymbal]

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  231. Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure the banks already did this 20 years ago. Stop trying to make this news.

  232. Re: And then those employees burn down your rest by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Nope. That is true for CFA, but not mcd.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  233. Here's the bit he isn't telling you by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Tech only gets cheaper. No matter what the minimum wage is, hell even if we bring back slavery and make it zero, sooner or later the robots would be cheaper than the workers. Companies around the world use the "we will automate" argument to suppress wages, but it's a bullshit argument because there is no way to escape the threat in it. They are GOING to automate everything that can be automated. At most the minimum wage change may accelerate it a little... so what ?

    There is only two possible outcomes.
    1) The one that has always happened in history repeats and the automation actually creates MORE jobs throughout the economy than it absorbs, including many new minimum wage jobs, the workers would then still benefit from the higher minimum wage (as would everybody else since taxpayers no longer have to subsidize company's wage bills by having workers that still need welfare to live).
    2) This becomes the automation that changes the historical pattern, job after job dissapears - and we enter a world where everything can be and is automated. When that happens we will have to rethink the entire concept of wages and earning a living anyway. For starters, if we don't, all the rich people starve too - nobody will buy your products if nobody has money. The evidence suggests we're headed to that outcome, getting there a little faster or slower isn't going to change the scale of the transition. If that is where we go, then if anything, it happening a little faster may actually give it the force to overcome the legendary inertia of governments and conservatives (the ones who believe living must be 'earned' as a moral thing) a bit quicker and actually decrease the collateral damage as we figure out how to live in this new kind of world and economy.

    Either way - the threat lacks substance, you can't make an efficient threat unless you offer the person you are threatening a way to avoid the outcome. Merely offering to postpone it a bit won't change anybody's minds (and it shouldn't, it's utterly irrational to change your mind based on a promise to postpone rather than prevent a bad thing).

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  234. Yeah fuck min wages. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you pay taxes?
    Thanks for paying the welfare to give those workers the living wage that their employers wont.

    Nevermind the wasted money as it passes thru the govt on its way from your pocket to the welfare workers pocket.
    Nevermind the small army of paper shufflers who oversee the welfare system.

    Me? I don't pay taxes.
    Thanks for keeping my burgers cheap tho. Sucker.

  235. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I work they installed robots as part of a labour reduction project in 2001... robots are still doing fine.. yearly maintenance on the amounts to greasing.. I think one servo motor has been replaced in that time. Where the expense will be for mcds, is if they decide to change product configuration, it will cost them in retooling/ programming

  236. What you are forgetting is ... by Laxator2 · · Score: 1

    ... regulation. Just because you can build a fully automated restaurant, it does not mean that you'll be allowed to operate it.

    McDonalds is large enough to lobby for laws that will make such an idea non-marketable.

    Just like the municipality-run ISPs, which have been feasible for more than a decade now, but are illegal due to lobbying of the big ISPs.

  237. Human interaction with humans won't go away. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    The robots are coming - that's a cold hard fact and there is no two ways about that.

    But there is another hard fact: Humans need human interaction and they want interaction with humans that heightens their self-worth. One of the reasons I visit my favorite cafe and leave up to 150â a month there is because there are nice young ladies behind the counter, both cute snd polite, willing to take care of my cafe latte needs. I've got machines at home that could do the same thing but somehow those are not quite as good at smiling and holding a little conversation.

    It's for that reason that a core of gastonomy jobs will remain, even if robots do most of the gruntwork.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  238. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If robots can't handle security, just have one human manager/guard there. No need to have 5 low-wage people flipping burgers, taking orders, etc. Have robots do all easy tasks and let humans handle the tasks robots can't. Like cleaning tables and managing customers. You can even pay this single manager more than the minimum wage, since you don't need to five minimum-wage burger-flippers there.

    Arguments that robots are taking the jobs are laughable, as the jobs they are taking are not worth human dignity to work on. Or are there really people whose highest aspiration in life is flipping burgers until the day they die?

  239. Bull shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There might be some job losses because of an higher minimum wage, but it won't through automation. If automation was viable it would be done already.

  240. SEIU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robots are cheaper until they organize and demand contracts with lots of breaks and pension terms. Actual AI, anyone?

  241. well by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    Time to tax the sale, use and maintenance of robots to support the minimum basic income then.

    Goes doubly for companies that shift their profits out of the country to avoid paying tax.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  242. No Problem with the Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll get cheap enough to own at home. Then people will just eat at home or pack meals from home (with exothermic re-heater packs), more often.

  243. Do robots eat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody will buy things if they are not well paid.
    But nazis (now neocon teapartys or "liberals" in Europe) like to kill by millions and Who cares?

  244. This is just epic bullshit by SadButResolved · · Score: 1

    McD has been automating everything they could for years. Replacing inefficient worker? Right, here is what they are going to do, blow a bunch fricken smoke about how its costing them profits.
    Then in 2 years when their profits go up because more people at 15$ can actually afford thier crap food, they will SFU.

  245. Re: Australia has US$15 minimum wage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am constantly shocked at the poverty levels in the US whenever I visit there. One doesn't need to walk far from 5th Ave to see the people under the cardboard in the street. I am always thankful at those moments for the lucky circumstance around my birth in Australia. I won the genetic lottery. Of course, not tolerating a system that produces such things is a major part of it. It's high time Americans stepped up and threw off their shackles. The real problem is the ingrained slavery they seem to carry in their DNA and just can't seem to move beyond.

  246. Self defeating by kinohead · · Score: 1

    Yes, McDonalds is so crafty. They will be defunding the class that most often frequents their restaurants. Brilliant economics; destroy the economic base of those who buy your product... What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    "Moogs! Would YOU buy that for a quarter?" CMK
  247. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work in Brazil, here you can hire a developer or an engineer for 3usd/h

  248. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    As evidenced by the incomes of judges. None of the public prisons ever thought of rewarding the judges who send them inmates they can put to work while billing the state for housing and feeding them. Just shows how fairminded the corporations are. At least they figured out that, if you want judges to send you lots and lots of people who really don't belong in prison for as long as possible because they committed the horrifying crime of truancy... you should pay the judges to convict, it's economic incentivising at it best. Surely you can only get better outcomes when the justice system is responding to market forces right ? The market does everything better right?

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  249. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    We're talking about McDonalds... without worker spit their food would have no taste whatsoever.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  250. and then??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bunch of idiots! What will happen when you have driven out of any job that can be automated every single human worker? Robot can be more cost effective at flipping burgers but they don't eat burgers, they don't need housing and they don't watch movies...automation make sense only when it don't push out humans from the process, We must always remember that we are "resources" and "consumers".

  251. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

    If the wage continues to stagnate they will still buy the robots and dump those workers!

    Of course, eventually, because as the technology improves, it also gets cheaper. But they're not going to do that for as long as human labor is cheaper, which is the entire point people don't get, you're accelerating the process toward automation. Wages are a result of competition. They're low because you're competing with other people who are willing to take the job for that wage. And the moment that technology improves to where automation can do your job, you're now competing with the cost of the machine.

    Personally I think robots are the worst thing they'll ever do...

    You might be right, and then those costs will be factored in when companies decide whether to automate or not. That said, all your examples are terrible, because they're solvable with replacing the jobs they're talking about and adding one human security guard. Still comes out cheaper.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  252. Food industry needs to be regulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That and a lot more to prevent job loss.

    But the government is for the 1% so we're pretty much screwed.

  253. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solution: Walk-up/Drive-Thru only fast food restaurants.

    Some are already like this.

    You could continue to offer a dine-in experience for an additional charge. That additional charge covers paying a bouncer to monitor the place, even if it is at $15 an hour, it's just one person, chances are a $1 surcharge per customer will more than cover him.

  254. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    Consider that menial tasks like sweeping the floor, bagging the fries, and flipping burgers merits nothing like $15 an hour. It's an entry level job in a world where staying at entry level for life is commonly known to be a bad idea. People not able to make it on minimum wage are doing it wrong. This is why the United States doesn't need to bring in (or allow in) any more unskilled Third World labor. There aren't even going to be enough entry level jobs for those already living here.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  255. Congrats you've earned it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all of you who demanded $15/hr to mess up my order and spit in my food congratulations! You are getting exactly what you deserve. Maybe now I can get good service and fresh food and not the wrong order that's been sitting too long.

  256. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sound like a BLM supporter tactic.

  257. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by dj245 · · Score: 1

    Except that it's not a straight-up comparison between the employee and the machine. When the machine doesn't make fries, it's idle. When the employee doesn't make fries, they're cleaning, etc.

    When the employee makes fries, he makes a mess. When a properly designed machine makes fries, it won't. A decent machine will be largely self-cleaning. The employee has to clean the fryolator nightly (if only to de-sludge and replace filters, and put the same shit oil back.) And then he has to clean the wall behind the machine, and the floor under the machine. At least, you pray that this happens nightly. During my stint in fast food, that was the practice, but it does not happen everywhere.

    You're damned right it's not a straight-up comparison. The machine reduces your cleaning needs in the bargain.

    You can't just design a machine that doesn't need to be cleaned. Everything that touches food needs to be cleaned. Food has to be removed from all the cracks and crevices. There are invariably parts of the machine which are more difficult to clean than others. It is inevitable, and those parts have to be cleaned too. Not doing this is asking for trouble- it is the main reason for the Blue Bell Listeriosis outbreak and countless other food recalls.

    I agree that machines could be designed to reduce cleaning, but cleaning of automated food service equipment is a nontrivial and very important part of the operation. Taking the humans out of the work can actually cause unsanitary conditions. Most humans wouldn't use a spatula to flip burgers if the spatula was very dirty. They would clean it, or get another one. The machine is going to keep going because that's what it was programmed to do. The automated burger flipping mechanism may be buried inside the machine where it can't even be seen.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  258. The height of your contribution is the FFbot?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? With your engineering skills and manufacturing capability the best thing you could envision to improve the human race was a french-fry packing bot? YOU should spend your visionless life packing fries in a box yourselves.

    I applaud robots replacing workers in hazardous jobs, but if you are not making space bots or mining bots GTFO. Any fast food joint that goes to robots will no longer get my business... and I'll laugh til I on the day some hacker reprograms your precious bots to pack fries where the sun don't shine.

  259. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1

    Still in business: http://www.westfieldwhip.com/

  260. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can't just design a machine that doesn't need to be cleaned.

    but you can design a machine that only needs to be cleaned occasionally.

    Everything that touches food needs to be cleaned. Food has to be removed from all the cracks and crevices.

    It can be designed literally without cracks and crevices, and with self-flushing systems for any parts where that's not true.

    I agree that machines could be designed to reduce cleaning, but cleaning of automated food service equipment is a nontrivial and very important part of the operation.

    Taking the humans out of the process is nontrivial, but removing them will actually improve cleanliness and quality! Every leaf of lettuce can be UV-inspected for contaminants before it's used and every slice of tomato can be checked for sugar content with laser spectroscopy and rejected if it's sour, let alone has a discoloration indicative of some defect. A human touch may be beneficial for more complex foods for the foreseeable future, but the sad truth of fast food is that the human touch is often primarily a vector for pathogens.

    Most humans wouldn't use a spatula to flip burgers if the spatula was very dirty. They would clean it, or get another one. The machine is going to keep going because that's what it was programmed to do.

    The machine will both clean its own spatula and scrape its own grill, and it will sense when the bucket is full and a robot will come to empty it. It's not 1985 any more. These days, we can use visual processing to determine whether a spatula (or grill) is dirty. I would scrape every time, and use visual processing to determine if I had been successful.

    The automated burger flipping mechanism may be buried inside the machine where it can't even be seen.

    Personally, if I were building an automated restaurant, I'd put the machines where they could be seen, with shutters to pull down to hide them if I needed to perform maintenance. People would come in just to watch the machines work. How very postmodern.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  261. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Additionally, I KNOW someone won't be spitting or adding any other 'secret sauce' to my food in the back.

    A: Too much oil/grease dripping from the machine gears.

    B: Pwned computer. Got knows what it's been doing with (to?) your fries, and now you can't even trust the event logs.

    15 years ago I was at a Microsoft? convention in FL (maybe Tampa.) I saw an automatic fry machine working back then. I was amazed -- and there were people working right next to it, and I imagine glad since they didn't have to directly work with the boiling hot grease.

    You still need to trust your workers, else they'll put hamburger in the potato hopper and flattened potatoes in the meat hopper. Or something even worse.

    Like I was reading and thinking earlier (#52183483) , McD might not be the absolute best experience but it's all about branding and trust: it's a known experience.

  262. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    There is no 'clean occasionally' when handling food. It's 'clean and sanitize daily', otherwise you start killing customers.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  263. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by dryeo · · Score: 1

    My local grocery store tried that as well. The self-checkouts are mostly empty and now one of the stores selling points is that all (human operated) checkouts are open, Sat-Sun 10:00AM-10:00PM. It's nice as the time spent waiting in line is a minute or two and humans are much nicer to deal with then a machine that's always bugging you to follow a certain routine for theft prevention.
    They also pay their employees better then minimum wage, treat them good enough that there is no talk about unions and their prices are about the same as the new Walmart and didn't change when Walmart opened.
    They're also profitable as well.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  264. Businesses aren't guaranteed a business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their business model depends on low wages. When prices increase and people can no longer survive on those wages they of course want more money. They will have to either adapt to the market or change their business model.

    The robotic thing is interesting but they will likely find that many will object to being served food by a robot. Their brand perception will suffer. They are already known for being cheap and low quality. Robots won't help much with that.

    This comes down to the fact that no business is guaranteed a business model that works forever. They will adapt or they will die. Personally I hope it's the latter. Terrible cheap food with massive health impact.

    Something no business is considering too is their impact on the economy. Eliminating jobs has a ripple effect on the economy. That's less overall money going into the economy for consumers to spend on products and services. If unemployment increased to 50% all of a sudden due to automation who exactly would be buying burgers being served by their robots? Business does not exist in a vacuum. Most business owners rationalize their stupid choices by not looking at the whole picture. Many of them are committing economic suicide and are just in denial about it. You could loose weight by cutting off a leg but the loss of that leg and the blood loss might have some long term affects on you.

  265. Social Workers by cgfsd · · Score: 1

    What upsets me the most about $15/hour for fast food workers is that is more than we pay our social workers. Jobs that require a college education and help people. Any unskilled idiot who is willing to show up can work fast food, so why should they get paid more than other people who require college education and intelligence?

  266. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    In your nicely formatted list, you can replace "Robots" with "Minimum wage workers", and it will still hold true. All that stuff is what MANAGEMENT would need to take care of, and a human one at that.

  267. Customers? by neuron132 · · Score: 1

    Who the f#ck is going to buy the burgers, then?

  268. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Humans are just better to deal with. I was "encouraged" by a store clerk to use the self-check once - the store clerk broke the 18 kg bag of dog food - what a mess. It would have been quicker to just do what I always do - use the human cashier. Friendlier too.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  269. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    We're talking about McDonalds... without worker spit their food would have no taste whatsoever.

    And then there's the "secret sauce." Yuck!

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  270. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    I guess you don't live in a city that has food inspectors and lets the media publish the fines, etc.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  271. ITT: Tell proles a pay raise is bad for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say your fast food restaurant is open from 6am-midnight. That is 18 hours.
    Now say you need to cover a position at $7.25/hour. It doesn't matter how many people you spread that over. It might be 3 people at 6 hours each. Doesn't matter.
    7.25*18=$130.50 each day to cover that position.
    Lets say you are open 364 days a year (closed on Christmas)
    130.5*364=$47,502

    If you can buy a robot for $35,000 that can do the same work then you can afford to replace people with it AT THE CURRENT MINIMUM WAGE. You will pay it off within the year.

    The captcha for this post was "scornful".
    Indeed.

  272. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > (if only to de-sludge and replace filters, and put the same shit oil back.)

    Moron detected!

    No, they don't put the same oil back in.

    Source: I fucking cleaned these pieces of shit for 2 years.

    >And then he has to clean the wall behind the machine, and the floor under the machine.

    And the air 'filters'. And yeah, it happened nightly.

    >The machine reduces your cleaning needs in the bargain.

    Not in the least. The machine will get covered in oil and need to be cleaned daily as well. Even if you make a machine that can tolerate the buildup of nasty-ass fry oil all over it, the FDA will fail you on its inspection.

    >During my stint in fast food, that was the practice, but it does not happen everywhere.

    So you're an idiot twice over. "it happened with me but I'm sure it doesn't always happen." That's even dumber than using an anecdote to attempt to prove a generalization.

  273. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Only 12 weeks maternity leave? What barbaric country still does that?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  274. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Ype. It's going to happen at a lower and lower cost point, so we'd better figure out ways to put money into consumers hands or we won't have any consumers left.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  275. So simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15 dollar an hour will make every job desirable. All those losers working will be out of jobs and hardworking intelligent people will be working. Seems good to me mabye the mexicans will go home if they can't get work here which was the whole problem in the first place.. greedy business owners such as mc donalds hire people who don't deserve jobs to save money now the government is not allowing it because California is turning into little mexico.

  276. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

    2 robots at $70k is still cheaper than one employee.

    You'd be correct, except for "math". At $15 an hour full time, that's roughly $30k per year per employee. If I add another 33% for McDonald's INCREDIBLY GENEROUS benefits (lol) that's $40k. So a human is still cheaper by almost half, and you haven't begun to pay for electricity or maintenance on said robots, much less the software development, QA and maintenance contract costs, to say nothing of upgrades and safety training, insurance and safety cages.

    I have no doubt that robots will eventually render all of us idle, but $35k per pop versus a minimum wage employee, the economics don't come close to working. This is FUD, plain and simple.

    --
    This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
  277. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

    Agreed. FoxConn is dumping 60,000 employees for robots and their "minimum wage" is a something like a moldy loaf of bread for a 15 hour day... https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    --
    This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
  278. Another reason not to eat there by whitroth · · Score: 1

    As well as that I've read that 95% of what goes on in the restaurants, from where they get all the food, to the uniforms, and most of the profits go to... MacDonald's, Inc. And I mean, having to pay people a living wage just cuts into the CEO's bonuses and dividends *so* much....

                                  mark

  279. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

    - You wont need the space or restroom facilities for a crew.
    - Without people Minimal HVAC will be required.

    Minor quibble, but the fast food places and restaurants I've seen only have one set of bathrooms for both customers and staff, so you can't get rid of those. Similar issue with HVAC.

  280. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    I agree - there are plenty of ways to keep the place clean even with a mostly robot staff.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  281. Don't listen to reasons, excuses etc. by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    This is what is happening: The Macroparasite, comprised of government, finance, and business, identifies and targets all assets of the mass of people in order to absorb those assets. Those assets are time, money, jobs, and anything else you can think of as an asset. The Macroparasite has been trying to turn them into money in its own pocket since the beginning of time. However, there have always been inefficiencies in identifying and absorbing the assets of The Mass. But with the advent of advanced computer and communications technology the Macroparasite has become extremely good at taking your assets. If you plot the advance of high tech against the wealth gap you will see what I mean. American industries could not have gone overseas at the rate they have been in recent decades without the revolution in computers and communications technology. Why did they go? They were transferred overseas to absorb your job asset and put the money in it's own pocket. The fast food industry would eventually absorb its jobs by way of robots even at a 3 dollar per hour rate eventually. It is not about the cost of workers; it is about the money workers take from the bottom line at ANY pay and benefits level. They are transferring the job asset of the mass into their own pockets and blaming The Mass for its greed to have a decent life....or any life at all. As for money, tuition increases are far beyond inflation and interest rates. The future debt load of today's graduate is unconscionable. The education business part of the Macroparasite, in its overarching greed, has realized that future earnings are an asset of a significant part of The Mass and it wants them. Student debt is now over one trillion dollars, more than all credit card debt. It used to be that an education was something you bought and paid for and the benefit accrued to you and your family over your lifetime. Not anymore. The benefit is rapidly being transferred into the pockets of the Macroparasite. Also, interest rates in this country have taken 400 billion dollars a year away from depositors in interest and transferred it directly into the pockets of the finance community part of the Macroparasite. And now it wants to take what you have in the present through NEGATIVE interest rates. Effectively saying that all you have belongs to them. As for your financial future, you don't have one. The U.S. Government part of the Macroparasite, by way of the Congress, Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve System, has saddled you and your children and grandchildren with about 100 trillion dollars of unsustainable debt and obligations. As for the rights asset of The Mass, look around you. Rights are under relentless assault by the Macroparasite on all fronts from free speech to gun rights etc. What can you do? Not much. Hyperliberals intent on saving everyone from everything, including your rights, and the smug, fatcat lobbyists of smug, fatcat corporations in conspiracy with a corrupt and incompetent government have stripped you, the citizen, of practically every form of influence. We even have a President who, in his recent State of The Union Address, referred to the American People as "noise." But you still have the vote. And if a sledgehammer is all they leave you to express your anger, perhaps you should swing it.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  282. You're missing the point(s) by smittydc · · Score: 1

    Three points:

    1) This is basic labor vs capital economics. Our monetary policy for the past 15+ years has basically made capital free. When given the choice between building an expensive robot factory vs one that uses labor, and interest rates are 2-3%, you might as well build the robot one. So there is less demand for labor and the value of labor declines = less wage bargaining ability.

    2) McDonalds corporate charges a franchise fee of 12% of revenue (not profits). Since Pappa Ronald controls the cost of inputs (fries, burgers, etc) and the prices you can charge, that basically leaves franchise owners with one option for making money: screw over their employees. Corporate McDonalds averaged $5 billion in profits over the past few years, by the way.

    3) Pay your workers a decent wage and charge prices that reflect actual value. I really don't care if my cheeseburger costs $1.50 instead of 99 cents.

  283. You know what's cheaper... by rochrist · · Score: 1

    Than McDonalds? Buying fresh hamburger and making your own. Tastes better too.

  284. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    If you turn the restaurant into a vending machine there is no need for restrooms. :)

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  285. Re:Automation is a GOOD SIDE EFFECT of minimum wag by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    We MAY need to use other policies to maintain full employment

    Why?

    In Ye Olde Times, when there was actual scarcity and plenty of work, it was sensible (even required) to mark an individual's value by their contribution. But we're in, or at least very near, a post-scarcity society where production of goods and food for everyone does not require even a majority of the population to contribute.

    Busy work can only do so much, and if we as a society keep placing profits/capitalism and low taxes/small government above all else there won't be much busy work to be had (and most of that can/will be automated away).

    There are only two plausible outcomes I can see: blood revolution, beginning with food riots, or a universal income with programs aimed at stagnating the population and eventually decreasing it. We can't keep limping along with increasing income inequality forever.

  286. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    There is no 'clean occasionally' when handling food. It's 'clean and sanitize daily', otherwise you start killing customers.

    One of us has a certified food handler for a partner, and it's not you. It's not clean and sanitize daily, but as necessary — for example, when contaminated. At minimum that is daily. However, the machine can absolutely be designed to handle that step itself.

    Putting the produce in pre-sealed containers dramatically minimizes contamination to begin with. The single largest source of contamination is a human hand, usually because it has shit on it. Minimizing human interaction is going to substantially reduce contamination. Taking the human hands out of the mix completely eliminates cross-contamination, as well.

    The truth is that humans are dirty.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  287. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    One of us has a certified food handler for a partner, and it's not you. It's not clean and sanitize daily ... At minimum that is daily.

    Alrighty, glad we cleared that up.

    However, a more expensive machine can absolutely be designed to handle that step itself.

    FTFY.

    Putting the produce in pre-sealed containers dramatically minimizes contamination to begin with.

    Meaning more waste that has to be hauled away... gonna make that robot more complex again?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  288. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by MTBaldwin · · Score: 1

    Deductibles aren't cheap.

  289. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Putting the produce in pre-sealed containers dramatically minimizes contamination to begin with.

    Meaning more waste that has to be hauled away... gonna make that robot more complex again?

    It doesn't have to be waste; the containers can be reused. They can go out empty on the same truck that brings new ones in. And you are completely ass-backwards about the machine complexity; putting the food into special containers will actually reduce the complexity of the machine substantially. Firing bullets from a magazine is far easier than loading each one individually, and the same is true of tomato slices.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  290. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Tran · · Score: 1

    Crew use customer bathrooms - no savings there. Unless the customers are also robots, but what are tehy doing at McDondald's then...

    Same HVAC requirements. Customers do still eat at McDonalds. They like to be cool. Robots prefer cool too, generally, for improved longevity.

    Building size will still be the same. I see no reason for that shrinkage. Even maintenance service requires space. And people will still have to work in these locations.

    Wait times won't change.

    Consistency will improve.

    Now the secret sauce will possibly be machine lube that drips because of overzealous maintenance workers... Some of our robots where i work... Ugh.

    You'll still need more than one person there... Robots clean for crap in places like that. Someone still has to provide customer service. Drive through will still need a person. ATM type payments would really suck in terms of speed. And reduce customers.
    The only thing that I could see robotized is making of sandwiches at current state of tech.

  291. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

    UV scanners, laser spectrosopy, and visual analysis means you're no longer talking about $35k robots.

  292. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    I won't contest most of your points for a restaurant that's not solely drive-though, but the following have issues;

    Someone still has to provide customer service. Drive through will still need a person.

    -- Remote Call center in Podunk wherever for drive through, customer service, Building or quality issues etc.

    ATM type payments would really suck in terms of speed. And reduce customers.

    -- I haven't paid cash at a fast food joint in the last 10 years. All POS cc transactions and under $25 I don't even need to sign. Swipe and run. No ATM required.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  293. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    It doesn't have to be waste; the containers can be reused. They can go out empty on the same truck that brings new ones in.

    More complexity.

    Firing bullets from a magazine is far easier than loading each one individually, and the same is true of tomato slices.

    Guns don't self-clean.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  294. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes but when a burger price soars to $10, people won't care if they order from a human or not.

    These types of jobs were meant to be transitionary, not a career. And who thinks it's fair that fast food employees make the same rate as a fire fighter, for example? Prepare for job losses, and further complaints from those who don't understand why it doesn't make sense to earn that much cooking and bagging food.. ridiculous...

  295. What are they going to do when.... by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    The CEO has 100,000 robotic employees and ZERO customers that can afford his products?

  296. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Guns don't self-clean.

    They could, but that would add more complexity than the gun itself. That won't be the case with a self-cleaning hamburger machine.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  297. Pay-back time by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    About 2333 hour. Good business choice.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  298. Still easy not to eat at Mcdonalds... by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    ..... Those $35K robot will cost quite a bit in lost sales. Neo-Liberal corporate tools forget their customers are people, too.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  299. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    Not at all like that. Buggy whip production wasn't automated. Buggy whips became obsolete. A totally different thing.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  300. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please show me a state that has actually instituted a 15$ wage right now. You can't. The states that I am aware of have made the 15$ minimum wage a gradual stepped increase over some number of years. Some as long as 10. The GP there isn't wrong about this being a straw man. You are also not completely wrong about this speeding things up. That's irrelevant though. The companies were going to replace as many as they can. I'm one of the automaters. So what if it comes 3 or 4 years sooner? You're simply trying to shift blame back to the dirty poor folks because you're a conservative dbag. I've read your posts for years. You can't bullshit me.

  301. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Tran · · Score: 1

    Remote call center for all that, yeah, I'd like to see that. One thing for some support, but food issues? Doubtful.

    When I wrote ATM type, I meant POS... I like you, I just swipe - but pin and chip - see below... . However there are many many more who use cash.

    And so far I have not seen a PIN and chip run smoothly for long - cards getting inserted incorrectly, wrong time, etc. Lots of issues that will slow down a drive through line or even in store, even if only 1 in 10 transactions has issues.

    I am not a luddite in automation sense - my job success has been on the back of helping automating people's processes sometimes (rarely) to the point of eliminating said person (or job)...

    The social consequences of all this are real interesting to think through...

    In our case we are a small manufacturing company in the US. 16 years ago when I joined this company we where little over 300 people and extremely inefficient. Now little less than 200, and so lean it has exposed other negatives...
    Gotta run...

  302. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

    Food trucks already exist prior to the robot revolution, but they haven't driven restaurants out of business.

  303. risk appetite and risk tolerance are subjective by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    To some businesses, switching onto machines right away seems like a good idea. Poor foresight I guess.

    I would say that your post is one of the best posts I've ever since. There is a lot to it that should give people pause in trying to understand the effects of raising the minimum. With that said, the decision to switch to robots is not necessarily one that is 100% factual or objective, but one of instinct.

    In this particular sentence I'm quoting, you suggest that early adoption might be poor foresight. But that is only for companies that are expecting early yields or if expected yields are the only consideration.

    This doesn't apply to companies that are looking at the long term and from whom the additional cost up front is seen as a form of insurance against the risk of not doing the transition. You might want to adopt early to immediately assess the risk, to understand the nature of operations. You might to add the additional cost of an early transition because the transition can give you an edge (in terms of quality or quantity) against competitors.

    A not-so-perfect analogy of swallowing upfront costs as a strategic move is Amazon selling its Kindle Fire line of products at a lost. It is natural for a business to run on the red for the first few years, or to operate on the red when trying to position itself favorably. So the decision to having an otherwise unnecessary cost upfront early one, by itself, is not necessarily poor foresight.

    You do, however, highlight both 1) the real dynamics of robots phasing out workers, and 2) the acceleration rate of such workforce replacement.

    It is at this point that we need to stop looking at this purely from a private business or economics point of view, and look at this as a matter of social/national policy. Sooner or later we are going to have to face some (or all of the following):

    1. the possibility of adopting some form of basic income
    2. the necessity to move to single payer health care plan and bring health care costs down (which are a factor that prevent many white-collar professionals from opening their own businesses)
    3. have a national policy for the continuing education of our workforce - including moving focus away from 4-year college education and into vocational/adult training.
    4. do away with double taxation which is the primary cause for companies to move operations (and job and wealth) to other countries.

    This nation needs to have a better social safety net, a better educated workforce (hopefully a workforce of autodidacts) and a simplified corporate tax code.

    We have the capacity to do so. We simply lack the foresight and will (and we will pay for it.)

    1. Re:risk appetite and risk tolerance are subjective by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You might want to adopt early to immediately assess the risk, to understand the nature of operations.

      We call those pilots, and they're done on a small scale and considered a sub-optimal cost paid to gain organizational knowledge so as to improve the strategic decisions made later.

      You might to add the additional cost of an early transition because the transition can give you an edge (in terms of quality or quantity) against competitors.

      Adopting a young technology early in its viability lifetime tends to put you in a position where you have to absorb a lot of cost and hold out for a long-term ROI; and then, when your competitor invests in the same technology 2-3 years later, their absolute minimum prices to break even are lower than yours, and you can't drop you prices to meet theirs without filing Chapter 11 (you don't have to Chapter 7 if you can continue business operations if you can restructure your debt well enough to keep operating). You are now behind, and you are doomed to be behind for the next decade or so.

      A not-so-perfect analogy of swallowing upfront costs as a strategic move is Amazon selling its Kindle Fire line of products at a lost.

      That's a *FALSE* analogy. Razor-and-blade or loss-leader model sells two separate goods as a combined good: the razor is sold at a loss, and the consumer will *necessarily* buy the blades continuously as a consumable, thus the amortized profit on the blades makes up for the loss on the razor. That's different from making an up-front investment which should provide lower operating costs: loss-leaders are a revenue strategy, while business process management focuses on production cost strategies.

      It is at this point that we need to stop looking at this purely from a private business or economics point of view, and look at this as a matter of social/national policy.

      I'm actually functioning on my own economic theories because I needed a theory specifically designed for policy development. It's what I do.

      the possibility of adopting some form of basic income

      Citizen's Dividend is the most optimum model. We can represent public-aid welfare costs as 55% of the total Federal income taxes collected; merge OASDI with the tax brackets, cut each tax bracket by that proportion, lay down a 17% flat tax along side, and then adjust them to smooth the total curve. That essentially locks the Dividend to a proportion of the GDP per capita, which necessarily grows continuously and doesn't fluctuate down too badly even in the worst recessions. That means as we get wealthier, the poorest of poor become wealthier in exactly the same proportion; and so long as the fluctuation doesn't take that Dividend payment down below the viability point (which becomes less likely over time), it can't fail as a safety net. At a point, a recession which breaks the Dividend would necessarily break the economy as a whole--no welfare system survives that.

      have a national policy for the continuing education of our workforce - including moving focus away from 4-year college education and into vocational/adult training.

      I do not agree with the state-supported workforce development model. It is a handout to businesses at the expense of individuals; it removes small risks from businesses and converts them to *enormous* risks on individuals; and it wastes a lot of labor time providing worthless job training (because we over-supply job markets and wind up with unemployed people who instead could have been trained in something else, thus the

    2. Re:risk appetite and risk tolerance are subjective by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      You might want to adopt early to immediately assess the risk, to understand the nature of operations.

      We call those pilots, and they're done on a small scale and considered a sub-optimal cost paid to gain organizational knowledge so as to improve the strategic decisions made later.

      Not really. Without going into details, I've worked in projects (energy sector) where it was imperative to adopt new technology to immediately break into an emerging market (and we did it successfully). This was nothing like a pilot, but a massive, winner-takes-all overhaul.

      a better educated workforce

      Workforce development should be the responsibility of the businesses.

      There is "should", and there is "is". I know for a fact that training used to be a business priority. Not anymore, not for the last 25 years. We can deliberate on whether businesses should or should not do workforce development. If that shit is not happening, then what? This is where the government comes. And it did before quite successfully (the GI Bill.)

      and a simplified corporate tax code

      Easier said than done.

      I didn't say it was easy. I said that it is necessary. The ease or difficulty of doing something has little relation to its necessity or lack thereof. We either do it or we don't (and we live with the consequences thereafter.)

    3. Re:risk appetite and risk tolerance are subjective by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Not really. Without going into details, I've worked in projects (energy sector) where it was imperative to adopt new technology to immediately break into an emerging market (and we did it successfully). This was nothing like a pilot, but a massive, winner-takes-all overhaul.

      I was speaking in the more-general sense. There are definitely cases in which an emerging market appears and you need to *move* to get in on it. In general, we are discussing existing markets (e.g. McDonalds serving hamburgers), and efforts which streamline our efficiency to reduce costs.

      What you describe is similar to American Express in the 80s. AmEx was only able to handle several thousand customers at a fairly low load. As AmEx grew, the transactions per customer grew, the amount of data required for fraud analysis grew, and so the number of fraud analysts per 1,000 customers increased. That means AmEx could initially hire 1 analyst per 10,000 accounts, then it was 1 per 5,000, 1 per 1,000, 1 per 500, 1 per 50, and so forth. At 1 per 50, the cost of American Express's service is 200 TIMES HIGHER; and at a point, you'd have to hire multiple analysts per new account.

      To handle this, American Express commissioned and had built the Authorizor's Assistant. American Express AA is an expert system which retrieves and assesses all data related to a financial transaction, determines the likelihood that the transaction is fraudulent, and then presents its decision, the data, its interpretation of the data (how and why each data point factored into the decision), and even a highlight of data it knows about but doesn't know how to analyze (things which are relevant but not understood by AA). The Authorizor's Assistant is over 70% more accurate and can handle a *much* higher volume of traffic than a lone Analyst, and so an Analyst using AA can process several hundred times as many transactions in the same time and with a much lower failure rate.

      This is different than McDonalds being faced with possibly shaving 3 cents off the price of a hamburger today *or* trying to compete in a market where Wendy's and Burger King might have a slight price advantage in the hopes of shaving 30 cents off a hamburger in 3 years.

      There is "should", and there is "is". I know for a fact that training used to be a business priority. Not anymore, not for the last 25 years.

      Not disputed. Businesses can get anywhere from a dozen to several thousand applications for a single job posting, and now hire entire HR departments to sift through CVs and forward on the best potential candidates they can identify. Why would you take on the risk of bringing in an entrant early in the 18-month hiring cycle; shifting high-time, low-skill, easily-verified work from the expensive engineer to the rookie; and training the rookie OTJ and via tuition outlay? Sure you can pay the rookie less, plus tuition; and you pay that for at least a year relative to putting in the budget 18 months ahead of time, starting the hiring process after 12 months, and grabbing some well-experienced transient worker or someone who already came out of college and is desperate for a job and willing to take the low end of industry-standard salary (and cheap benefits!).

      What happens when the government stops funding colleges? What happens when you can't just get an unsecured loan, when the state doesn't cut tuition back by 70% for in-state students, when tuition isn't covered by tax money? What happens when 90% of the population has no viable way to send themselves through intensive 4-year full-time college at the cost of lost earning potential (not working while schooling) and hellish tuition bills?

      Suddenly the businesses have a choice: You can hire entrants and train them when the market doesn't have enough free-floating skilled labor to accomplish your business strategy; or you can whine about it while your competitor hires and trains entrants and stomps you into a bloody crater.

      They

  304. The wrong argument by vell0cet · · Score: 1

    I understand that this is a CEO's argument against a $15 minimum wage... but isn't it more of an argument that the price of the robot is too high?

    When the price of the robot drops (as technology inevitably will), it won't matter how much you pay your employees... in terms of pure cash, the employees will be replaced regardless.

  305. Do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Fuck You!
    -Ex McEmployee

  306. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lmao you are lacking in math skills my friend. $40k Per year > $35k once. Also, though there may be maintenance, I would bet on research and dev being included in the $35k sale price.

  307. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No retraining when the bot quits? Someone has never programmed a robot.

  308. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by uncqual · · Score: 1

    I don't usually rewrite my programs just because a new machine is installed -- it always just seemed so much more efficient to load the same software on the new machine as the old machine. But then perhaps I'm a bit old fashioned - maybe there's some new fad I missed.

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  309. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    Relevant to the discussion of Robots?

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  310. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    And so far I have not seen a PIN and chip run smoothly for long - cards getting inserted incorrectly, wrong time, etc. Lots of issues that will slow down a drive through line or even in store, even if only 1 in 10 transactions has issues.

    I agree with you there. It's my perception though that this is an American problem. The rest of the civilized world has been using these cards for some time. We are late-comers to the PIN and chip deal.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  311. star trek or the matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is very capitalism oriented, probably it's time to see again what Varoufakis has to say about a dystopian future. We have to choose if we want to live in a matrix society or in a star trek society. Is it really bad that robots will take our job ? Probably not if we understand that when we all have our robot overlords that can provide our basic need we can dedicate to do other stuff than working like a cog in the wheel. But that's against USA plutocracy. How to control people when it's not burder in everyday job ?

  312. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    humans are much nicer to deal with then a machine that's always bugging you to follow a certain routine for theft prevention.

    Yes, but that is because you assume that current self-checkouts are it, that's the peak of the technology, it'll never improve.

    You're wrong. BADLY wrong...

    https://youtu.be/eob532iEpqk

    THAT is the future... or some form of it...

    The idea of scanning items one at a time is stupid, it is only a matter of time.

    Put it all in your cart, bag it as you go, walk out of the store, it charges to your card.

    There won't even need to be checkout lines at all, you just come and go as you please, because the store knows who you are.

  313. Re: And then those employees burn down your resta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For now.

  314. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    UV scanners, laser spectrosopy, and visual analysis means you're no longer talking about $35k robots.

    UV scanner is a normal camera, some UV LEDs (some good ones, not the cheap ones that come in 5-for-$10 UV flashlights) and some visual analysis. Visual analysis is not only not that expensive any more but could be done by a dedicated server appliance used by all the robots. Laser spectroscopy is now doable with a $100 kickstarter dingleberry as long as you know what you are looking at.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  315. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

    This isn't some hobbyist building a robot in a garage, cobbled together from Arduino's, held together with duct tape to show off at the next maker fare. These will be fully developed and engineered robots, serviceable, highly reliable, with low MTBF and designed to work with food. These are industrial robots, in this market a simple welding arm can run $40k, a complete work cell can run upwards of $100k. Welcome to the world of product engineering

  316. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    These are industrial robots, in this market a simple welding arm can run $40k, a complete work cell can run upwards of $100k.

    Sure. So what? You can pay that off in a few years. It's almost affordable already. Hiring humans is expensive. MGI would torpedo the whole thing, by turning that around. But the money has to come from somewhere, and the rich don't want to turn out their pockets. They'd rather see the whole system come crashing down, and their slips of paper become meaningless.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  317. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

    Store operators care about one thing, Return on Investment. A business case that works based on $35k robots and $15/hr. minimum wage, may not work based on $100k robots. Sure a super burger machine "could" laser scan the tomatoes, and only pick the best lettuce, and IR view the patties to ensure they are at optimal temperature, and cost $100k, but does the business case still work at $15/hr. labor?

  318. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by dryeo · · Score: 1

    So more privacy invasions that 1/3rd of the population will resist or not be able to partake in due to other reasons such as bad credit or no bank account. Actually if under-employment keeps increasing it'll likely be more then a 1/3rd.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  319. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    No, again you lack vision...

    Paper money is only going to last so long, at some point everyone will have to go digital because the government will do it...

    That is why it will work...

  320. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by slashname3 · · Score: 1

    Raising the minimum wage will accelerate what has been happening for the past couple of decades.

    Read an article recently that each McDonald's franchise only has a profit each year of about $150,000.00. I had to check that number and other sources agreed that was correct. The level of profit is thin. Eliminating employee costs and improving efficiency could make that profit much better.

    As to raising the minum wage:

    First, while there is an increase in entry level wages, eventually wages for everyone increases to cover the increased costs for goods sold by companies that employee minimum wage workers. So in fairly short order the person that was making minimum wage today is back in the same position, they can not afford basic rent and other goods on minimum wage. This will happen regardless of how much minimum wage is increased.
    All that setting a minimum wage does is establish the lowest cost you can get someone to perform a job. Any business will pass along that cost to their customers, they have to in order to stay in business.

    So while there is a short term improvement in entry level wages eventually entry level wages only buy the same amount or less of goods they did before.

    Second, increase the wages at that level and companies will automate. This will reduce the number of entry level jobs. Jumping to $15 an hour in a couple of years will accelerate the move to automate. All positions won't be eliminated immediately, but as automation improves more and more will be replaced.

    Third, our economy is moving ever quicker to automated systems. There are fewer factory jobs because of automation. As automation is pushed into the service industries, there will be fewer and fewer jobs. Eventually, the vast majority of people will never have the opportunity to work.

    This raises the bigger question, how do people live when there are no jobs? A huge welfare state is not sustainable. But many of our politicians want to try that. Once you run out of other peoples money the system collapses. We are not quite there yet but getting closer every day.

    How do you organize a society where production of goods is primarily automated and most people don't work?

  321. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by slashname3 · · Score: 1

    Correct, those jobs were the entry level jobs back in the day. Now due to elimination of factory jobs and our country's move to a service economy what was an entry level job is all that is available.

    Increasing the minimum wage feeds into inflation. So that is a short term remedy at best.

    Very soon we will have an entire generation that will never have an opportunity at an entry level job like we had. No one will work. there will be no jobs. Everything will be automated. There will be fewer and fewer technician jobs as well as better self repairing machines are built.

    We are headed toward a state where no one will have jobs.

    Not clear how that will work out. A pure welfare state is not sustainable for very long. Other people.s money will eventually run out.

  322. Return on invstment by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    Is a $35K robot 'cheaper' than a $15/hr employee? Of course! If we are talking about a restaurant that is open from 6:00 am till 10:00 pm (16 hour day), seven days a week that $15/hr person costs over $87K/year - not including employer FICA, SS matching which makes a $15/hr employee cost more like $18.50. A $35K employee will pay for itself in well under 6 months - after that, it is essentially free labor, aside from maint/upkeep/power costs.

    1. Re: Return on invstment by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      ...A $35K employee will pay for itself in well under 6 months...

      That should read 'robot' not 'employee'.

  323. Minimum Wage by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    As you say, for those people that make minimum wage, where might they eat out most often? Robots don't eat either.

  324. OK, Ed, try it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ed, please try living on only what one of your ex-line employees makes, and you can stop doing so only when the public decides you can. Then you can have an opinion as to what constitutes a livable minimum wage.

  325. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Yes but when a burger price soars to $10, people won't care if they order from a human or not.

    These types of jobs were meant to be transitionary, not a career. And who thinks it's fair that fast food employees make the same rate as a fire fighter, for example? Prepare for job losses, and further complaints from those who don't understand why it doesn't make sense to earn that much cooking and bagging food.. ridiculous...

    If you're only paying your firefighters $15/hour and total hours so that they don't get benefits, you deserve to DIAF.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  326. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, though there is a lot to be said for anonymous money, which I'd think parts of the government would agree with.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  327. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, though there is a lot to be said for anonymous money, which I'd think parts of the government would agree with.

    And the IRS would disagree... If it no longer became possible to move money around without the government knowing about it... :)

  328. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by dryeo · · Score: 1

    The CIA and various other 3 letter agencies like to self-finance, including rumours of counterfeiting, though I guess bits can be counterfeited. There is also the under the table gifts, contributions etc that many politicians would like to keep quiet about, not to mention the payments for hookers and blow, though those can be easily faked. What is hard to fake is all those pallets of $100 bills that the government uses for foreign policy reasons.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  329. Shrinking Customer Base by EricTheO · · Score: 0

    Corporations sure are in a hurry to destroy their customer base. It's low income people, that in large part, are there customers.

    --
    -Eric
  330. Re: And then those employees burn down your resta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some are indeed owned by franchisees, but most are McCopco stores owned by the Corporation. My dad-in-law owns 8 restaurant. McDonald's has been prepared for this since the early 2000's and it's all ready to go in case there is a massive minimum wage hike.

  331. Re: And then those employees burn down your re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're absolutely correct!

  332. This is dumb by ericlmccormick · · Score: 1

    The amount a company pays now at minimum wage, full time with benifits, it is cheaper to buy a new 35k robot every year. Basically if the minium wage did not change and even if the robot only worked for 1 year, you would probably break even. But the robots are going to last more than 1 year so blaming minimum wage is just a cop out for something they plan to do anyways because all they care about is the bottom line. Banks got ATM, grocery stores got self check out, these things did not occur because wages went up.

  333. The guy that fixes the robot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy that fixes the robot will be a white male who lives 45 miles from the center of the city and will make $70,000 a year.

  334. Insightful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insightful.

  335. Hmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What truth may I tell and how should I say it that would get me disappeared the quickest?

    Unemployables of the world, unite?

  336. Until customers reject and/or destroy them... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

    1. You can't yell at a robot (well, you can, but the satisfaction of being listened to - even unwillingly - isn't there... not that I advocate yelling at employees but unfortunately it happens). OTOH at least if the customer assaults the robot, they won't be hit with an assault/battery charge, they'll just hurt themselves and get maybe a lesser charge like destruction of property.
    2. Didn't that automated restaurant in China go back to humans?

    --
    Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  337. Re: And then those employees burn down your restau by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

    And hoodlum behavior is only going to be a problem until the owners get to deploy automated, armored, mobile area denial systems, using microwaves, lasers, infra-sound, or whatever. When this happens, they will not even need to bullshit us with the excuse "We are doing this because of minimum wages". Seriously, guys. If you were not doing it now with a $35K robot instead of a $15 minwage peon, you were going to do it five years from now with a $10K robot instead of a $5 minwage peon.

    There is no way around it. A number of low skilled jobs will get replaced with a few medium skilled ones (designing, building and maintaining the robots) and a few low skilled ones (running them and dealing with extreme deviation customers)

    As for society as a whole, it will either will have to focus on providing comfortable lifestyles for those who are superfluous, or decide that they are no worth bothering with, and tune the laws so that they are easy to put out of sight. And if you think that have-nots will small arms will scare violence professionals and engineers unfettered by laws, you are an idiot.

    Last year, I did not give a fuck, as both me and my wife think we are going to be useful or wealthy for long enough (MIT grads, six digit jobs, comfortable, paid for home, etc...) Six days before my 50th birthday, my daughter was born, and now we are ecstatic, but scared shitless.

    All of a sudden, "Fuck everyone, I got mine" is not longer a sound policy. Now I have to worry, should I try to guide her to Lego Technics or bogu and bokken... and for the first time in my life I feel that maybe I should have focused harder on making money instead of enjoying what I do for a living.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished...
  338. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is everyone thinking 100% robot replacement? That is NOT going to happen. It is not like any fast food will become a giant bending machine. What will happen is that the amount of employees will decrease. Machines will turn 1 employee into 3, the same way it has always done it. Before machines to dig a big hole with hand tools it would require a bunch of people a long time, machines made it so that fewer people could do the same job in less time. It never ogt ri of ALL the employees it reduced them. Fast food automation will do the same. Where there is a crew of 10 it will be a crew of 7 then a crew of 5 then a crew of 3. All with different skills as before. That means that now you are not just hiring someone just to do fries (or work the grill). Someone that knows basic maintenance on operation of a FFC1000 and can work the register and has no problems loading and unloading a truck, clean the tables, and restrooms, etc..

    ie instead of having 10 people with a few skills, you will have a few people with way more skills. The same way it did in agriculture, manufacturing, office work, printing, etc.. People are thinking robots that are fully sanctioned. In reality what it will be is more machines (not AI robots) that will be very hi-end tools that will make employees more productive. When minimum wage is increase slowly the cost vs return on any tool that will make a person 20% more productive is hard to sell because is hard to justify. But wen you get a high jump on minimum wage that 20% magically becomes the equivalent of 35% more productive now they are easier to sell. And the more they sell the more money is there for R&D to make them better, then progress on that type of tool happens because there is a demand. yes, progress was going to happen no matter and automation was going to happen sooner or later, but this wage increase will just speed things up as there is demand for it. The same way the increase of energy cost, speed up the advancement of electric vehicles, and more efficient electronics.

    The math for cost vs return becomes more obvious.

  339. Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1-No one is saying that it will replace 100% of the employees to robots.
    2-Right now with people as employees they still draw penises (just not in the terminals) but in the tables, bathrooms, outside walls, ...
    3-If a homeless person comes to the store right now, smelling like a tuna sandwich none of the employees will do anything (maybe the manager would) but no matter what it is likely that there will more security cameras to aid the fewer employees in the restaurants.
    4-If a homeless person decided to take a shit on a table no minimum wage employee would stop him either.
    5-People have no idea either how to deal with destructive people.

    Your points are mute since no matter what minimum wage people are there for a pay check and that is it. Also there still be employees in the places that are likely to call the police sooner since there aren't that many inside.