McDonald's Hits All-Time High As Wall Street Cheers Replacement of Cashiers With Kiosks (cnbc.com)

McDonald's is expected to increase its sales via new digital ordering kiosks that will replace cashiers in 2,500 restaurants. As a result, the company's shares hit an all-time high, rallying 26 percent this year through Monday. CNBC reports: Andrew Charles from Cowen cited plans for the restaurant chain to roll out mobile ordering across 14,000 U.S. locations by the end of 2017. The technology upgrades, part of what McDonald's calls "Experience of the Future," includes digital ordering kiosks that will be offered in 2,500 restaurants by the end of the year and table delivery. "MCD is cultivating a digital platform through mobile ordering and Experience of the Future (EOTF), an in-store technological overhaul most conspicuous through kiosk ordering and table delivery," Charles wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. "Our analysis suggests efforts should bear fruit in 2018 with a combined 130 bps [basis points] contribution to U.S. comps [comparable sales]." He raised his 2018 U.S. same store sales growth estimate for the fast-food chain to 3 percent from 2 percent.

Comments

Let me guess..

[Dutch Gun]

Running Windows XP Embedded, and connected to the internet for convenient maintenance. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Let me guess..

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this^

Wall street is the only part of the country that would cheer the loss of jobs.

Re:Let me guess..

[ShanghaiBill]

Wall street is the only part of the country that would cheer the loss of jobs.

Everybody should cheer. The purpose of economic activity is to create goods and services, not "keeping people busy". If the same number of burgers can be delivered with less labor, that is a GOOD THING.

As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy. For more insight on why pointless make-work jobs are NOT "good for the economy", you can read The Parable of the Broken Window.

Re:Let me guess..

[fluffernutter]

Ask a student who needs to pay for tuition how much of a good thing it is you selfish dick.

Re:Let me guess..

[ShanghaiBill]

Your argument hinges on those jobs being 'pointless,'

If you can be replaced with a kiosk, your job is pointless.

Re: Let me guess..

[Anonymous Coward]

Or put another way, I should have to put up with a sullen attitude and incorrect orders because some entitled college student hates working the register to pay for her Gender Studies "degree."

Re: Let me guess..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your studies are clearly not in Economics. You would realize that busy work is not valuable to anyone. Read a book.

Re:Let me guess..

[andydread]

This argument only leads to the inevitable. Eventually Only shareholders will have "more money" to spend on other things once everything gets automated.. Most of the economy is not driven by shareholders unfortunately. And the more money going to shareholders to buy "other things" is offset by less money going to workers to buy other things which can lead to more dependence on government hand outs.

Re: Let me guess..

[Anonymous Coward]

..and if the day comes when only a small percentage of the population is fit to task for the remaining jobs? Who are these companies going to sell to?

Re:Let me guess..

[cheesybagel]

I dunno. I thought we already had vending machines. MacDonalds was supposed to be a fast food joint, which actually allows you to customize your order and have face-to-face service.

Re:Let me guess..

[ShanghaiBill]

look up the performance of the test stores and see that they've actually hired MORE people due to the increased workload.

This is analogous to the way that ATMs increased jobs for human tellers.

Increased efficiency leading to greater demand is known as Jevon's Paradox. It is one more reason why zero-sum reasoning about economic issues is almost always wrong.

Re:Let me guess..

[ShanghaiBill]

Eventually Only shareholders will have "more money" to spend

In a competitive market (and fast food is competitive) most of the cost savings will go to the customer, not the shareholders. Historically, this is what has almost always happened.

Henry Ford got rich by automating automobile manufacturing, but far more money was saved by his customers when the cost of a car went from over $10,000 for hand-built cars to $850 for the first Model-T in 1908, and to only $300 by 1925.

Re: Let me guess..

[ShanghaiBill]

Doesn't everyone realize this is a side effect of fixed minimum wage?

Many fast food restaurants need to pay above minimum wage to attract enough workers. Even where they pay the minimum, it is unlikely they could get away with paying much less. A higher minimum wage might accelerate automation, but it will happen regardless.

 

Re:Let me guess..

[religionofpeas]

Ask a student who needs to pay for tuition how much of a good thing it is you selfish dick

If you're asking McD for a free handout, just so you can pay tuition, you're the selfish dick.

Re:Let me guess..

[mishehu]

...for various values of "pointless". I'd like to see those old folks who always seem to have coffee at McD's in the late morning operating those kiosks without any frustration...

Re:Let me guess..

[gl4ss]

it's just the same pos they have already.

besides, they HAVE ALREADY FUCKING WEB ORDERING IN MOST COUNTRIES THEY DO DELIVERY IN.

extending the delivery to be inside the store shouldn't be that big of a deal really.

and it's _still_ better than handing your card over to be photoed both sides.. with your frequent customer account address shown...

Re:Let me guess..

[skam240]

Increased productivity is generally a good thing but I take issue with this point

"As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy. "

Currently we have an unprecedented amount of capital accumulated at the top (within major corporations and the wealthiest few) that is most certainly not generating more jobs. Much of it is just sitting around accumulating interest. This is why we have a stock market so out of wack with our country's current level of prosperity. I fail to see how these interests having even more money will help generate jobs.

If you actually want to generate jobs in a scenario like we are currently in you want the people at the bottom to have more money because they are going to go right out there and spend that money (being poor means you have a shortage of capital to spend which makes it is virtually assured they will be spending the money rather then saving it which generates far less economic activity) thus generating a greater demand for goods and services. The affluent and our major corporations generally all have enough capital to generate an epic amount of jobs, they don't do so because there's no demand for the goods and service these jobs would be providing.

Now before people get crazy on me I'll just add on here that this does not make the super rich or major corporations "bad guys" by any stretch, I'm just explaining our current reality and how capitalism works.

Re: Let me guess..

[ShanghaiBill]

..and if the day comes when only a small percentage of the population is fit to task for the remaining jobs?

As jobs are automated, their cost of production drops, meaning money is freed up to spend or invest elsewhere in the economy. This means that not only is there no net loss of jobs, the additional production means that the same income can buy more goods and services. I know that this is hard for some people to believe, but higher productivity and more affordable prices do NOT cause poverty.

If automation caused poverty, then America, Europe, and Japan would be starving, while countries that avoided the "folly of efficiency" such as Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Afghanistan would be rich and prosperous.

Who are these companies going to sell to?

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that "this time is different", and greater productivity really does lead to mass poverty. Then when the rich refuse to hire the poor, the poor could just MAKE STUFF FOR EACH OTHER. Since grocery store pies will only be available to the rich, I can grow apples in my backyard, and barter with my neighbor who can make them into pies in her kitchen. Perhaps we could even use little metal or paper tokens as a medium of exchange to facilitate these transactions.

We could just build a parallel economy. But the difference is that the rich will use automation, while we will do everything manually. But the joke will be one them, because in this alternative universe, automation CAUSES POVERTY, so soon we will be rich while their efficient production will lead them to the poorhouse! HA HA HA!!!

Re:Let me guess..

[LostMyBeaver]

Sorry man. That ship has sailed.

Minimum wage jobs, once meant for teenagers and young adults are now strictly reserved for :
  1) Retirees looking to earn enough to live to 105
  2) People who watch reality TV
  3) Ghetto people who the shareholders want to keep in the ghetto
  4) People who choose their jobs by going someplace to eat a burger they thoroughly know is bad for them, but do it anyway and see the "Help wanted" sign as they walk in.

The modern economy prefers that you get tuition by
  a) Applying for a new credit card each month and paying one card off with the next
  b) Taking loans for as much as possible because even junior colleges are reserved for the rich or stupid now
  c) Making mom and dad mortgage the house. If they can't mortgage, dad can sell mom on a street corner to lonely strangers

Believe it or not, with the exception of mom turning tricks, every one of these things I mentioned can be clearly justified in means of improving the economy. Often in your favor.

Re:Let me guess..

[ShanghaiBill]

they don't do so because there's no demand for the goods and service these jobs would be providing.

In 2016, America's trade deficit was $502 Billion. That means that we "demanded" and consumed half a trillion dollars worth of goods and services in excess of what we produced. Saying that America has insufficient demand is nonsense.

Re:Let me guess..

[WindBourne]

And you would be wrong. Many ppl KNOW that automation is coming in a big way. The issue is how to make your own country do better for it. Automating low-end jobs is the first thing that any smart nation will do.

Re:Let me guess..

[WindBourne]

so you think that getting a degree should enable you to work at McDonald's as a cashier, or on a farm, mucking out stalls?

Re:Let me guess..

[skam240]

Until you can tell me how the the interests I described above having even more money will generate more jobs you have no point.

Yes, some increased demand will spill off to the benefit of foreign markets but certainly not all of it.

Re:Let me guess..

[Tarmas]

Running Windows XP Embedded, and connected to the internet for convenient maintenance. What could possibly go wrong?

You know that Windows XP Embedded is supported at least until January 2019?

Re:Let me guess..

[WindBourne]

yeah, it is sad that those old fogies are so inept. They will never be able to run a ATM or even login to a computer and post on websites.

Re:Let me guess..

[someoneOtherThanMe]

Customize? Please try ordering less salted fries or have them leave the lettuce out of your burger.

Re:Let me guess..

[Dutch Gun]

Have any numbers to back up those assertions? I'll just leave this here: https://www.bls.gov/opub/repor...

Quick summary of actual facts:
* 58.7 of all workers in the US earn hourly wages.
* Among ALL hourly workers, 3.9 percent earn minimum wage (or 2.25 percent of the total work force).
* 3 percent of hourly workers earning minimum wage (or 1.7 percent of the total work force) are under the age of 25.
* Among teenagers (16-19 years old) earning hourly wages, about 15 percent of them earn the minimum wage.
* 10 percent of part time workers earn minimum wage, compared to 2 percent of full time workers.

So, as it turns out, the vast majority of minimum wage earners are indeed quite young, often part-time, and as a percentage of the total work force are a fairly small percentage. Let's deal with facts and reality here, and not just make arguments based on ignorance and incorrect perceptions.

Re:Let me guess..

[tlhIngan]

Wall street is the only part of the country that would cheer the loss of jobs.

I'm not so sure about that. The McD's near me at work changed to kiosks, and I can swear all the people who used to be at the cashier are now working inside putting food and orders together.

They went with the kiosks because they were busy and there were always long lines to take orders practically all the time. Now the lines are much shorter and there appears to be more people behind the counter. Oddly enough, there are still 3 cash registers (because the kiosks don't take cash, so you still have to pay there, but you can also order there if you don't want to deal with the kiosk or want a customization the kiosk doesn't offer), just packed closer together since you don't gather near them for food.

I'd likely say the kiosks have improved business especially since a lot of the orders are for drinks and such so you can quickly get through the kiosk what you want and not have to pile up with the registers and be stuck behind people with other orders, so you're in and out quicker, too.

But that is one restaurant. Others have not converted to kiosks yet. Remember McD's is about throughput - stuffing quick drink and ice cream orders behind someone with a huge food order is not a good thing, so the kiosks allow for out of order completion because the individual stations are more fully utilized. And more utilization means more staff can man them - where one person might have done drinks and ice cream, the increase in order speeds mean you need 4 people handling the station just from sheer volume. Which likely attracts more people because they didn't want to wait 15 minutes for a drink or ice cream, but can be in and out in 3.

Likely, the restaurant needs MORE people now to handle the increased traffic

Re: Let me guess..

[Strider-]

As jobs are automated, their cost of production drops, meaning money is freed up to spend or invest elsewhere in the economy.

Nice theory, but it only holds a certain amount of water. The price of a product and the cost of manufacturing it are only loosely coupled. A vendor will sel the product for whatever the market will bear. With the advent of easy (not necessarily cheap) credit, people will keep paying old prices even when they can't really afford it.

TL;DR: people are stupid.

Re:Let me guess..

[mentil]

By 'minimum wage' most people mean 'near minimum wage', or 'lower than what the minimum wage ought to be.' Some states/regions have local minimum wage laws higher than the federal minimum wage. Also according to your own stats, 97% of people earning minimum wage are over age 25, indicating that it's mostly NOT young people who are working at minimum wage. Some employers give a nominal raise each year to keep up with inflation, or hire at slightly over minimum wage in an attempt to seem generous (or avoid the stigma of 'only pays minimum wage'.) Taking these into account, the proportion of people working at 'minimum wage' is much higher.

Re:Let me guess..

[Opportunist]

Keeping people busy is keeping people earning money. People earning money can buy things. People buying things is what keeps our economy going.

In case you haven't noticed, the big economy crunch happened when people suddenly couldn't refinance their homes and hence couldn't spend money. It was no mere coincidence that these two things happened at the same time.

If you have a way to keep people spending without them having jobs, great, please run for an office because you found the solution to the economy crisis.

Re: Let me guess..

[Opportunist]

Busy work, no. People getting paid for it, yes.

Like I said before, give me a way to make people spend money without them having a job and I could ignore that requirement. Until then, we need people to have jobs so they have money so they can spend so they prop the economy up.

Re: Let me guess..

[Opportunist]

He isn't trolling, the question is valid. We are eliminating low qualification jobs. Which is by itself a good thing, we don't need 100 farm hands to do what a single machine can do better, faster and more efficiently. But what are we going to do with the 100 farm hands. Putting a shovel into someone's hands and telling him to dig from here to next Wednesday is something you can do to everyone (some handicapped people excluded). If you replace them with a machine, retraining those 100 people to write computer programs is not going to work.

Jobs that require an IQ of 80 can be done by nearly everyone. Require an IQ of 100 and half the population is excluded. Require 120 and you'll have a quite hard time finding work for a sizable amount of your people.

And jobs get more "brainy". The low qualification, low intelligence jobs have been eliminated from production. We're now, as you can see in this example, doing the same with services. Where should these people work now? We cannot retrain them all to be programmers, analysts and consultants, they don't have the mental capacity, and we simply don't need so many middle managers, which are equally being eliminated. For the same reason.

Re:Let me guess..

[bn-7bc]

Ok the kiosk "don't take cash", how mouch of McDs turnover is cash? Does these kiosk take credit/debit cards?

Re: Let me guess..

[war4peace]

Add to that the fact that vendors will hoard the money rather than reinvest them and you end up with a crapton of unemployed people and a shitload of money sitting in war chests or mansions on the Riviera.

Re:Let me guess..

[jellomizer]

Except we are getting into an economy where enterence requirements are getting increasingly difficult.
If someone wanted to make it big and they had nothing. They will start work in the business mailroom where they would be able to interact with the other employees learning what they do how they work then getting enough experience to move up to a new department getting a better job.
Automation targeting entry level jobs, makes it so much harder to get your foot in.

While the economy needs more efficiency the efficiency should be targeted on creating growth not profits.
These kiosk could be good as a supplement to existing staff, for the customer who would choose not to go in the store because of a long line, or doesn't want to deal with a person. So the store with the kiosk can get more sales without reducing staff. Where then they could open a new store to help meet increased demand.

Re:Let me guess..

[edx93]

For more insight on why pointless make-work jobs are NOT "good for the economy", you can read The Parable of the Broken Window.

Better yet, read Economics in One Lesson. It's effectively an extension of the broken window hypothesis you point out, but applies it to various different contexts. Very eye opener and makes you wonder why people are hellbent on protecting any and all jobs, regardless of their actual contribution to society (hint: if your job can be easily replaced by little kiosks, you're no longer a contributor).

Re:Let me guess..

[Freischutz]

Wall street is the only part of the country that would cheer the loss of jobs.

Everybody should cheer. The purpose of economic activity is to create goods and services, not "keeping people busy". If the same number of burgers can be delivered with less labor, that is a GOOD THING.

As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy. For more insight on why pointless make-work jobs are NOT "good for the economy", you can read The Parable of the Broken Window.

Nothing personal here, but I will really enjoy the day when corporate managers, analysts, traders, etc. and most of all economists (especially the ones that advocate the Chicago school of economics) are finally completely replaced by AI.

Re:Let me guess..

[Luckyo]

It is a good thing, alongside all the anecdotes, until the owner class finds itself and its anecdotes on the guillotine.

And then goes "but why didn't they just eat cake?"

Re:Let me guess..

[starless]

This is analogous to the way that ATMs increased jobs for human tellers.

From the article you link to:

according to the Labor Department, employment of tellers is projected to decline 8% over the next decade. The number of bank branches is now declining rather than increasing “because of industry consolidation and technological change.”

Re: Let me guess..

[Highdude702]

whos fault is that? not mine. I came from nothing and made something out of myself. others can too.

Re:Let me guess..

[Highdude702]

this guy is an idiot and apparently doesn't understand math. Im only talking about the things he posted himself

* 3 percent of hourly workers earning minimum wage (or 1.7 percent of the total work force) are under the age of 25.

then says

So, as it turns out, the vast majority of minimum wage earners are indeed quite young,

I never knew that 3 percent was VAST MAJORITY. or is he bad at math? please help me

Re:Let me guess..

[Highdude702]

Maybe he is one of the 3%, and therefor we shouldn't expect his math to be very good as he makes minimum wage for a reason..

Re: Let me guess..

[Opportunist]

This works as long as they're few. It works as long as the majority of your population is not in that group and can actually be simultaneously kept in fear of becoming part of it and being happy that they have something to look down onto as "those lazy bums". That way you keep them busy working for you.

We're nearing critical mass, though. At some point you'll have to resort to violence to keep them from going at your throat. You can of course do what we do now and pit them against each other, but that bears the threat that at some point someone might emerge that is charismatic enough to unite them when he says "follow me!"

And then we have Paris 1789, Moscow 1917 or Berlin 1933, depending on how it's going to pan out.

Re:Let me guess..

[drinkypoo]

Now before people get crazy on me I'll just add on here that this does not make the super rich or major corporations "bad guys" by any stretch, I'm just explaining our current reality and how capitalism works.

Too bad you lost it there at the end. Sitting on all the money so that some wrinkly old white men can have more zeroes in their account at the expense of the economy that the rest of us need to fulfill our basic needs absolutely is "evil".

Re: Let me guess..

[drinkypoo]

higher productivity and more affordable prices do NOT cause poverty.

We're not getting more affordable prices, though. In order for that to happen, wages have to make gains on inflation. That hasn't happened in over twenty years, especially the minimum wage. Absent MGI, permitting people to work for less than a living wage is some percentage slavery (whatever percentage of needs are unmet.)

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that "this time is different", and greater productivity really does lead to mass poverty

That is a straw man, if you had a valid argument you would make it. No one is claiming that greater productivity leads to mass poverty. The claim is that a reduced number of jobs will lead to mass poverty. The typical counterclaim is that the people "freed" from their current labors will simply go on to do a different job, but this time the jobs aren't there. We're automating the jobs they would have taken, as well. We cannot make it up with a service-based industry, specifically because wages are not increasing. Instead, wealth is concentrated in an ever-decreasing number of hands. Even if they wanted to, those people who hold the wealth could not spend enough of it in enough different places to actually create the jobs they claim they are creating. Jobs are created by two parties working together: The so-called job creator who offers to pay someone, and the customer who actually provides the economic incentive for them to do that. Without spreading the wealth into many hands which can pay for products, there is no economic incentive to pay people to create products for which they might pay.

The notion that the current shift will not create joblessness is an idiotic one, given that it has already done so.

Re:Let me guess..

[drinkypoo]

Last time I checked my mom was getting news from the internets through a boyfriend twenty years older than her, but then he died and she had to get a younger model to get access to technology, I guess. He seems to be about 20 years younger than her. She has great credit, though. Too bad she's fucking psycho, or I might have asked her to co-sign on something. Old people who are allergic to technology are part of the problem. I don't know it and I don't want to know it is the cry of the superannuated privileged white fuck.

Re:Let me guess..

[sudon't]

Everybody should cheer. The purpose of economic activity is to create goods and services, not "keeping people busy". If the same number of burgers can be delivered with less labor, that is a GOOD THING.

And where do you think people get money to buy burgers? Kiosks and robots don’t buy shit, and neither do unemployed people. Overseas markets will only sustain you until they’re all replaced by automation. Even a lunatic like Henry Ford understood that jobs = customers. It’s how the economy works.

Here’s another thing you don’t seem to understand: jobs and businesses are created by demand, not the other way around. Just because you have the money to open a widget factory doesn’t mean there will be jobs. There has to be demand. And if demand exists, people will find the money anyway. Demand comes from the bottom up, not the “supply side”. That’s why three decades of giving more money to the rich have simply made the rich richer, and the poor poorer, instead of “creating jobs” and growing the economy.

Re:Let me guess..

[IMightB]

Where does Trump stand in this? Is he going to save jobs? How about that whole Boeing saved jobs thing, too bad now that the campaign is finished boing has *this* year laid off/voluntary retirementized close to 1400 people and has plans for more, why isn't he saving those jobs? the examples go on and on.

Re:Let me guess..

[drinkypoo]

Or maybe people that aren't passionate about technology just get sick and tired of relearning aspects of every day life several times during their life.

That is life. That's what it's like to be alive! Things change! If you don't like it, die. That is the only way to stop change from happening to you — remove the "you" from the equation! People who try to pretend otherwise are shitting on the rest of us moment by moment in a desperate attempt to live forever, which will never fucking happen.

Re:Let me guess..

[maelkum]

I have seen a McD kiosk crash. They are indeed running Windows.

Re: Let me guess..

[jeremyp]

To a large extent, the situation you described in agriculture has already come to pass. Farming began to be mechanised at the beginning of the 19th century. At that time, it took an army of people to harvest a field of wheat. This can now be done by a couple of people with a combine harvester and a tractor with a trailer.

Where did all the low quality labourers go? Why are there not loads of people sitting around doing nothing who would otherwise be harvesting wheat? The reason is that there are other new jobs to do that an 18th century farm labourer couldn't even imagine.

Re: Let me guess..

[grumling]

The vast majority of people have an IQ that is plenty high enough to run and even program most automated machinery. It is just that years of being told that programming is hard work only possible if you have a god-level IQ keeps most people with an average (100) IQ from trying. True, in a country of 330 million people there are probably a few million that are far enough below the average that they'll not be able to get it, but as a percentage of the population I'll bet that they're not enough to be overly worried about.

The idea that "we" have to do something about "them" is how we end up with concentration camps and trails of tears.

Re: Let me guess..

[jeremyp]

Rich people do not, as a rule, hoard money. They invest it. Hoarding money is stupid because it gradually loses its value over time.

Re: Let me guess..

[BadTuna]

Obviously all these low qualification job seekers aren't on par with your intellectual capacity, yet these people still need a job. When automation eliminates 100k's of jobs, these people will all go on government assistance of some sort. Then you and your shareholders will be endlessly patting yourselves on the back over your profits, all the while endlessly bitching about people on welfares.
And your 'Trickle Down Economics' fantasy brainwashed into you is the only thing The Gipper ever left for this country.

Re: Let me guess..

[Opportunist]

The reason that wasn't a problem back then (and up until now, it didn't happen only once) was that new industries emerged that hoovered up the available workforce.

When farms needed fewer hands, it was actually a beneficial situation because there was actually a shortage of workers for the at the same time emerging industries. The former farmers flocked to the booming industry towns (with all the ensuing problems), but at least these people did have a job again.

When industries automated away the conveyor belt workplaces with industry robots, the service industry was quite happy to take the former industry workers and use them as restaurant waiters, supermarket cashiers and fast food restaurant burger flippers.

The thing is that these jobs were all quite menial jobs, requiring low skill, little training and could be done by pretty much anyone. The skill requirements for raking hay, putting a sheet of metal under a press and pushing a button or carrying a tray of glasses is quite negligible. The problem now is that all those jobs have been automated, and there isn't anywhere to go for those people that isn't either already automated as well or won't be in a few years. Technology is at the point where it can do what someone with a low IQ can do, and since computers can work 24/7 and don't form unions, they are simply more attractive as "employees".

Up until now, you could argue (and rightfully so) that a new kind of market would emerge that needs those low qualified, low intelligence workers as cheap labor. Today, this simply isn't the case anymore. We have arrived in a time where it is indeed possible to replace some people with a very small script.

Re: Let me guess..

[grumling]

Actually, the rich probably won't use technology. They already have "automated" cars, planes and housework in the form of servants who do these tasks for them. I don't have access to this automation except for very short periods and shared (sometimes in a massive scale) in the form of taxis/buses/commercial air travel, or going to a restaurant or nice hotel. But having the level of "automation" of someone like Warren Buffet, who has thousands of people producing for him, functioning as extensions of his mind, is coming. Even now we have the ability to process information in a way unheard of for most of human history.

Re: Let me guess..

[drinkypoo]

Yes, you are getting more affordable prices... Or do you think airline tickets were always something tens of millions of lower and middle class could afford? .. Or eating beef every fucking day, three meals a day...

All of that shit has gotten worse since the 1950s! At least, for white people. But since white people are still the majority in the USA, guess what? Things have gotten worse for the majority of people in the USA since then. Now you tell me, jack, when's the last time the minimum wage or the median wage kept up with inflation?

Re:Let me guess..

[backwardsposter]

Both he and McDonalds are pretty low on the order of blame I think.
It Goes:
Student - for taking a loan (we still should be held responsible for our actions, go to community college if you need lower loans)
Government - for screwing up basic economics with their loan practices (can't get more than a $300 credit card, but $90,000 in loans? sure)
Colleges - for raising prices just because they can and the huge overhead of staff ...
THEN McDonalds - for first turning what should be a high schooler job into a career, and not automating soon enough
ShanghaiBill - for too much logic that it confuses people

Re: Let me guess..

[Opportunist]

But last time I checked they didn't chop off the heads of the peasants, that time 'round it was a different kind of people that got their neck aired out.

Re: Let me guess..

[drinkypoo]

In the last 20 years minimum wage has tripled from 5 to 15.

What? Who told you that, and why are you repeating it like a dumbshit? Type minimum wage in usa into google right now and then fuck off.

Re: Let me guess..

[guruevi]

I find the kiosks incredibly efficient. I can scan and bag faster than any of the "live" cashiers, I don't have to wait for them to fiddle with the thing so it takes my credit cards and there are never any lines at the automated cashier, especially the ones that don't accept cash.

Re: Let me guess..

[mpercy]

How many ditchdiggers were put out of work by a steam shovel? How many teamsters (mule team drivers) lost jobs when trucks became available? How many chandlers disappeared with the advent of the electric light bulb? Can you even find a cooper or cobbler anymore? Gas station attendants displaced by self-serve? Newsstand/kiosk operators killed off by vending machines? Elevator operators? Doormen? Footmen (the guys who ran out to put the steps under the carriage when it pulled up)? Typing pool replaced by Xerox machines, then computers?

Re: Let me guess..

[mpercy]

Here is an account from the economics writer Stephen Moore that was printed in the Wall Street Journal in 2009. Moore stated that he used to visit Milton Friedman and his wife, and together they would dine at a favorite Chinese restaurant: 2

At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

In 1996 an instance of the anecdote appeared in an article by Jerry L. Jordan in the Cato Journal of the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian think-tank. The cogent remark was delivered by a businessman visiting China:

I am reminded of a story that a businessman told me a few years ago. While touring China, he came upon a team of nearly 100 workers building an earthen dam with shovels. The businessman commented to a local official that, with an earth-moving machine, a single worker could create the dam in an afternoon. The official’s curious response was, “Yes, but think of all the unemployment that would create.” “Oh,” said the businessman, “I thought you were building a dam. If it’s jobs you want to create, then take away their shovels and give them spoons!”

On September 13, 1935 William Aberhart gave a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto. He recounted an anecdote in which he delivered a version of the saying: 4

One of the school graduates came to me to pay his respects to the school; he told me he was in charge of helping on one of the Dominion air ports. I said to him, “I suppose you use modern machinery in your air ports?”
“No, sir.”
“Why?”
“Well,” he said, “if we used modern machinery in the establishment of air ports there would be very little need of men to help us to do it, for they would do it so rapidly and easily that there would be no need of man labour. We give them picks and shovels and put them out to do it in the old-fashioned way.”
I smiled and said to him: “It would probably be just as well to give them spoons and forks; it would take them still longer to do it.” It seemed to me so ridiculous; we let modern machinery rust at the road side or air port and make those men bend their backs in order to give them the purchasing power to buy the necessities of life, and hardly that.

In 1966 a variant of the story was told in the Irish Parliament. The orator referred to an earlier incident that he said took place in the Parliament of the United Kingdom: 5

Mr. N. Lemass: Earl Attlee at one time suggested in the British House of Commons that instead of giving farmers tractors, they should be given shovels, thereby employing ten men instead of one, but the then Minister of Agriculture said: “Why not go further and give them spoons, thereby employing 100 men?” That is not the solution. The farming community cannot sustain as many people, if there is to be a more equitable distribution of our national wealth, and if the people living on the land are to have the high standard of living we would desire for them.

[All the above at http://quoteinvestigator.com/2...

Re:Let me guess..

[skam240]

You cant expect someone to just spend their money on jobs that wont produce a needed commodity or service. Should the afluent just open up a bunch of vcr manufacturing plants just to create jobs even though there's no demand?

Or maybe they should do like Warren Buffet and lobby for tax reform.

Re: Let me guess..

[Goragoth]

Then we need to accept that some people won't work. No problem. As someone with a "brainy" job I have exactly 0 problem with part of my paycheck going to taxes that pay for those less fortunate to sit around and do nothing. That's fine, because that's progress and exactly how society should work.

Re: Let me guess..

[guruevi]

Yes, minimum wage in 1997 was ~$5. Now it's $15 in NY. It's well above $10 anywhere else.

Re:Let me guess..

[mpercy]

OP lost something in translation. The 3% number is misquoted:

From the source:

"Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although
workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of
hourly paid workers, they made up nearly half of those
paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed
teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 15 percent
earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3
percent of workers age 25 and older. (See tables 1 and 7.)

Some more

In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 and older in the
United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7
percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those
paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing
federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million
had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these
3.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal
minimum made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers.
The percentage of hourly paid workers earning the
prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 4.3
percent in 2013 to 3.9 percent in 2014. This remains well
below the figure of 13.4 percent in 1979, when data were
first collected on a regular basis.

Among those making at or less than minimum wage, 23.1% had less than a high-school diploma. Another 31.4% had only a diploma and no further education. Of course this is consistent with under-25 comprising about half of those making minimum wage.

Re: Let me guess..

[stabiesoft]

You mean like now. How many houses do "rich" people have nowadays? A story here was about rich people buying penthouse condos so they had a place to stay during the COTA race. So 5 mil + taxes & upkeep for a 1 week event. I imagine these types have numerous such places for staying when they travel. And of course, many really do have a private island getaway.

Re:Let me guess..

[cayenne8]

Ask a student who needs to pay for tuition how much of a good thing it is you selfish dick.

Or..you could get a job waiting or bussing tables, or working kitchens of non-fast food restaurants, much like I did in HS though grad school.

There are also jobs in retail...but you might have to go with less tattoos and regular looking hair and dress for that, but they still pay pretty well for student jobs.

Flipping burgers is the bottom rung of jobs out there for kids....good to start with I guess, but nothing you'd want to do very long.

Re: Let me guess..

[that this is not und]

Fewer and fewer people have been able to afford air travel since the 1950s??

You seem old enough to remember that in the 1960's most households had one television set. I remember my family being pretty well-off and my parents also had a second TV, a 9" black and white portable. In a time when a new car was $1200 and a monthly house payment was $80, a color television cost $650.

Re: Let me guess..

[ArcherB]

Add to that the fact that vendors will hoard the money rather than reinvest them
How exactly do vendors "hoard" their money? Do they:
1) Expand to make even more money
2) Cash it out and put in their own pockets
3) Invest it using other means such as bonds or stock market
4) Stick in the bank
5) Buy a giant Scrooge McDuck style safe to store stacks of $100 bills and gold coins.

In the case of 1 and 3, the money goes back into the economy. The business expands, creating more jobs by the expansion itself or running the now larger business.
In the case of Number 2, you need to ask the question again, "How exactly do the stock holders 'hoard' their money?" The answers don't really change. Even if they build mansions, someone has to gather the materials, construct the home, fill it with furniture, and then maintain the house by keeping it clean and repaired. Even this keeps people employed.
Number 4 is an option some use, but it's temporary. Even then, the bank will load the money back out to other businesses or individuals who will also spend the money, expanding the economy.
Number 5, of course, is what you think happens, but that's simply not reality.

Either way, you are missing a basic economic fact, ALL MONEY IS SPENT, and by spending that money, the economy expands. The more money being made, the more the economy grows. Profit is what happens when you increase the value of resources. Profit, by definition, makes the economy larger, meaning more money for everyone.

So you can stop with your rich-envy.

Re: Let me guess..

[Hognoxious]

We don't. Instead of the 1% having to pay the plebs, who then spend the money, and the 1% get part of that back as profits they can just get their automatic factories to make what they want. Cut out the middleman. They won't actually need money as such.

Of course that rather involves doing something with most of the 99%. But then I'm reliably informed that being part of the 99% was never meant to be a living proposition.

Re:Let me guess..

[fluffernutter]

Who is to blame is completely beside the point. It is a problem enough that it is happening.

Re:Let me guess..

[fluffernutter]

We do it all the time, it's never a problem.

Re: Let me guess..

[apoc.famine]

One store near me even has do-it-yourself conveyor belt scanners, so you can do a full cart at a time. If you shop with someone else, one scans and drops on the belt, the other bags at the end. They keep an extra cart at the end too, so you bag and drop into the cart, and leave your empty one in its place when you leave. I think our average checkout is about 1/3 of the time of the cashier's, with bags packed properly, and even ordered somewhat by where things are going in the house.

Re:Let me guess..

[Joviex]

The Parable of the Broken Window

Except that "parable" is complete bullshit.

He admits that the glazer, who NOW HAS 6 FRANCS, is the benefactor here, right?

So, you telling me that the GLAZER, who now has 6 FRANCS, would NOT?? spend them as the "shop owner who's window was broken"?

That is "I call bullshit on any logic present here" point #1

Bullshit point #2: You have ZERO CLUE how EITHER of those with the 6 FRANCS would spend them. Trying to "predict" how that person will use their money is a an exercise in retarded.

Re:Let me guess..

[Anne Thwacks]

The number of bank branches is now declining rather than increasing âoebecause of industry consolidation and technological change.â

No. The number of branches is declining, and the queues are getting longer because of MBAs.

Most economic problems could be reduced by putting MBAs out to dig ditches with spoons. In some cases, significantly.

Re: Let me guess..

[war4peace]

There are plenty methods to "invest" money in stuff that doesn't help the economy. e.g. rich people buying shit from each other.
Larry Ellison bought an island, just an example off the top of my head.

Re: Let me guess..

[war4peace]

I don't envy shit, I say the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, and that's a proven fact. If the rich "invest" in things that increase the disparity between social strata, that's not really an investment, is it?

Re:Let me guess..

[apoc.famine]

Why do you think that a half trillion trade deficit is either too much or sufficient? You seem to have decided that that value has some deep meaning. I'm not sure what that is or why you think it. Sure, it's a big number, but when you're talking the US economy, they're all big numbers.

Re: Let me guess..

[Opportunist]

Ok. Grab your gun and meet me somewhere in the rich parts of the town. Shaking them down feeds more people than rounding up the poor.

Re:Let me guess..

[Anne Thwacks]

So trying to paint the picture of 1%ers being the only group that benefits from better stock prices is disingenuous at best and out and out falsehood at worst.

Are you deliberately trying to undermine the image of the Jealousy party?

Re:Let me guess..

[Anne Thwacks]

Also, capitalism dictates who is qualified to work what jobs. If old McDonald's employees aren't bright enough to see the automation coming and market themselves for something different/better that's on them.

No. That is "traditional, all American, selfishness".

Most people consider civilised behaviour to be "looking after those less fortunate than yourself", and the "traditional European selfish" remember the French Revolution.

Re: Let me guess..

[Serge_Tomiko]

The vast majority? You've got to be kidding. I mean, I realize you clearly have never studied psychometrics or social science in general and you're just talking out of your ass. But the vast majority? Are you living under a rock?

Re: Let me guess..

[ShanghaiBill]

We're not getting more affordable prices, though.

Yes and no. Prices have gone down on manufactured goods where automation has improved productivity. TVs are both cheaper and better. For services, prices have not gone down because something like a haircut is difficult to automate.

Poor people buy mostly "things", so they can afford more.
Rich people buy mostly services, so inflation affects them more.

Re: Let me guess..

[dryeo]

Actually there was a period of about 70 years, 3 generations, at the start of the industrial revolution where there was drastic unemployment before there was enough factory jobs to take up the slack. This was made worse as it was also the era of enclosing the commons, eg rich people getting laws passed giving them ownership of the former common lands, therefore pushing farmers of the land.
Society responded by executing people for almost any crime and later sending them, first to America and then once the Americans revolted, to Australia. There was also lots of voluntary emigration to the new world where lots of land was made available by stealing it from the natives. Gin was also very cheap and there were lots of low end jobs being servants.
If things repeat, eventually new jobs will pop up, but it may take generations.

Re: Let me guess..

[Daetrin]

Maybe we _should_ retrain all those people as middle managers, and have them supervise the people who claim that eliminating low skill jobs is always a good thing. The economy will be saved, they'll be miserable, and the rest of us will all get a nice dose of schadenfreude!

Re:Let me guess..

[JudgeFurious]

When you find one of those lazy little shits who can stack a burger correctly or make it the way I ordered it I might just give a damn but until then I'm sorry but if the kiosk and the burger making robots do a better job then the student might want to look into doing something else. I hear armies of Mexicans make a living mowing lawns for money. Maybe they should look into that?

Re: Let me guess..

[JudgeFurious]

Something tells me that some form of "basic wage" is going to be needed to bridge us from here to whatever the economy looks like in the future and while that's going on we are definitely going to need to do something about the ditch diggers who are busy at home making 8-10 more ditch diggers of tomorrow. The poor are going to have less opportunity in a world with robots and kiosks doing their busy work so they better get cracking on improving their skill set or at the very least discover what birth control is.

Re: Let me guess..

[gtall]

There is a story on NYT or Wash Post (I forget which) that bears this out, manufacturing companies in the mid-west cannot find qualified help. One doesn't just walk into a machine shop and start working, all those machines are now computer controlled, you'll be learning the computer system first. And just to eliminate another layer, you'll also be laying out collection of instructions the machine will be doing for the part you are making. And you'll be doing it for fewer benefits which means it is harder to pay off your school loans for the training you took just to get in the door.

Ah, but if companies would only pay more, then they'd get those qualified workers. Nope, some company in China or India will eat their lunch before they get to sit down at the table.

Re: Let me guess..

[Dread_ed]

The idea that "we" have to do something about "them" is how we end up with concentration camps and trails of tears.

From where I sit, the idea that "we" have to do something about "them" is how we end up with the Russian Revolution. You might want to reconsider what side of the line you are on, before it is too late.

Re:Let me guess..

[hraponssi]

Running Windows XP Embedded, and connected to the internet for convenient maintenance. What could possibly go wrong?

Lots of things could go wrong. You might not write a "BigMac" Metasploit module that allows me to press button and get free burgers. Or you might write the module but not make an app, with a big red button for FREE BURGURS, giefing me free big macs on the nearest McDonalds. Or they might fix those vulns before I get to those burgers. The russians might hack 'em and produce endless free big macs shooting from the automated big mac dispensers. You know, like in the cartoons, cause life is like the cartoons, right? I might be somewhere else just at that time when those free burgers fly.

We need Captain BigMac.

Too many things to go wrong there. I better take a poo.

Re: Let me guess..

[pnutjam]

Now, now, let's not pretend economists really know anything.

Re:Let me guess..

[desdinova 216]

let me ask you this, if nobody is employed and being paid, who is going to buy the products and services?

Re: Let me guess..

[EllisDees]

>As jobs are automated, their cost of production drops, meaning money is freed up to spend or invest elsewhere in the economy.

Except that that's not what's actually happening. Instead of reinvesting that money, giant companies are content to sit on it, since there is no productive use for it outside of drawing interest. What are these magical jobs that you think the bottom 50% of the talent pool (and eventually the bottom 99%) are going to be? And no, subsidence farming isn't going to make a huge comeback.

Re: Let me guess..

[nasch]

Maybe you have a different idea of what lower class means. I don't think those people are flying.

Re: Let me guess..

[EllisDees]

>Yes, minimum wage in 1997 was ~$5. Now it's $15 in NY. It's well above $10 anywhere else.

No, it's not you freaking moron. There are a handful of places, all big cities, that have a minimum wage above $10/hour. Most place can still get away with paying half of the federal minimum wage ($3/hr) to tipped workers.

Re: Let me guess..

[imgod2u]

I'd prefer a basic income rather than forcing employment by companies. With at least basic income, the company is free to squeeze out efficiency and make product prices go down (benefits everyone). *If* they make profit, that profit can then be taxed and given to support the unemployable/underemployed.

The point is to de-couple "people need money to survive" and "companies need to be efficient". Tax+UBI only taxes profits. Minimum wage and employment mandates hurts *revenue*. So even companies that don't make profit are hit.

Re: Let me guess..

[imgod2u]

In the very long run, the argument is true. However, that doesn't mean automation -- especially rapidly advancing automation -- doesn't cause temporary swaths of unemployable people. And by "temporary", I mean a generation's time (20 years or so).

People in their 50's who are 10-20 years from retirement aren't very likely to pick up skills for advanced robotics. Nor (unfortunately) are they mentally flexible enough to suck it up and go back to the junior role. That's the unfortunate American mentality. And this being a representative democracy, they'll enact public policy to keep their obsolete jobs instead.

So I'd prefer a solution that doesn't involve "it's ok, wait 20 years or so and the jobs replaced by automation will be filled by something else". Because that "something else" needs a new generation of people who are trained for it.

Macro-economic theories are great....until they forget human psychology.

Re: Let me guess..

[imgod2u]

Your theory doesn't really hold water either. At least, not to the broader market. Here is the average profit margin for every sector in the S&P500:
http://www.businessinsider.com...

It's roughly 9%. With tech being the obvious outlier.

Walmart, for example, has a net profit margin of only 2.59% (https://ycharts.com/companies/WMT/profit_margin).

So the idea that these companies are somehow squeezing out efficiency and sitting on cash instead of lowering prices (or burning more money on expanding, i.e. hiring) is mostly untrue. There are some exceptions (a certain fruit company). But in a competitive landscape (which Walmart definitely is in), they don't have the choice of keeping prices high if they increase productivity.

Re: Let me guess..

[imgod2u]

"ALL MONEY IS SPENT, and by spending that money, the economy expands."

I agree with most of what you wrote but even this basic assumption appears untrue. We've injected a crapton of capital over the last 8 years through QE into the markets. But productivity and employment haven't exactly skyrocketed. Indeed, the data would suggest that investment capital alone doesn't cause economic expansion. From my portfolio, that capital seems to have gone towards:

1. Tech startup speculation. The number of people hired is fairly small compared to the trillions of QE.
2. Financial gambling. The market for trading derivatives is turning more profit than ever. Some financial "analysts" get hired, but again, the number is fairly small.
3. Shuffled around in equities trading. Stock prices inflate but companies aren't making the equivalent amount of money.

For reference, here's the price to earnings ratio of the S&P500 companies:
http://www.multpl.com/

Notice something? The median is ~15 and we're at 25+. That means the price of the company's stock (basically traders betting money with each other) is increasing faster than how much business the company actually has (consumer buying stuff).

That doesn't lead to productivity or employment increase, because that money, while indeed invested, isn't all invested in things that increase production (and thus employment) nor increases consumption (which higher employment and wages would).

The conclusion is, not all investments are equal. And other catalysts are required for capital injection to increase productivity.

Re: Let me guess..

[DarkOx]

People are not that stupid though. For the most part they do chase lower prices. If that were not the case WallMart would not be what it is and we would not have massive trade deficits with China. People would be 'happy' to pay more for American goods.

As long as the market is competitive, prices will always tend to hover around the actual cost of goods sold. There are exceptions, some goods have inelastic demand. You will pay whatever your cancer pills cost as long as you are able. I can charge any amount that would completely bankrupt you. There are goods where demand fluctuates. I can't sell nearly as much electricity in the winter as in the summer when everyone runs A/C compressors all day. I still have to maintain the generating and distribution capacity though year round. So I might price units a bit higher than their costs at certain times of year to cover the higher overhead (unused capital equipment) other times of year; because my competitors will have to do something similar too.

Its when the market isn't competitive you have problems.

Re: Let me guess..

[XxtraLarGe]

Larry Ellison bought an island, just an example off the top of my head.

So what's he going to do with it? Allow it to revert back to nature? Or is he going to BUY STUFF and bring it to that island? My bet is on the latter. He's probably not going to just fill it with antiquities, Dutch Masters paintings & Faberge eggs either. I'll bet he'll build a house; or if there's one already there, refurnish it. Do you suppose he's going to do that on his own or hire other wealthy people to do that? Of course not. Ellison purchasing an island is probably going to create income opportunities for several people.

Re:Let me guess..

[robkeeney]

Much of it is just sitting around accumulating interest

How the hell do you think that interest accumulates? Magic? No, it gets loaned out to people who use it to start and run businesses, which --gasp!-- creates jobs!

Re: Let me guess..

[imgod2u]

"We're not getting more affordable prices, though."

This isn't really true either. The average prices for things that have increased productivity have indeed gone down relative to average wage. Think about how much a computer costs today compared to say, 20 years ago compared to average wages. At best, the top-of-the-line costs about the same in absolute dollars but wages have increased (slowly, but still about 2x 20 years ago).

Think about clothes. What percentage of the average income is required to buy a t-shirt nowadays?

Or food. At least basic food. How much has the price of a big mac changed compared to wages? Today, it's around $9/hour according to glassdoor. In 1997, that was around ~$4.50/hour. A big mac in 1997 was $2.49. Today it's $3.99. Wage increased 100%. Price increased 60%. Relative to wage, that's a price going down.

The issue is not everything people buy has increased in efficiency due to various reasons. The biggest line-item and the elephant in the room is housing. There's only so much land, and the population is increasing. And with city ordinances and NIMBYism run afowl (as well as patchwork solutions such as tax incentives) and dozens of other things has prevented gains in efficiency when it comes to housing supply.

So much so it brings the average consumer price index up such that it seems prices aren't going down. In reality, most prices have gone down. Except for the biggest price everyone pays: keeping a roof over their heads.

Re: Let me guess..

[imgod2u]

He's talking about many major cities who've increased their minimum wage. It's not nation-wide but it affects quite a lot of people (the majority of people live in cities nowadays).

Add that to Federal employees (1.4M of them) as well as Federal contractors (many many more) having a $10+ minimum wage (thanks Obama?) and the average minimum wage is quite a bit higher (though not 15) than it was in 1997. Easily 2x.

Re:Let me guess..

[Kjella]

I'm not so sure about that. The McD's near me at work changed to kiosks, and I can swear all the people who used to be at the cashier are now working inside putting food and orders together. (...) And more utilization means more staff can man them - where one person might have done drinks and ice cream, the increase in order speeds mean you need 4 people handling the station just from sheer volume. Which likely attracts more people because they didn't want to wait 15 minutes for a drink or ice cream, but can be in and out in 3. Likely, the restaurant needs MORE people now to handle the increased traffic

Here's the key difference between micro- and macro-economics, one is an open and the other a closed system. If McD is getting more business, is someone else getting less business or is the market expanding? If they hire three extra for that are six people laid off at other places nearby selling drinks and ice cream? The other alternative is that the market expands, like if you make a cheaper car more people can afford a car. But given the general obesity in the population, it's unlikely a simple expansion of consumption is possible. Then you start looking at substitution effects, like if fast food becomes cheaper does it negatively affect more expensive forms of eating out or home cooking, grocery sales and all the industries that depend on that.

Overall becoming more efficient generally means some jobs are lost somewhere. On the whole though with average consumers money not spent on one thing will be spent on other things, like if 300 million Americans save $0.10 on their burgers it's $30 million they'll put to general consumption. If it stays in the economy, good. If it ends up going to China or the 1%ers, well "locally" in terms of the US consumer economy maybe not so good. You could argue that through globalism and international trade there'll be better and cheaper goods for everyone. That through trickle-down economics more at the top will give more at the bottom. But who produces wealth and who reaps the benefits has never been that tightly connected.

In the days of Karl Marx it was machines and workers, today it's digital systems and developers. When the system becomes big enough, any developer is expendable and just another cog in the machinery. No matter how special you think you are, Google or Microsoft or Oracle isn't going to stand or fall on you. The big profit comes from owning the system, it's capital that breeds capital. The divide between the laborers and the capitalists is once more expanding, while the middle class hasn't been driven into poverty the rich have accelerated into a league of their own. The best thing you can do to have money is once again being born into the right bed, like the old days with lords and peasants.

Re: Let me guess..

[imgod2u]

"All of that shit has gotten worse since the 1950s!"

Really? You were able to fly for $49 each way between major airport hubs in the 1950's? Hell, even in 1950's money, it wasn't $49. Flying from SJC to Burbank costs me routinely $49 each way.

You were able to buy a 70" 4k TV for $900 in 1950's? How much *was* your TV in 1950?

How much was a Big Mac relative to average income?

Perhaps, just perhaps, you're looking at the past with rose-colored glasses. "Back in my day..."

Re: Let me guess..

[war4peace]

And remove opportunities from several thousand more.
End result: negative market value.

Re: Let me guess..

[XxtraLarGe]

And remove opportunities from several thousand more.
End result: negative market value.

And your evidence for this is?

Re:Let me guess..

[Dutch Gun]

Sorry, for the confusion. I completely botched that line in a last minute edit. What I meant to say was:

Among all hourly wage earners earning minimum wage (3.9 percent), minimum wage earners 25 or younger account for 3% of the total. That is, over 75% of minimum wager earners are 25 years old or younger. Make more sense?

Your point about ranges above minimum wage jobs are well taken, but I'd imagine we can probably extrapolate from these "bottom rung" numbers a bit, meaning the demographics of "near minimum wage" are probably fairly similar to "at minimum wage", with gradual demographic shifts as the wages go up. That said, I hesitate to engage in too much speculation without hard numbers to look at. That would be somewhat hypocritical of me, given my earlier post.

Re:Let me guess..

[thewolfkin]

Wall street is the only part of the country that would cheer the loss of jobs.

Everybody should cheer. The purpose of economic activity is to create goods and services, not "keeping people busy". If the same number of burgers can be delivered with less labor, that is a GOOD THING.

As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy. For more insight on why pointless make-work jobs are NOT "good for the economy", you can read The Parable of the Broken Window.

did some conservative site go hard on this Broken Window thing? Because this is the third time this year I've had to debunk the Broken Window Fallacy [Debunking the Broken Window Fallacy](https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/10/01/debunking-the-broken-window-fallacy/)

Re: Let me guess..

[thewolfkin]

there are never any lines at the automated cashier, especially the ones that don't accept cash.

Keep dreaming pal. My Local Branch of a grocery store has to advertise all stations fully manned because it is often the case that everywhere has a line including the automatic check out. Which can hickup if you move your bags. If you pick something up and put it back down you have to wait for the person manning the station to give you the all clear. If you buy something on clearance you still have to take it up to that person directly rather than scanning it in the machine.

Re:Let me guess..

[Rakarra]

The purpose of economic activity is to create goods and services, not "keeping people busy".

There's nothing more important than "keeping people busy." They're PEOPLE, and to do anything in society requires money. They HAVE to have jobs.

As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy

Ahh yes. The big lie, that reducing jobs creates uuhhh.. more jobs, somehow. It's the milder cousin of the thoroughly-debunked trickle-down.

What we've found in the real is that the extra profits go to shareholders, executives and others who do not reinvest, but keep it. Over the last 30-odd years we've seen a massive wealth transfer from the middle class and poor to the upper class. The rich get richer, because they hold enough control to squeeze everyone else.

Re: Let me guess..

[niaxilin]

Don't worry. We're bringing back coal!

Re:Let me guess..

[_Sharp'r_]

Well, at least you've thought about it. Sadly, you didn't actually debunk the broken window fallacy, mostly because you didn't seem to understand the point of it.

There is economic activity which creates more wealth overall. There is economic activity which doesn't, which actually decreasing wealth overall. The broken window is an example of the latter kind.

If we want to be wealthier overall, we need more of the former kind, not the latter kind. It's that simple.

To put it in terms related to your article, if the multiplier for a government activity is greater than 1, then it's helping create wealth. If it's less than 1, then it's helping to destroy wealth. The vast majority of government spending ends up with a multiplier of less than 1.

I don't know how to simplify it further for you.

Re: Let me guess..

[war4peace]

Math.

Add opportunities for 5 people while removing opportunities for 500.
The result is -495.

The amount of people affected matters more than the amount of money saved, or invested or whatever.

Re: Let me guess..

[Brockmire]

Not as a rule, just in general.

Re:Let me guess..

[david_thornley]

The US got out of the Great Depression by breaking windows in a big way.

A very large part of US manufacturing capability went to war materiel that had little or no civilian use. A large number of men were put to work breaking other people's windows, among other things. There was a whole lot of economic activity that served no useful purpose, neither producing capital goods nor anything useful in peacetime.

The economy ran full steam, and didn't stop after the war, since people had money from jobs doing nothing economically useful and could spend it.

Re:Let me guess..

[fluffernutter]

Yes so lets motivate fifty thousand fast food workers to take other low skill restaurant jobs. Now those jobs become the minimum wage jobs that no one wants to do, if you are lucky to get one of them because there are now more people after the same jobs and the market is saturated.

Re: Let me guess..

[physicsphairy]

Absent minimum wage laws, a person can *always* underbid a machine. If a machine can produce burgers for $0.20 per hour of use, I can offer to work for $0.19 per hour. If the burger machine, and the farming machines, and the solar powered self-driving delivery trucks have all brought down the price of burgers to $0.05 a burger, then $0.19 per hour would be plenty of pay to have enough to eat.

I can't exactly predict what wages will be and what costs will be a hundred years in the future, so I couldn't promise we will not run into the kind of problems you indicate, but nor is it a given that supercheap robot workers will be the end of the availability of menial jobs.

Re:Let me guess..

[GuB-42]

Everybody should cheer. The purpose of economic activity is to create goods and services, not "keeping people busy". If the same number of burgers can be delivered with less labor, that is a GOOD THING.

Sure but don't forget the level of service. It may work for McDonalds because employees are being trained to work like robots but cashiers can provide added value.
In a proper restaurant, the customer can do reasonable demands, or ask questions. I may want no or more salt on my fries, a different cooking for my steak. Ask about the ingredients, stuff like that. And restaurants held by actual human beings can usually accommodate my requests, it's not like it would cost them more to cook my steak rare instead of well done.
One thing that pissed me off is when they replaced human operated tolls with machines (in France). The machine sucks compared to the cashier. Doesn't accept all coins and can't return change properly, giving you a huge pile of small coins instead of something sensible. Cheques are not accepted anymore unless you call a number and use a special mailbox. They sometimes miscalculate fare (ex : count a motorbike as a car, or a car as a truck) and the only way to fix the problem is to make a call and wait, sometimes quite a long time. Also foreigners are commonly confused with the machine, slowing down the line as they figure out how it works.
Ok for replacing humans with machines, but only if the machines do an equivalent or better job.

Re:Let me guess..

[drinkypoo]

Your complete lack of empathy for both people outside of technical fields and the elderly in general is disgusting.

I have a lack of empathy for people who don't find figuring things out to be interesting. Your brain is like the rest of your body. Use it or lose it.

Re:Let me guess..

[skam240]

Even though I think our country would do well with socialize medicine I think UBI would be a much better solution to the problems you describe rather than socialism. Capitalism has shown itself to be very good at providing goods and services while the few centrally planned economies we have to go off of as examples have been pretty terrible at it. UBI fits very neatly on top of capitalism and resolves the problems you describe.

I also disagree with the level of urgency in regards to the issue that you seem to advocate. While I do think automation's effect on labor will eventually prove problematic in terms of keeping people employed I think we're still a few decades out from that.

Re:Let me guess..

[skam240]

and if you kept reading...

" The affluent and our major corporations generally all have enough capital to generate an epic amount of jobs, they don't do so because there's no demand for the goods and service these jobs would be providing."

Do try to keep up.

Re: Let me guess..

[drinkypoo]

He's talking about many major cities who've increased their minimum wage. It's not nation-wide but it affects quite a lot of people

Wages even for burger flippers are already higher than average in major cities, simply because if you don't pay more, people can't afford to show up and do the jobs. And hey, what do you know, major cities are about the only place you pay meaningfully more than the average for a chain burger — but it's really not due to wage overhead, which is dwarfed by space overhead. So raising the minimum wage to $15 in San Francisco or Seattle might sound impressive, until you consider just how crippling the cost of living actually is, or how much higher the median wage already was than the national average. And hey, Los Angeles will have a $15 minimum wage... in 2021. When you'll need $16.50 to have the equivalent of a $15 wage today.

The federal minimum wage is just over seven bucks. That's the minimum value of human work in this country. All the places with significantly increased minimum wages also have significantly or even dramatically increased cost of living. Barring these outliers, the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation in decades.

Re:Let me guess..

[robkeeney]

Keeping up with an idiot is no problem. If there were no demand for the goods and services these jobs would provide, THEY WOULD GENERATE NO PROFIT AND THUS NO INTEREST ON THE INVESTMENT. Do you seriously think rich people take a lower ROI to keep the poor down or some stupid shit like that? They didn't get rich on bad investments.

Shall I speak slower so you can keep up?

Re:Let me guess..

[petermgreen]

The model of separating ordering and fulfilment essentially means they trap the customers. Before someone has paid they can easilly give up, once they have paid they can't easilly give up without losing their money.

Re:Let me guess..

[skam240]

You apparently have never heard of the stock market as referenced here.

" This is why we have a stock market so out of wack with our country's current level of prosperity."

Please just go back and reread my post. You're tiring me.

Re:Let me guess..

[kelanos]

The purpose of economic activity is to create goods and services

And what is the purpose of creating goods and services?
Your shortsightedness is inexcusable.

If we zoom out from your tunnel vision and put your statement in the context of REALITY, you're basically proclaiming the meaning of life is to make money.

How is money anything but an unfavorable interface to living your life, at least for the vast, vast majority of human beings?

that is a GOOD THING

FOR WHO? For you? What exactly is your motive here? Are you even rich? Or do you think sucking plutocrat toes will profit you somehow?

Automation is a bad thing for anyone below the high-water mark. It values your humanity. It disempowers you from achieving your potential by making you a dependent of the state.

pointless

Then what IS the point? Standing by to watch you chase your tail.

Re: Let me guess..

[sonamchauhan]

Hahaha..... its trickle-down economics all over again.

Listen, trickle down works. But the problem is too little trickles down too late to the people who need it the most. Just like Larry, everyone needs a source of capital to sustain them. Not a labor-for-hire job. A source of capital. This used to be land for most people in the not-too-distant past. No more. Once personal capital (brain and muscles) diminishes, people are done for.

Re:Let me guess..

[drinkypoo]

Even though I think our country would do well with socialize medicine I think UBI would be a much better solution to the problems you describe rather than socialism.

Well, then you're not actually thinking. UBI is a form of socialism. Maybe it's time to dust off your dictionary... bookmark.

I also disagree with the level of urgency in regards to the issue that you seem to advocate. While I do think automation's effect on labor will eventually prove problematic in terms of keeping people employed I think we're still a few decades out from that.

It's already a problem! Right now! Automation is taking away jobs right now which are not being replaced with more jobs for unskilled workers! It's not going to happen, it's happening!

Re:Let me guess..

[Imrik]

Using kiosks doesn't rule out the possibility of customization. While it is possible that they've left that out, I would find it odd since McD is the one that built their identity on being able to customize.

Re: Let me guess..

[Opportunist]

Why do you think those lower costs will result in lower prices? Cost and price has little to do with each other, the only thing cost determines is whether something gets produced and sold at all.

The price is determined by where the seller thinks the maximum profit is possible. Why should he lower that price just because his production costs drops?

Re:Let me guess..

[cthulhu11]

Voters in George recently proved otherwise.

Re:Let me guess..

[allquixotic]

The "Parable of the broken window" was written in 1850. Let me clue you into something: NO ONE in the 19th century, and next to no one in the 20th century even, could have anticipated the sea change that is pervasive automation that we're seeing today. It's nowhere near the same thing as what we experienced in the industrial revolution with tractors displacing farmhands. The changes that are happening are different in kind and require different economic theories to reason about them, because the parameters involved are different.

The jobs being displaced are of entirely different categories than mindless or repetitive jobs. Kiosks are only the first step. Software developers and architects, financial analysts, dozens of types of first-level and middle managers, and even CEOs are potentially on the chopping block in the next 50 years, as machines can do their jobs cheaper and more efficiently.

Just because the economy has more money doesn't mean that money is being spent on paying out wages to people. It could be spent on paying other billionaires for use of their automated systems. As the cost of maintaining these systems decreases with reliability and durability improvements, there just isn't much need for human labor. And despite the population increasing, what I think you'll see is a much slower growth in total wages paid out to the lower 99%, or even stagnation, and sharp decreases during any hint of economic downturn of any magnitude. Meanwhile the top 1% will see exponential growth in wealth, as the 1% always retains the means to keep getting richer, and now we have governments around the world who are willing to meddle in the markets to ensure that the top 1% continue to gain in wealth even as the economy overall shrinks.

As long as our economy operates on the theory that you have to work to earn money to buy things like food, clothing and shelter that you need to live, we need productive jobs to put people in that they can perform to earn that money; otherwise they'll be homeless beggars or looking for government entitlement programs to keep them from starving to death.

If your solution is to let them starve, you're a heartless bastard. You try starving and see how much you like it.

If your solution is to pay them a universal basic income, you're on the right track.

If your solution is to wave your magic wand of 200 year-old economic theory and say "don't worry, as long as there's money people will have jobs", you're burying your head in the sand like an ostrich.

While we're quoting diametrically-opposed theories at one another, take a look at these for an opposing viewpoint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

Re: Let me guess..

[thephenom99]

Reduced production costs and or reduced labor costs does not mean reduced prices. History has this type of process as profit only for the ownership or shareholders. Rich get richer, poor get poorer per the scriptures in the Bible. Amen.

Re:Let me guess..

[ebvwfbw]

Hey, gotta raise the minimum wage... Never mind those people will now be out of work. Happens over and over. Jobs move south, then overseas. Still we listen to stupid people trying to spend other people's money.

Re: Let me guess..

[psycheitout]

Of course this is all going by the assumption that these self service Kiosks are going to do their job better than a human ever would and that no human in the world is going to complain and cause problems. My guess is they are going to roll it out, then after a week of customers complaining their orders are wrong because they thought hitting the button that said chicken mcnugget with the picture of a chicken mcnugget on it meant double cheese burger. They are going to put one guy up front with the kiosks to help the blind, elderly, dumb and technologically stubborn . As well as cash people out if they can't use the machine. Then he's going to get so backed up during rush times they are going to have to bring a second guy out to help with the other machine and look at that your right back up to staff.

Re:Let me guess..

[skam240]

Marx would loath UBI, it's essentially bribing the masses to put off the revolution. The capitalists would still control everything after all.

Here's one of many more thorough explenations as to why UBI is not socialism (I just clicked on the first link after asking the question through google)
https://www.quora.com/Is-basic...

Maybe dust off your own dictionary

As for the urgency, while I realize the unemployment rate is not a perfect metric the fact that it's low right now does a pretty good job of contradicting your point that things are super urgent.

Re: Let me guess..

[leslie.satenstein]

So you are Ok with you and your job being replaced by some automation. And what will you do about your health coverage and your mortgage and credit card obligations, or your kid(s) dental bills? Does it mean that you will have to pull your kid out of a charter school?

Re: Let me guess..

[LinuxLuver]

Reality proved your theory wrong long ago. When good jobs were lost, many people resort to lower paying jobs in the service industry.... Places like Mcdonalds. With McDonald's destroying those jobs you're going to be left with a lot of people not working. The last time this happened at large scale was the 2002-2008 time period where literally millions of jobs in the West moved to China. The loss of those jobs - and the jobs of people who used to sell stuff to those people - was one of the main reason people defaulted on their loans and we saw the financial crash. Sure the banks had dodgy lending criteria...... And they needed to as the number of people with good incomes was shrinking..... And you just couldn't grow "good" loans anymore. For the record, I saw this coming from 2003 onward. I planned for it. It happened as I expected. The "experts" weren't looking at what happens when you destroy millions of jobs and replace them with....... Lower paying jobs. Cutting taxes at the same time was just pouring gas on the fire. This round of job destruction will see even those lower paying jobs shrink in number. It won't take much at macro scale to have a huge impact. It's already happening. Millennials are giving up and walking away from an economy they doesn't want them. Only the residual wealth of their parents, earned in another time, obscures this. What jobs do you think will be created? Or are you just employing magical thinking based on faith in neo-liberal voodoo economics? That's been shown to be a very bad thing to do. We can see that every day in announcements like this.

Re: Let me guess..

[LinuxLuver]

No, it isn't. Those jobs would be automated at any wage. Plus the wages are already to low to actually make a living anyway. You only get to choose the form of your poverty. The fact of it is being locked in by corporations and legislation. Plus tax cuts. They make it impossible to support the victims of this kind of job destruction. Whether they worked hard or not..... Makes no difference.

Re: Let me guess..

[LinuxLuver]

Tax-funded salaries are the only thing that keeps the economy ticking over. They remain stable while everyone else gets screwed over. The pay isn't high, but it's generally reliable, unlike many private sector jobs these days. McDonald's is just the latest to move to impoverish people who already don't earn much.

Re:Let me guess..

[chuckugly]

What is this supermarket thing you're talking about? I seem to remember that term from the dark ages but can't quite place it .....

TL,DR; Why are you wasting time in a store?

Re: Let me guess..

[chuckugly]

We need to either start growing better humans, or figure out a new way to model our economy that leverages human tendencies while still allowing those who are incapable or unwilling to make an economically viable contribution to survive. Various "vote myself more money" schemes don't seem viable.

Re:Let me guess..

[Meski]

In a drivethru, they have trouble understanding *standard* orders, let alone customised ones. I'm wondering if a machine would let you order something like a deep fried OJ. Do'nt want to be too close to that ...

Re: Let me guess..

[sarbonn]

I know I'm kind of an enigma here on this, but one of the reasons I actually like my local McDonalds is because I enjoy interacting with the staff that work there. They're generally pretty friendly and attentive. I never get the impression that they're rude, hate being there, or anything along those lines. I know not every location is like that, but when you do find one like that, you continue to return to it. If they replaced these workers with a kiosk, I'd probably not go there any more because it's not like the choice of food is all that awesome.

Re:Let me guess..

[AutodidactLabrat]

And there are no "Competitive" markets
There are Keiritsu, Mobs and Corporate Agreements

Re:Let me guess..

[AutodidactLabrat]

No, the 1% are not the only beneficiaries
Since they control 100% of the Boards of Directors (weighted voting) they get ALL the benefits they care to take out of the Corporate Captialist monstrosity

I could use...

[toonces33]

I could use some EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES right now.

Re:I could use...

[wierd_w]

Did you order the fat ass meal!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:I could use...

[IMightB]

Thank you for visiting Carls Jr. Fuck You

Re:I could use...

[Dogtanian]

I could use some EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES right now.

I don't care whether they're "EXTRA BIG" or not, I hate ass fries.

And in other news

[sheramil]

Everyone else on Earth cheers as Wall Street replaced with algorithms capable of morality, compassion and empathy.

Re:And in other news

[Pezbian]

Mod parent up.

Re:And in other news

[ELCouz]

Mod parent up!!!

Re:And in other news

[Beeftopia]

I don't have a beef with Wall Street. I expect them to be amoral sociopaths focused solely on profit. I have a problem with politicians and a central bank which not only avoids prosecuting them, but actually keeps protecting and bailing them out in return for cash and favors.

Re:And in other news

[hazardPPP]

Everyone else on Earth cheers as Wall Street replaced with algorithms capable of morality, compassion and empathy.

Morality, compassion and empathy not required - just algorithms that do the same thing they do...at least we'd eliminate all the smug suits feeling so superior and watch them live off the dole.

Re:And in other news

[conquistadorst]

Everyone else on Earth cheers as Wall Street replaced with algorithms capable of morality, compassion and empathy.

Morality, compassion and empathy not required - just algorithms that do the same thing they do...at least we'd eliminate all the smug suits feeling so superior and watch them live off the dole.

Oh this, this has been happening for past couple decades now. It will continue happening too. They're just as good at cannibalizing themselves for sake of efficiency as anyone else. Just because there's fewer of them won't make you start hating them any less though.

Re:And in other news

[crafoo]

I'd settle for an algorithm that accurately addressed the health and prosperity of the nation beyond a financial quarter. Easier than empathy, and probably vastly more useful.

Re:And in other news

[hazardPPP]

The funny thing is that your average trader/fund manager/investor is in fact no more "special" than your average McDonald's worker...just vastly more paid. Most of them have just random performance, with no correlation year to year (even though they like to think differently), and most of those which are successful are successful because they are just plain lucky (and not particularly able). That's why using index funds is better than your average mutual fund, since most mutual funds do not outperform the market in the long run (even though they try). Of course, there are exceptions to this rule (Warren Buffet? 0.01% of day traders?), but they are few and far between.

Re:And in other news

[Anne Thwacks]

What you are looking for is called "stamp duty" - it makes short termist behaviour less profitable for the trader, and more beneficial for society.

Obviously, Wall Street and the City of London are categorically opposed to it.

Re:And in other news

[conquistadorst]

Amen and amen. Though while ETFs have been exploding and mutual fund growth has been almost flat for the past decade, that industry is still far larger than ETF funds as a whole. Long ways to go. I do disagree though, or at least I'd say it with more nuance, that you need to use far more brains to be one of these guys than a McDonald's worker. I still wouldn't go as far as calling them "special" however. Most fast food workers would have the brains for it. They just happen to be working at a job that doesn't expect them to use much of it.

I'm still naive enough to think most people can be smart, just like most people can run marathons. They have their own requirements and investments but they're both achievable in one's lifetime. We do need to maintain a system that rewards achievers and punishes losers but there's a definite stickiness with those at those stuck at the bottom working hard and getting no where while people at the top collecting their pay check and doing nothing constructive. That part is really hard to remedy. You have to take Bob #1, no higher education, whose working 2 jobs to make ends meet and trying his best to put food on the table... and replace him with with Bob #2 working 3 cubes down from you, not doing his job, instead browsing slashdot all day. It's not easy! :)

I am Jack's... complete lack of surprise.

[Pezbian]

Everything's moving this direction. I remember a factory I worked at back in 2000 paid new hires $8 an hour and until recently it wasn't much more than that. Then they automated the hell out of everything with more robots than people and pay over $13 an hour to start. And this is in a town with a very low cost of living. If you can keep up with the bots, you can stay.

Not sure I'm sold on them.

[sunking2]

Spent a month in Madrid and they have them there. Unless you eat at McDonalds way too much per person they are definitely a lot slower. However you can easily have 3 times as many as cashiers. The problem I see is similar to if you've ever seen a 65 year old try to use those touch screen Coke fountain drink machines that give you every combination on Earth. Old people won't like them. I also don't know that it eliminates all that many jobs. It seemed to me that they had just as many people, they were just expediting orders. Not saying they won't work, but questioning them being worthy of a stock boost.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[Hadlock]

Old people, when they eat out, typically do so at 4pm in the afternoon far away from normal rush hour

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[toonces33]

I saw the inside of one of those Coke machines once when they were servicing it - the thing reminded me of a giant ink-jet printer. There were tons of cartridges with the various flavors and whatnot. Others have posted pictures: http://moriartys.net/2011/03/p... I have no doubt that they are gouged as much on those flavor cartridges as people are in ink-jet cartridges. It all seems rather pointless to me.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[sunking2]

Coke actually hired Dean Kamen to work the project, presumably for his experience in the medical medication field, though more so for the publicity. He agreed to do it in exchange for Coke helping support his clean water in Africa initiative.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[Dunbal]

If you spend a month in Europe and eat at McDonald's you're doing it wrong.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[SeriousTube]

It's the ones that get out at 4 PM in the morning you have to watch out for.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[thegarbz]

Not saying they won't work, but questioning them being worthy of a stock boost.

You don't need to question anything. McDonalds is only starting the introduction in the USA. They have been elsewhere for years and where they have been installed the stores have seen an increase in revenue and product movement. They have empirically shown to improve sales at stores where they are installed with the majority of the sales increase coming at peak times.

What else would be worthy of a stock boost if not a global expansion of a program that makes more money?

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[AmiMoJo]

Kiosks have to be designed for the slowest, least able users, who have no training and are extremely error prone. They also need to have crap hardware like resistive touch screens that work with gloves etc.

Don't forget that they are not designed to make your life easier, they are designed to reduce the company's costs and prevent theft/fraud.

That's why they are universally terrible. The ones at the supermarkets in the UK are really, really slow. After scanning an item they have a minimum 10 second lockout period where they won't scan anything. In M&S where the old people shop it's at last 20 seconds. All that to prevent accidental double scans by clueless, untrained users.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[starless]

If you spend a month in Europe and eat at McDonald's you're doing it wrong.

My British sister and her young kids (7 and 9) visited my partner and me in Paris - McDonald's was the only place
they liked to eat. At any other place the kids objected because the food wasn't like they were used to back home.
That even included pizza and Indian food.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[drinkypoo]

At any other place the kids objected because the food wasn't like they were used to back home.

They sound like some grade A spoiled little shits to me, and your British sister sounds like a spectacular enabler. So, just like Americans then!

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[sunking2]

When its Siesta time and nobody else is serving or you don't have an hour and a half for lunch and you are starving you don't have much choice at times. And to be honest, Spanish food isn't French food. Not saying it's bad, just doesn't support your if you don't eat it for a month you are some sort of heathen. Oh, and on top of that you need the code on your receipt to get into the bathroom, though most McDs leave theirs unlocked.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[ProfBooty]

We ate plenty of McDonalds when we traveled in England 20 years back. I only went to McDonalds once in Germany, and that was for the novelty of ordering beeer at a McDonalds.

English food other than breakfasts is not very tasty to the american palate. Their meat quality is pretty poor too.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[Osgeld]

3x as many? so if I go in at lunch time there will be 3 there lol

after about oh geez, 4 years I stepped foot in a McDonalds last week, horrible "service", slow as possible, place was filthy and I got a cold hamburger dipped in salt brined grease and some soggy cold fries

1 one cashier working the counter at 12:15pm

I wont be back for quite a while

BTW Taco bell tried this exact same thing in the early-mid 90's with touch screen mac's mounted on a pole, it worked very well for them, you see them in everywhere now don't you. It worked exactly the same as the MCD system just on old technology (quite a feat having a color classic II with a pipe rammed though the middle of it)

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[interkin3tic]

Why do foodies always assume everyone else cares about food as much as they do? If I had infinite amounts of money and time, I might not eat fast food ever again, maybe. But I don't and I'd rather eat at McDs than spend more time and money on stuff that my body is just going to turn into literal shit anyway.

If you spend unnecessary time and money on a vacation to Europe on FOOD, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[captaindomon]

Doesn't sound like you have kids or have ever traveled with kids. The point with kids is to measure how much you force them to adapt to. You want the kids to enjoy their trip, just like you do. There is give and take for how much weirdness you can put them through and still have them on solid enough footing to learn from the trip. Sometimes two weeks into a trip, you need some McDonald's to give them some comfort. Kids are awesome! But they're not adults, and adults that don't have kids don't understand that.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[drinkypoo]

Doesn't sound like you have kids or have ever traveled with kids.

I've been a kid, and if I didn't want to eat, I didn't have to eat, but I certainly didn't taken to Mickey Deeznuts. I'll try pretty much any food at least once.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[robkeeney]

I have 4 kids and I have traveled extensively with them. The British sister is a spectacular enabler. My kids will eat anything because if they didn't eat what they were served, they didn't eat. Parents who say "you must not have kids" when someone points out that some brat is picky and spoiled are usually lazy spectacular enablers themselves.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[interkin3tic]

I found there's plenty of places that serve food just as fast and cheap and are both healthier for you and taste better.

Speed, price, and health are three big concerns with food. McDonalds is what it is because it's been relentless in improving two of those. You're suggesting there are restaurants out there that do better than McDonalds at one of those factors? Of course, that's a given. Two of those factors? There are probably some. All three? Gonna need some proof and an explanation why those restaurants you speak of aren't eating McD's lunch worldwide.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[Mike Van Pelt]

The problem I see is similar to if you've ever seen a 65 year old try to use those touch screen Coke fountain drink machines that give you every combination on Earth. Old people won't like them.

As a 60-something "old people", I like the touch screen "every combination on Earth" soda machines.

As long as Diet Mountain Dew is an option.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[interkin3tic]

You're making a lot of moronic assumptions there, but in that hypothetical situation, yes. Do you want society to evaluate whether or not you've made good choices before they pay your medical bills? Because that would be bad, but "you're poor so fuck you" is worse than even that situation, and it's what we have now.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[mjwx]

Spent a month in Madrid and they have them there. Unless you eat at McDonalds way too much per person they are definitely a lot slower. However you can easily have 3 times as many as cashiers. The problem I see is similar to if you've ever seen a 65 year old try to use those touch screen Coke fountain drink machines that give you every combination on Earth. Old people won't like them. I also don't know that it eliminates all that many jobs. It seemed to me that they had just as many people, they were just expediting orders. Not saying they won't work, but questioning them being worthy of a stock boost.

Thats Spain for you.

They've automated the cashiers, but not the burger flippers.

Try the UK, we've got the automated kiosks and it's a lot faster as they can keep all 6/8/12 open all the time, whilst only keeping 1 or 2 open at the counter. I've found them a hell of a lot faster. Regardless of if I order at a machine or a person, it takes the same amount of time for an order to get from the broiler to my hand. I've just eliminated the wait to order by using a kiosk.

The problem I see is similar to if you've ever seen a 65 year old try to use those touch screen Coke fountain drink machines that give you every combination on Earth. Old people won't like them..

That problem isn't due to the machine, it's due to the indecisive old person. These are the kind of person who fart-arses about in the line deciding what they want at the counter holding everyone else up, it doesn't matter if they're being served by a person or operating a kiosk, it's their selfishness and indecisiveness that causes the problem regardless of how their ordering. Not to say every old person is a bimbilng idiot mind you, many of them know what they want and have kept up with technology.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[rhazz]

We have them in Canada already. The franchise I visit used to have 3-4 registers for orders. They now have only 2, but have added 4 automated kiosks. The first time I visited I didn't even notice them because they just looked like wallscreens with ads. The difference?

Standing in line to order took a long, fucking, time. It then took a long time to get my food because a number of other people had come in and used the kiosks while I waited in line to order. I would have used the kiosk had I known it was there, but there were no signs and like most people I've mentally conditioned myself to ignore flashing ad screens in restaurants. I generally only use the drive-thru these days because it is always their first priority and goes much quicker.

Re:Not sure I'm sold on them.

[david_thornley]

About twenty-five years ago, I went on a family trip to London. My wife and I were out with my brother and he wanted to eat at Burger King. Sure, we thought, let's eat at a London Burger King once. Then we found out he wanted to eat there all the time, so we found our own places to eat after that.

been there, done that . . .

[swell]

Several fast food chains had those kiosks many years ago. They were ignored by customers who went to the counter anyway. This excites investors because they have never been in a fast food joint. They didn't see the failed system of the past. They have no clue how efficient current employees are. They think that laying off employees is the road to big profit.

Does anybody here see a future where food and drinks served by robots will be more attractive than what we have now? Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?

Re: been there, done that . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

There are tons of these kiosks where I live and they are well used. There are usually at least 4 for each regular cashier. Lots of throughput.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Personal service (and food presentation/quality) can certainly be a large part of why people go out to eat and drink - at proper restaurants.

At fast food (aka "gimme my awful, disgusting tasting, but dirt cheap burger right now!") - not so much.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[ShanghaiBill]

Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?

Depending on the location and time of day, 50-70% of McDonald's customers use the drive-thru window. They aren't there for the human connection.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?

No. I go out to eat and drink for a change of scenery to clear my mind. I use self checkout machines whenever possible and I wish every store and restaurant would offer them, because I don't like the sense of social obligation involved in the personal service experience. If I'm hungry or tired or preoccupied, I'm liable to be grumpy, and I don't want to deal with a superficial social interaction under those circumstances. Machines don't try to make small talk, machines don't expect to be tipped, and machines don't get offended when you just don't care to be friendly. I don't want to fake an interest in the cashier. I just want to finish the transaction as quickly as possible so I can do what I came for, which is to eat and drink.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[mewsenews]

Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?

No

Re:been there, done that . . .

[Kjella]

Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?

What personal service?
"I'll have a <size> <menu> with <soda>"
"Anything else?"
"No, that's it"
"That'll be <price>"
*pay*
*wait*
*eat*
*leave*

If you go to a fast food joint it's probably because:
a) You're socializing with somebody not on the payroll
b) You're hungry and want a cheap, quick bite
c) You can't be arsed to cook, serve and clean
d) You're far from home and need to eat out

None of those particularly need a human element, sure it's practical... but if you added even a tiny service fee for a human to do it, I think you'd see 95% self-service orders.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[Solandri]

They have no clue how efficient current employees are. They think that laying off employees is the road to big profit.

Employees are more efficient and cost-effective than kiosks.

Until the city passes a $15 minimum wage. Then suddenly kiosks become more cost-effective than minimum wage employees.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[swell]

In my fashionable neighborhood is a score of restaurants, a dozen nightclubs, 8 coffee shops, half dozen pizza & taco joints, and 1 (one) McDonalds. None of these places would survive without human servers. Not too many loner geeks or terrorists here, just fun loving people out for a good time. They're spending $30 and up for a meal, more for a night's drinking, and even at McDonalds they expect to see real humans behind the counter when they stop for their sobering up snack.

McDonalds is a small part of the scene here, but many McDs in the area have their own personalities. Near a local college, the McD is a bit cold and rushed; no time for pleasantries. My favorite suburban MdDs has for decades been warm and friendly and fast. I know the owner, the manager and most of the workers though they come and go with the tides. They are well paid, and it pays off in repeat customers. Others fall in between, just like other privately owned businesses.

YMMV at fast food: In n Out, Burger King, Wendys, etc. Some near home, some near work, some out on lonely highways where you need to stop and rest... But humans are always the best user interface. More so at real restaurants and night clubs.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[wisnoskij]

This type of thing is a proven technology. We have had grocery store checkout kiosks for years in my area. Who prefers waiting in lines to a few button presses?

Re:been there, done that . . .

[sound vision]

Perhaps in the future, eating out will be so economically untenable that only the ultra-wealthy will do it, and most people will prepare their own food. So, sorta like it was for all of human history until just recently. The horror...

Re:been there, done that . . .

[Bite The Pillow]

Years ago we didn't have a generation trained on smart phones and touch screens. My mom would not have tried it back then. Now, I can see that happening.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[luther349]

indeed is like the self checkouts most people still go to a human as they either dont understand how to operate them or simple dont prefer them. there nice to have but will they replace human its going to be a long time before that happens.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[thegarbz]

Several fast food chains had those kiosks many years ago. They were ignored by customers who went to the counter anyway.

Customers take the path of least resistance. If it is likely I will get served in under a minute I'll go to the counter, if not I'll go to the Kiosk. In peak times those kiosks get a LOT of traffic.

This excites investors because they have never been in a fast food joint. They didn't see the failed system of the past. They have no clue how efficient current employees are. They think that laying off employees is the road to big profit.

Actually it excites investors because they know what they are talking about. They see the kiosks still in place. They see that they didn't fail. They see the revenue increases of several percent in every store McDonalds has rolled this out in thanks to increased sales, and they see this is all happening without anyone getting fired so far.

But sure, ignore the evidence in favour of your perception of how you think things are.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[thegarbz]

I can tell you don't go to fast food places. You didn't include at least one upsell attempt and at least one upsize attempt in your conversation :-)

Re:been there, done that . . .

[swell]

Is that so? So why did they remove those kiosks years ago? What the hell are you talking about? It's possible some investors know what they're talking about but you are not one of them.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[AvitarX]

the general person living like it's 1700 because of concentration of resources would be a pretty huge failure of capitalism.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[bazorg]

Yep, I've been there. In the UK some McD restaurants have them. The queuing areas change shape, you are doing something on the kiosk, so the waiting time "feels" shorter.
Some staff are then taking completed orders to tables while others operate the till as before.

Obviously, when clueless customers take over a kiosk without understanding how to operate it, it gets slower. That's why one of their attendant pops by every now and then to help.

It's really well executed, both from a UI and from a queue management perspective. In the background, it means that orders taken from mobile apps (apps! luddites! etc.), join the queue that already had orders from the drive through and tills. Soon your mobile phone will ask you if you want the usual as you approach the restaurant.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[xonen]

In Europe McDonald's does have such kiosks in most restaurants for a while now (a year or so). They appear to be quite popular and most customers use them.
They have advantages and drawbacks. The obvious advantage is that you can take your time to make an order, and can decide what you want to eat in all peace.

The disadvantage is. If you already know what to eat it's more cumbersome than just ordering at a clerk. And making modifications (no ice, no salt) is a plain PITA. And ordering anything that's not on the menu (no pickles, glass of water, etc etc) plain impossible.

Another drawback is that the system is very sluggish. More often than not the system not responds within a reasonable time for modern UI's, having the user press the button twice etc.. Maybe some modern hardware fixes that but somehow i doubt that, as most kiosks are reasonable new installs. Last not least, cash payments are not possible.

My personal view - as long the customer can decide how to order it's not a big deal.. When it's busy it's actually better to be able to order right away at a kiosk, instead of queuing up and consequently feel hasted when ordering by all the people behind you.

I'm not sure why investors think it's such a big deal. I don't think it would attract more customers or save significant costs - they save some time on staff for ordering, which is lost again because the staff actually needs to serve out the food instead of having people waiting for it at the counter. But maybe they know something we don't.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[thegarbz]

So why did they remove those kiosks years ago?

Localised issues. Kiosk use has risen almost exponentially in the past few years and the rise is continuing. Pretty much all consumer sales industries have reported direct monetary benefits where they have been installed.

It's possible some investors know what they're talking about but you are not one of them.

I'm not an investor. I do however have the ability to use Google, where you will lovely facts like McDonalds stores with Kiosks have 3% relative corrected revenue increase over the ones who don't with all increases focused on peak times. But I'm sure you know better.

What the hell are you talking about?

Well maybe you don't.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[dwillden]

First, who do you think investors are? Not all are the filthy rich who would never step inside a fast food joint.

Second. These Kiosks are very popular at my local McDonalds. The counter gets a good deal of business. But rather than standing in line for the one register, I am able to go to one of the four kiosks, let my kids pick their meals, make my order then we go out to the Play-area and the kids play until the order is brought to us. Best of all, the orders are as we requested, no more mistakes due to language difficulties of the employees.

Third. We go to sit down restaurants for the better food and some service, we go to fast food joints for food, served fast with minimal fuss.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[dwillden]

Odds are they get the sandwich served to you just as quickly. As soon as they hit Big Mac on the register the "cooks" start assembling one. At most you might be saving yourself 15 seconds, but probably not because you took the time to ask if they had one ready and then chose something else. When you say McChicken, hopefully they've got one ready or already in the fryer or you will be waiting longer.

Your biggest wait item is going to be anything that goes in the fryer if not already ready (the Chicken in a McChicken), or is in constant high demand (Fries).

Re:been there, done that . . .

[dwillden]

Introverts like myself would disagree with your opinion on Human being the best interface. I prefer to punch my order into the Kiosk at my local McD's. The only human interaction I have to suffer through is when the employee brings the tray to my table. And I like it that way. No having to repeat my order three or four times to make sure they heard and understood it in a noisy restaurant with English as a second language store employees. No having to try to dodge or waive off upsells. No having to make small talk. I order my food and go watch my kids play while I read a book. Employee interaction is extremely minimal and that's the way I like it.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[houghi]

Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?

Yes and no. If you go out to eat, McD is not the place to get personal service. You go to a 'real' restaurant. In Europe fast food places are not considerd if you say you go to a restaurant.
To me there are two reason to go and eat out.
The first is to have a social meeting with friends. Then the setting is not unimportant.
The second is because you are hungry and you are to lazy to make food yourself. The setting is less important.

McD falls (at least in Euorpe) under the second one. Nothing wrong with that. They are just two different ways of eating out.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[conquistadorst]

In my fashionable neighborhood is a score of restaurants, a dozen nightclubs, 8 coffee shops, half dozen pizza & taco joints, and 1 (one) McDonalds. None of these places would survive without human servers. Not too many loner geeks or terrorists here, just fun loving people out for a good time. They're spending $30 and up for a meal, more for a night's drinking, and even at McDonalds they expect to see real humans behind the counter when they stop for their sobering up snack.

McDonalds is a small part of the scene here, but many McDs in the area have their own personalities. Near a local college, the McD is a bit cold and rushed; no time for pleasantries. My favorite suburban MdDs has for decades been warm and friendly and fast. I know the owner, the manager and most of the workers though they come and go with the tides. They are well paid, and it pays off in repeat customers. Others fall in between, just like other privately owned businesses.

YMMV at fast food: In n Out, Burger King, Wendys, etc. Some near home, some near work, some out on lonely highways where you need to stop and rest... But humans are always the best user interface. More so at real restaurants and night clubs.

You kinda surrendered your argument in your first 4 words. Not every neighborhood is going to be as nice as yours. You can try to make the argument of we should be creating this utopia instead of adding kiosks worldwide but you just increased the difficulty of the task 7.2 billion fold.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[havana9]

I've found that the combination of no cash payment, cumbersomeness if one knows what to order makes the use of the kiosks a nuisance for the cafeteria part.
When the local McD made mandatory the kiosk use, I stopped to take coffee in the morning. Luckily at the other side of the road opened a cafeteria where for a little more you get an espresso in a ceramic cup instead of a paper one and a small glass of water.
I suppose that was the cafeteria owner to make the use of the kiosk mandatory.
By the way there are a lot of McD that are still without kiosk and you can order an "american" decaf. In the ones with mandatory kiosk you can't.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[argStyopa]

Of course, you omit the sullen "I hate my life" atmosphere from the cashdrone, or the outright resentful service.

If you're LUCKY, they're just idiots who only screw up 1/4 of your order. Oh, I forgot your fries. (That's assuming you can understand their heavily-accented mumbles.)

Re:been there, done that . . .

[Osgeld]

Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?

no, I only go to a fast food joint when I feel too lazy to make something, and personal service is not being mostly ignored by the entire staff except for the few moments when I order and when they throw a bag at me

Re:been there, done that . . .

[fubarrr]

>Does anybody here see a future where food and drinks served
>by robots will be more attractive than what we have now? Isn't
>the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and
>drink?

I imagine, we are heading with automated ordering, but the food will still be cooked and served by a protein based appliance.

In some Shanghai localities, it is already hard to find cafes that have waiter staff of any kind. All ordering is done over Weixin. You scan the barcode on the table, and order everything like you do in an online shop. Those systems use native Weixin payment system, so there is not frustration with having to enter in all your CC info there all the time. The food will either be served, or you will get a message when you can come to pick it up.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[fubarrr]

The obvious downside, if your phone runs out of battery after you order, you are left without lunch.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[Charlotte]

Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?

Do you mean the annoying waiters that come around 10 times to ask if you want more water? Personally I get the urge to shoot them.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[xession]

but if you added even a tiny service fee for a human to do it, I think you'd see 95% self-service orders.

And you'd likely see a similar uptick in the length of time it takes to place an order. If Walmart is any indication for how well most people are accustomed to self-checkout, get ready for much longer lines while people constantly fuck up their own orders.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[xession]

Walmart has these too and unless the self-checkout is nearly empty, its almost always faster going to a checker. People fuck up self-checkout all the time, scan slowly, read prompts slowly, its an all around disaster for efficiency most of the time. Now take a restaurant and reduce its entire front-line to the same self-checkout where people arrive at the counter, often not even knowing what the fuck they want... Yeah, its gonna be great.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[Kjella]

I can tell you don't go to fast food places. You didn't include at least one upsell attempt and at least one upsize attempt in your conversation :-)

If you say you want a Big Mac, that's what you get. Say you want a "medium Big Mac menu with coke" and they'll ring you up and move on. Also "Just a cheeseburger" is efficient if you want just the burger. Many customers seem to prefer the ping-pong, they deliver the vaguest of specifications and want the staff to help define what exactly it is they want delivered. It's not just in IT...

Re:been there, done that . . .

[fluffernutter]

Usually I think that is more due to lack of training the employee than anything else. I've seen employees look around to the people around them and interrupt them to find out where the 'add onions' button is. This means they have not been trained correctly to do their job, if they are talking to customers and don't know where all the buttons are. They shouldn't have to learn as they go. Now they are interrupting the flow of work happening around them. Give them a simulator to practice with for a couple hours with some scenarios, then put them at the cashier.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[fluffernutter]

Yes, employees should accept their fate in life and be complacent until the next year when they are shit-canned for the same reason.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[fluffernutter]

For me it depends what I am buying. If I have a few things with clear bar codes, I go to the machine. but if I have things to weigh or a lot of things, I go to the human. Too much change of it screwing up somewhere and having to wait for 10 minutes for someone to clear it out.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[fluffernutter]

I have a family of 4 and I am the only one that ever takes their food as it comes. Sometimes I choose to go inside rather than use the drive through because it is so much easier to explain the customizations to a face rather than a speaker (being able to make hand gestures helps). I do not look forward to trying to order with these things.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[david_thornley]

Do you have a breakdown on how much the kiosks cost? I'd imagine that their efficiency would be related to how comfortable people were with using a kiosk rather than talking to a cashier.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[thegarbz]

If you say you want a Big Mac, that's what you get.

What kind of McDonalds have you visited? You may have found the one store which actually respects the customer's order. ... Don't tell anyone or they'll all be fired and replaced by robots (as opposed to Kiosks).

Re:been there, done that . . .

[Teckla]

There's a sub sandwich chain called Which Wich that implemented a really great compromise between giving your order to a human vs. putting in your order on a kiosk.

Upon entering, you grab a little bag with the name of the type of sandwich you want on the top. Then you grab a pen, write your name at the top, and fill in little circles with the extras you want (e.g., pickles, tomatoes, onions, mayo, etc.).

After you finish filling it out (it takes less than a minute), you hand it to the cashier. They end up giving you your sandwich in your bag. It's great. Way, way better than slowly shambling your way down, for example, a Subway line, asking for this and that, where there might be confusion or misunderstanding, or where they act obviously annoyed that you're there bothering them in the first place.

Re:been there, done that . . .

[ebvwfbw]

I used one in Georgia, off of route 95. The only think I didn't like is that they hid the budget items. They were pushing the high dollar items, of course. Other than that it was quick, I got a little pager with a number to type in, life was good.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[Jason1729]

Ontario has a $15 minimum wage coming in. Last time I was at Starbucks, all the employees were panicking they're going to lose their jobs.

You don't replace your ruling class

[rsilvergun]

everyone else, sure. But not those guys. Well, you could try violence, but every time it's been done it's just ending with a different bunch of yahoos. I guess we could try worker solidarity, but nobody wants to pay for the other guy to have stuff. Lazy good for 'nothin's...

Re:You don't replace your ruling class

[mjwx]

everyone else, sure. But not those guys. Well, you could try violence, but every time it's been done it's just ending with a different bunch of yahoos. I guess we could try worker solidarity, but nobody wants to pay for the other guy to have stuff. Lazy good for 'nothin's...

Actually, we replace our ruling class quite often, talking in the time scale of countries and empires. Representative governments makes it easier to have major changes without the need for violent upheaval. The UK changed under Thacherism in the 80's and again under the Third Way/Nu Labour in the late 90's and early 00's. Sure it didn't involve throwing the aristocracy from balconies onto the spears of the soldiers... but do you know how hard it is to distribute that many spears these days.

In countries will less stable forms of government, regime change can happen several times a decade. Thailand for example has only had one prime minister complete their full term since the King gave up absolute power and he (Thaksin Shintarawa) was then tried and convicted of corruption. However there are few violent revolutions in that time period for Thailand, plenty of different governments, in the last decade since Thaksin they've gone from semi-functioning democracy to a joke of a democracy back to semi-functioning and now is ruled by a military junta.

I think Trump was an expression of a desire for a change in the ruling class. However like most rash decisions (like the aforementioned throwing of the aristocracy onto the spears of the soldiers) it didn't work and has had a destabilising effect. Regime change does not always work out for the better and sometimes only serve to strengthen the ruling class.

You can't keep up with the bots

[rsilvergun]

the bloody Chinese can't even do it. Also $13/hr isn't much of a raise in 17 years.

Re:You can't keep up with the bots

[Pezbian]

Also $13/hr isn't much of a raise in 17 years.

Depends on where you live. In 2000, you could live pretty well on $10 an hour. You still can today.

It's worth mentioning that jobs at that factory average out to more than just 40 hours a week, due to the way shifts are structured. Adjusting the same to a 40 hour week would yield an hourly wage of just under $15. On top of that, they tend to have overtime here and there.

Re:You can't keep up with the bots

[Charlotte]

Depends on where you live. In 2000, you could live pretty well on $10 an hour. You still can today.

That's insane! I make 40 Euros an hour or so...

Re:You can't keep up with the bots

[James Carnley]

It doesn't matter where you live in Europe that is a fantastic wage. That's the equivalent of $93,158/year. So I'm not sure if you're bragging or complaining or what but your comment is either insidious or ignorant.

Re:You can't keep up with the bots

[Pezbian]

It doesn't matter where you live in Europe that is a fantastic wage. That's the equivalent of $93,158/year. So I'm not sure if you're bragging or complaining or what but your comment is either insidious or ignorant.

To be fair, their tax rates are quite unusual. He makes less than I do, after all is said and done.

I never said a $13+ wage was a career target. That's what kids fresh out of high school make while attending college. I could be bitter because I didn't have the same opportunity, but my high school education allowed me some opportunities that kids three years my junior just couldn't touch. I see that as an EpicFail, however.

Re:You can't keep up with the bots

[Organic Brain Damage]

$10 an hour in 2000 and you're living well? Maybe in your mom's basement.

I work for a chain of restaurants...

[Anonymous Coward]

and since most of our locations are in the Seattle area so we're trying to get rid of employees. The vast majority of our employees don't provide $15 worth of value per hour. If a job isn't worth $15 per hour, then it simply won't exist.

Re:I work for a chain of restaurants...

[93 Escort Wagon]

I always love it when one anonymous dork pretends to be a conversation on Slashdot.

Re:I work for a chain of restaurants...

[GerryGilmore]

Exactly! Everything that I have seen indicates that Seattle's economy is booming, no lost jobs (unless you count those screamed about on /.), and increased living standards for workers. But - why let facts get in the way of a great AC whine-fest about evil Liberal/Socialists trying to help working folks survive. Pfft. They should be appy-app coders like us!! Idiots! Right?!?

Re: I work for a chain of restaurants...

[AvitarX]

I don't get it.

They can make more than $15/hour not working, but chose to work for less than $15/hour?

Re:I work for a chain of restaurants...

[_Sharp'r_]

From the University of Washington study: "... although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase. Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike."

Or listen to an actual Subway owner about the impacts of going from 7 employees to 3, one of which is one of the owners.

Re:I work for a chain of restaurants...

[AutodidactLabrat]

Well, don't forget the NBER study pointedly EXCLUDED all multi-state, multi-million dollar corporate operations
You know, those already using 102% of available work hours?
Thus, this "Study" is a clear fraud

Re:See what happens when strikes for $15/hour happ

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, now that machines do all the easy jobs, shouldn't the salary be $15/hr, since all the remaining low-wage jobs are probably harder?

Remember

[Ol Olsoc]

Automation always creates more jobs than are lost.

Ummm, okay. What are those jobs?

Maybe everyone will be bosses.

the end of burger flipping is near!

[4wdloop]

The cashier kiosks could be extended to fully automated McDonalds restaurants. Only the cleaners would survive it a bit longer, perhaps. So be good and get to your nearest JC to train as robot fixer.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[mspohr]

I'd rather live on welfare than have a minimum wage job. Society will need to face up to the fact that jobs (even shitty jobs) are going away and there will be a lot of people who just won't be able to get a job.
Universal basic income is one way to make sure people have enough to live on even when there are no jobs.

Here come the robots

[Streetlight]

Sounds like an idea for a Monty Python skit or maybe Saturday Night live. Can't wait. Perhaps I missed the skits.

Shouldn't their prices reflect the savings?

[fustakrakich]

I can get a Quarter Pounder and a chocolate shake for a dollar now, right?

Re:Shouldn't their prices reflect the savings?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I can get a Quarter Pounder and a chocolate shake for a dollar now, right?

A 1970 dollar, absolutely.

If only we had machines to dispense money

[zerofoo]

Then we could get rid of all the tellers at banks!

Someone should make this.

Re:If only we had machines to dispense money

[ShanghaiBill]

ATMs coupled with internet banking have substantially reduced the need for bank tellers.

Wrong. The number of human tellers has gone up. Prior to ATMs, human tellers mainly took deposits and dispensed cash. After ATMs and Internet banking, tellers do higher level tasks like setting up accounts, helping with mortgage applications, etc. This makes each teller more profitable, and thus banks have employed more of them.

When more efficient use of a resource leads to greater demand, it is an example of Jevon's Paradox.

Re:If only we had machines to dispense money

[Anonymous Coward]

Did she try to eat your card?

Re:If only we had machines to dispense money

[drinkypoo]

Wrong. The number of human tellers has gone up. Prior to ATMs, human tellers mainly took deposits and dispensed cash. After ATMs and Internet banking, tellers do higher level tasks like setting up accounts, helping with mortgage applications, etc.

Yes, that was a shit shift. It used to be that tellers just handled basic operations and the someone at a higher pay grade would handle all the complicated stuff. Now they have tellers who have no idea what the shit they are doing processing people's accounts, while people who just want to make a quick transaction just slightly too complex for an ATM have to wait for them to be confused.

Re:If only we had machines to dispense money

[lexman098]

Yeah they tried this and didn't work, so they ripped out all the money dispensing machines that no one used. Or maybe there's still some efficiency to be gained without completely eliminating people?

Re:Those Kiosks are incredible slow

[toonces33]

But they don't care. You can fumble around on the thing for 15 minutes, and they won't care because it doesn't cost them all that much. That's why Wall St loves this sort of thing. Fewer people, less salary to pay. It isn't like they pay much of anything in benefits, but they don't have to worry about employees that don't show up for work or don't give a crap.

Ontario has healthcare for all so even at $0 hr I

[Joe_Dragon]

Ontario has healthcare for all so even at $0 hr I still get a doctor and can walk into the ER and not face 100K bill.

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with universal basic income is that many of us will become an expense with zero return. A human's existence will become basically, from the standpoint of finances, a valueless detriment. We already see each other with suspicion especially if they are foreign or from a different race.

At some point someone will want to turn off the faucet. First they will make it easy, that anyone who commits a felony gets pushed off UBI. Most people are not felons so they would prefer the increased income from that. That sounds reasonable. Second, those who are recent immigrants will get kicked off it. Most people are not recent immigrants so they won't care. Next, it will be anyone without high school education. This will be under the guise of "if you are UBI you should at least get an education." Most people will benefit from kicking those people off so they won't object. Nextnit will be people having more than 2 kids. Eventually only an elite group may hold the means of production.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[fluffernutter]

I'd rather live on welfare than have a minimum wage job.

That's primarily the reason why so many people are stuck on welfare. The only thing available to you to come off welfare is a minimum wage job, and it's getting worse and worse each year. As automation increases, even these jobs are gone and the welfare pit gets even deeper.

Sheetz and Wawa

[Valley Redneck]

Anyone in the eastern U.S. who has been to Sheetz or Wawa (don't start that war here, they're both great) knows that kiosks work and customers love them once they're used to them. More efficient, removes a step in the chain, orders get done right more often. Had lots of mistakes at McD's, never gotten the wrong thing at Sheetz or Wawa. All a $15/hr min wage does is create jobs for robots.

USA, last in line.

[viperidaenz]

Seriously, nearly every McDonalds around here has these kiosks

Re:USA, last in line.

[Computershack]

Yep. I first came across them on holiday in France 4/5 years ago and here in the UK they're in almost every one I've been in. The only ones without them are restaurants they've not yet refurbished but they'll all be upgraded soon. The employees who were tied to the counter now make orders up and in the UK most McDonalds now offer a table service so you order at the kiosk, enter what zone you're sitting in and once your order has been prepared someone brings it to your table.

Re:USA, last in line.

[viperidaenz]

table service is great
I can go to mcd's with out ever talking to another human
Don't even need my wallet either, just use Android Pay at the kiosk

Re:USA, last in line.

[Alioth]

And as far as I can tell, headcount hasn't reduced and there are no longer queues snaking out the door. It's an example of where automation has been a win for everyone: customer service improved (table service, long queues are a thing of the past), no staff got laid off, and efficiency went up.

Re:USA, last in line.

[gachunt]

And the kiosks in France have multiple language selection. Perfect for when I was in northern France et mon français n'est pas très bon.

and when the line jams and the place shuts down

[Joe_Dragon]

and when the line jams and the place shuts down do want some on side to un jam it or do you want to wait 30 min to an hour for someone to come over to fix it? also when people beat up an vending machine after losing $0.75 - $1.00+ on an candy just wait for them to lose $7-$12 on a meal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:and when the line jams and the place shuts down

[Dogtanian]

when people beat up an vending machine after losing $0.75 - $1.00+ on an candy just wait for them to lose $7-$12 on a meal.

In Scotland, we already have a solution to that.

Canada is on another planet, in the future

[mykepredko]

We've had the kiosks in Canadian McDonald's for at least a year now and:
- It's a much nicer way to order, no lines and no shouting to be heard
- No worries that the clerk screws up your order
- There doesn't seem to be less staff behind the counter, just more of them filling orders rather than taking them
Overall, it works well enough that we prefer going to McDonald's.

When it comes to dining payment technology, it seems like Canada is light years away (as well as well into the future) than the US. Payment is made at the table with chip reading cards that take debit or credit and we have had the McDonald's kiosks and Canada's economy hasn't collapsed.

Yet when these things are talked about in the US, it seems like they are job killing ideas coming from the devil himself.

Re:Canada is on another planet, in the future

[oakgrove]

I don't eat at McDonald's but the Panera's Bread down the street has these kiosks and I've pretty much defaulted to using them every time I go. There's never a line, despite there usually being several people waiting for a cashier. The touch screen thing is just an iPad recessed into a plastic holder running some custom ordering software. If this is the future of fast food, count me in.

Re:Canada is on another planet, in the future

[swell]

"When it comes to dining payment technology, it seems like Canada is light years away (as well as well into the future) than the US."

'All the better to see you with, my dear.' Soon the information you reveal with your 'payment technology' will be joined with your Universal ID to provide comprehensive data about your habits, your interests, your education, your health, and your disgusting eating choices. Big Brother will be very happy.

For my part, I prefer anonymous cash whenever possible. Perhaps a bitcoin type currency when it is practical.

Re:Canada is on another planet, in the future

[sl149q]

Yes. While the average order time goes up, slightly. Because they replace 2-3 cashiers with 4-6 kiosks, the overall time for you to order goes down because there is rarely a line.

The only (almost worth of a WFT posting) humorous problem I had was when the kiosk had a problem with it's printer. Displayed a dialog, then showed the order number (something like 6572) for about a half a second, somewhere else on the screen (big 22 inch screen in portrait mode...) then reverted to the normal display. WTF, had no idea what my number was, had to just wait for the order caller to say 6572 a few times then say what it was, and then go and grab it.

Still, overall, faster than waiting for a small number of cashiers.

Re:Canada is on another planet, in the future

[ooloorie]

When it comes to dining payment technology, it seems like Canada is light years away (as well as well into the future) than the US

That's because the US has easy access to a large, low-skilled, low-paid labor pool in the form of illegal migrants, while Canada does not. Deport illegal migrants from the US, and the US will look a lot more like Canada and Western Europe (for better or for worse), in particular when it comes to automation.

Yet when these things are talked about in the US, it seems like they are job killing ideas coming from the devil himself.

That's because the US has a large and innovative high tech industry that meets demands around the world.

Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

These have been available in Australia for 2 years - why is this news now?

Re:See what happens when strikes for $15/hour happ

[freeze128]

I hope they keep some employees around to clean the restrooms...

Just wait

[CQDX]

Next thing you know your doctor is a self-help kiosk with a $15/hr nurse watching over a room full of them.

Re:Just wait

[Joe_Dragon]

not in the usa when the doctors have the AMA backing them.

Re:Just wait

[sound vision]

Living in Texas, "My doctor" is already WebMD.

Re:Just wait

[bazorg]

That is not the most dystopian thing I've read on /. lately.

Consulting "Dr Google" can lead to anxiety and really bad decisions, but if this kind of self-help is moderated, serious cases are triaged and the staff can be released to deal with the really complicated matters... not a bad idea!

(no idea if $15/hour is a little or a lot)

Why a kiosk

[Anonymous Coward]

When you can just order through an app?

I don't understand the desire to install all this infrastructure. A group of friends could scan the barcode on their table and all order separately and at the same time.

Also don't get why Chili's put in ziosk. Just use an app!

Re:See what happens when strikes for $15/hour happ

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they start doing that now?

tracking only

[markdavis]

And if one wants to pay in cash? Here is the middle finger?

Re:tracking only

[Dunbal]

Pay in CASH? What are you, some sort of fucking drug dealer? Sarcasm, but this is the way we're headed apparently.

Kiosks? How about an app?

[khchung]

Why not go all the way? Give me an app so I can order AND pay from my phone. Save them the cost of the kiosks and save me from wasting time queuing for a kiosk.

Show me how long it would take for the order, so I can order even before I go there, and arrive just in time to pick it up.

Fast Food?

[kcelery]

What would you expect from a fast food store?
A slow ordering system? NO.

The ordering menu should come up with a simple, single page order form.
So if I want a Big Mac with coke. I press two buttons on the top page and do the payment. BEEP. Then I go waiting for my food.

If people want to fine tune their order, they might go to a detail ordering page to adjust.

The order system in our area now requires pressing the touch screen and go through a few pages. I think that is not necessary. As a result, I ignore the stupid UI and go straight to the human ordering system.

Good!

[slasher999]

There's your $15/hour minimum wage. Certain groups wanted this, now here it is. Good luck kids getting that first job to learn how to have a job so you can go out and get a real one.

Re:Good!

[Alioth]

If you think this is a consequence of an increased minimum wage, you're dead wrong.

The kiosks will at most have a TCO of about 50 cents an hour. Unless you advocate reducing minimum wage to under 50 cents an hour, the minimum wage has absolutely no bearing on whether these kiosks go in or not: they are inevitable.

Further more, at least the one McDonald's store we have here, headcount *has not been reduced*. The kiosks have gone in but they still employ the same number of staff except now they use those staff to give better customer service: there is now waiter service - order from the kiosk, indicate where you are, and you get table service. There are no longer long queues snaking out of the door since the staff can be completely occupied with making up the orders and delivering them and not having to take the orders as well, so service is not only better but faster.

Re:Good!

[mjwx]

There's your $15/hour minimum wage. Certain groups wanted this, now here it is. Good luck kids getting that first job to learn how to have a job so you can go out and get a real one.

False equivalency, there's no link between minimum wage and unemployment (or under employment). That's a myth made up by businesses that cant survive unless they're paying slave labour wages. The alternative is to stop progress and keep people in jobs that aren't paying enough to live on. Some companies may even open their own special stores just for employees and issue payment in their own scrip that can only be spent at the company store as well as offering pay-day loans because their employees don't earn enough to buy the necessities at the company store.

The difference between my scenario and yours is that mine has actually happened where as yours is a myth that has never been demonstrated to be true in the many countries that have minimum wages.

Re:Good!

[rhazz]

Certain groups wanted this, now here it is.

In Canada the kiosks showed up long before the minimum wage hikes. Either way, neither the wage hike nor the kiosks are a bad thing.

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[slasher999]

Lol, thanks for that. Well said.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[Nostalgia4Infinity]

Maybe learn some skills people will pay you for?

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[mspohr]

Education is only for the few who are blessed with rich parents.
Everyone else gets the "basic" education which barely qualifies them for a minimum wage job.

Re:See what happens when strikes for $15/hour happ

[sound vision]

What's the alternative? No strikes, and they still get replaced with machines a couple years later?

Re:$15 (or more) minimum wage = no jobs lost

[Jason1729]

The lower tiers (welfare and minimum wage) break even, the rich win exactly as TFA says. The middle class is financially ruined...

So liberal politics at its finest.

Japan has been doing this for a long time already.

[Mr307]

Ticket style, vending machine style, and probably kiosks too, who knows.

I'm not sure how long this has been common there but it seems like quite a while.

Random sample:
http://jpninfo.com/31417

You can't live on welfare

[rsilvergun]

I've had family who sorta tried (illness in the family made it impossible for the single parent to work) and you get about $200/mo if you're destitute with a note from a doctor saying you're a full time caregiver for a sick relative. There's no housing assistance to be had either. What little there is has 8 year wait lists.

I don't know if the dole ever existed in America, but I can sure as hell tell you it doesn't now. While I'm on the subject there's no such thing as welfare queens either. UBI would be nice, but I don't see us getting it because of the aforementioned welfare queens. That myth's got legs and no amount of evidence seems to kill it.

I do

[rsilvergun]

when all the chains that aren't $30/meal are running them and you don't have a choice because you just gotta eat and you're too tired after 12-16 hours of shift work and the gig economy.

The moral of the story is things can always get worse. Especially if you let them, and we do.

Windows embedded

[DemonicMember]

They run windows embedded...im not saying McDonald's pirates software... But https://twitter.com/DemonicMem...

"living" Minimum wage

[s.petry]

Ask the student how important it is to have minimum wage jobs be paid a "living" wage.

Yup, society at present is very F'd up. Nope, communism/socialism won't fix anything, in fact it does the opposite.

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[drinkypoo]

Nope, communism/socialism won't fix anything, in fact it does the opposite.

So then you're opposed to a minimum wage, right? Because that's socialism. But if you oppose a living minimum wage, then you support slavery... absent MGI, anyway

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[s.petry]

So then you're opposed to a minimum wage, right?

Correct, and thanks for asking. My position however is not quite so simple. I'm also opposed to monopolization and for unionization (except for Government employees). I am also opposed to collusion to suppress wages by conglomerations with the intent of bypassing anti monopolization laws.

There are at least dozens other factors which play into my position opposing minimum wage. I can recommend some reading, but based on the remainder of your statement you are in blissful ignorance believing that there are only 2 possible positions to have. Slavery or Minimum wage. I make considerably more than minimum wage precisely because that belief is wrong.

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[ArcherB]

But if you oppose a living minimum wage, then you support slavery
Do you not know what a slave is? If I volunteer at the local soup kitchen, does that make me a slave? By YOUR definition, it does. However, slaves are considered property and have no choices. I can throw down my apron and walk out of the soup kitchen. A slave does not have that choice.
In the context of this discussion, if a "slave" doesn't like his wages, he's free to quit, making him not really slave. If he wants to make better wages, he needs to make himself worth more to employers. That's how freedom works.

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[drinkypoo]

based on the remainder of your statement you are in blissful ignorance believing that there are only 2 possible positions to have. Slavery or Minimum wage.

No, you can also have MGI with no minimum wage, or you can have endless war between the haves and the have-nots, or you can have feudalism. These are really the only plausible outcomes.

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[Dread_ed]

Minimum wage is to socialism as McDonald's is to food.

Namely a cheap fucking imitation that stupid people take for the real thing.

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[s.petry]

Show me a single case of country where there is not a two class (have and have-nots) and I'll consider your position somewhat rational. As stated, I consider you bat-shit insane. Sweden has a 2 class system, as does Russia, China, India, Venezuela, Cuba, Finland, Germany, France, England, Morocco, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and every other damn country in the world that you can name. So where is the difference?

Capitalism is the _ONLY_ system which allows mobility if Capitalist principles are actually followed. In fact, from the inception of the country until today it still works better than any other system. The US has trended downward in income equality and economic mobility because of the adoption of authoritarian socialism, not because of Capitalism.

Read Smith's description of the Capitalist system, or read Friedman's. Friedman was actually of the belief that Government could create Utopia until he saw how his own position was obliterated in several countries in South America where the policies he helped design as a young man were implemented.

Your ignorance is a problem you should consider addressing. Before you say something foolish, if you demand a billionaire give a few bucks to the whole populace you have not addressed economic mobility or income equality. You penalized the billionaire and gave a few peanuts to the masses to shut them up for a while.

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[mjwx]

Ask the student how important it is to have minimum wage jobs be paid a "living" wage.

Yup, society at present is very F'd up. Nope, communism/socialism won't fix anything, in fact it does the opposite.

Neither will Fascism or Capitalism.

Americans need to step away from these extremist notions and realise there is a happy middle ground between capitalism and socialism that don't go too far from the centre. That is the core of third way politics, the rejection of a left/right classification system and judging a solution on it's merit, not its ideology.

Capitalism isn't inherently bad.
Socialism isn't inherently bad.
What is bad, extremism. The condition of refusing a good solution because it is not ideologically palatable to you.

Capitalist and socialist policies can happily live side by side. A country can (and many do) benefit from keeping trade tariffs low (a capitalist policy) whilst providing universal or single payer health care (a socialist policy). However the US will continue its march towards fracturing and extinction for as long as it continues to think that the (_)left\(_)right are the enemy instead of the extremists on either side.

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[Rakarra]

I'm also opposed to monopolization and for unionization (except for Government employees).

Huh. Most people I've heard from who are against unionization dislike unions in the private sector, but think that public sector unions are a much greater abomination and should be banned. Why the public sector exemption, curiously?

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[drinkypoo]

Do you not know what a slave is?

It's when someone is forced to labor without being paid. Being forced to labor less than will meet you needs is some percentage slavery, that is, by whatever percentage you're not getting your basic needs met. It's not 100% slavery, but it's got slavery in the ingredients list. I'm not comfortable with that, are you?

If I volunteer at the local soup kitchen, does that make me a slave?

If you have time to volunteer at the local soup kitchen, that's great. I applaud you if you do so.

By YOUR definition, it does.

By MY definition, you're a disingenuous douchebag.

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[s.petry]

Simple. because the Public sector works off of my dime, not the free market. See Milton Friedman for arguments, who did a remarkable job expressing concerns over exactly the problems that unionized government jobs have caused.

Sorry, but I'm not going to attempt to summarize Friedman in a Slashdot post.

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[Rakarra]

Simple. because the Public sector works off of my dime, not the free market. See Milton Friedman for arguments, who did a remarkable job expressing concerns over exactly the problems that unionized government jobs have caused.

I guess I'm getting more confused. Are you against public sector unions then? That sounds more plausible, but your original post seemed to imply that you were for public-sector unions but against private-sector ones.

Sorry, but I'm not going to attempt to summarize Friedman in a Slashdot post.

I would say that I'm barely familiar with Milton's theories (if even that), but I thought Friedman was strongly against public sector unions, which he once likened to economic black holes.

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[s.petry]

Your first assumption is correct, and confirmed by your own knowledge of the person I suggested you read :)

Re:"living" Minimum wage

[Rakarra]

Your first assumption is correct, and confirmed by your own knowledge of the person I suggested you read :)

Well then it sounds like I was just misinterpreting your first post. Carry on then. :-)

It DID sound intriguing though, if I found someone in favor of government unions but against private ones. That was breaking my brain just a bit.

good. Now, focus on other robotics and illegals

[WindBourne]

Seriously, it is LONG past time for America to refocus on automating our lower-end work, like we used to. Oddly, starting with reagan and esp during W's time, we have been instead focused on using illegal labor to replace American labor. That has created one of the nightmares that America is suffering in.
A good example of robotic need would be animal husbandry for dairy and other farms. A lot of that labor is devoted to simple mucking out the stalls. That is easily automated.

Re:good. Now, focus on other robotics and illegals

[luther349]

there for ordering the food and if you ever worked at a mcdonalds most cashiers are also filling orders so the less orders they have to take the easier it makes there job nobody is being replaced with these lol we are not here yet as older people normally dont understand how to operate them and will still go to the human.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[WindBourne]

sadly, we continue to pay below a living wage so now we HEAVILY subsidize companies like walmart and target. We can thank the fucking idiots on the far right for that BS.

Re:$15 (or more) minimum wage = no jobs lost

[WindBourne]

even better yet would be that if we raise the minimum wage, while also sending back about 1/2-2/3 of the illegals.

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[WindBourne]

just the opposite. Real economics encourages a living wage, not a low-end wage. In addition,it encourages higher efficiency, i.e. more automation.
With backwards economics, that will encourage low labor pay and keeping the money at the top.

No way

[GerryHattrick]

If I pop in for a 99-pence cheeseburger, I won't be pressing buttons, or waiting for anything. And I expect a copper-looking penny as change. Try automating that.

"Vocational" is education too

[drnb]

Education is only for the few who are blessed with rich parents. Everyone else gets the "basic" education which barely qualifies them for a minimum wage job.

Clue: Education includes vocational.
Clue 2: Education is not expensive at community colleges, and community colleges usually offer vocational training.

Re: "Vocational" is education too

[mspohr]

Hard to take time off work to get an education if you're supporting yourself and others. Plus, fewer jobs for workers.
Universal basic income would help a lot.

Re: "Vocational" is education too

[drnb]

Hard to take time off work to get an education if you're supporting yourself and others.

You are moving the goal post from expense to time. Vocational probably wins on time too compared to a traditional university program. Vocational programs are not necessarily 2-year associate degrees with general ed and all that. They may be vocation focused certificate based programs.

Re: "Vocational" is education too

[mspohr]

"Time off" is expense as well as time.
UBI would allow people to continue their education without starving, going homeless or racking up large debt.

Maybe I'm getting too old...

[peppepz]

It seems that technology is little by little erasing every daily occasion of interaction with other humans that we still have. I don't want to sound like a luddite, but I must admit that I'm a bit worried that in the long run this process is going to make humans less and less able to interact with each other; which is a problem, because in the end we are social animals, we literally die without some form of exchange with other members of our species.

Re:Maybe I'm getting too old...

[mentil]

I agree. In fact, I learned everything I know about socialization from interactions with fast-food cashiers.
Thank you for reading this, and I look forward to seeing you on Slashdot again. Have a great day!

Re:Maybe I'm getting too old...

[atrimtab]

Socalizing with other human beings is what Facebook and Tinder are for. ;-)

Pesky employees

[OrangeTide]

Human employees are a huge drain on a business. There is the payroll, taxes, liability insurance, and all the entitlements like healthcare.
It's simple, kiosks and robots don't get sick, they don't require matching into social security, and they aren't a huge legal liability. When was the last time a robot sued a manager for sexual harassment? How about never.

It certainly will be a business utopia when there are no more employees anywhere.

Re:Pesky employees

[luther349]

if you know anything this is never how it works investors are stupid as they never worked a job like that. it was the same rants when they started the self checkouts and only a small percentage of people acutely use them. and many McDonald's have these in place now and nobody is losing there jobs as most people taking your order are also filling them its just less orders they have to take they still have to collect the cash etc.

Re:Pesky employees

[cmdr_klarg]

Human employees are a huge drain on a business. There is the payroll, taxes, liability insurance, and all the entitlements like healthcare.
It's simple, kiosks and robots don't get sick, they don't require matching into social security, and they aren't a huge legal liability. When was the last time a robot sued a manager for sexual harassment? How about never.

It certainly will be a business utopia when there are no more employees anywhere.

Unfortunately nobody has any money to spend since there are no more jobs, so business will suck. Sounds pretty dystopian to me.

Re:Pesky employees

[OrangeTide]

Unfortunately nobody has any money to spend since there are no more jobs, so business will suck. Sounds pretty dystopian to me.

A problem for future generations to solve. It doesn't impact our business next quarter.

Re:Kiosks? How about an app?

[luther349]

there is a app lol.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[phantomfive]

It should be mentioned that if you get a job, even the lowest paying job around, then you lose your welfare. So by getting a job, people get less money than they would on welfare.

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[EzInKy]

The problem with universal basic income is that many of us will become an expense with zero return.

Everything people need to purchase to live provides a return for somebody, so your premise here is just blatantly false. I take it you are a supply side minded economist? To my mind you can supply all you want, if nobody buys nobody profits.

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[EzInKy]

The closer I get to retirement, the more I consider taking economics courses. Maybe then I will understand how people can profit when nobody is able to purchase their goods and services.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[EzInKy]

Perhaps the answer is to increase what constitutes a basic education? My understanding is there was a time when a High School eduction wasn't free. Perhaps now a Bachelor's should become the new basic education?

Min wage increase

[Anonymous Coward]

I distinctly remember Mcdonalds saying that if they increased their min wage to 15$/h that it would force them to replace their employees with machines.

Order Throttling Astray

[freudigst]

I went there with my family and made a simple fries order. The system punted us out the door. There were at least a half dozen parties jumped ahead of us in the processing queue. After almost ten minutes waiting, we still didn't even see our number listed.

Prepayment was offered/prioritized at the start. Fortunately I remembered to not ever pay (a corporation) ahead of time if one can avoid it!

replace 'cooks'

[SuperDre]

Well as McDonalds (and many fastfood outlets) are just standard products, why not also let a machine do the creation of the burgers and meals. All you need is one or two 'supervisors' who can intervene if something goes wrong, instead of the 10+ personel now. It's already a sort of automatic process anyway.

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[backslashdot]

That really makes no sense. What you are saying is that purchasing something is the value only a human can bring. Wellif that's true (which it isn't) a robot can be programmed to buy things randomly. It would be cheaper than factories subsidizing people for their own products to be purchased.

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[EzInKy]

Sorry, I thought we were discussing human economics here. If a human can't purchase a thing, then that thing has no value.

Business as usual, it was announced in 2015

[Moskit]

This is dated news by now - McDonald's announced this (self-service kiosks in USA) in 2015. They already had experience with such kiosks installed in France or Poland, and by now Spain and other countries.

From a consumer practical point of view:
- there are typically 2x-3x more kiosks (6-10) than people accepting orders previously (1-5). Kiosks work 24h (except for failures), so any flash-crowd (a tour coming in) can be absorbed even at time when human crew would have a reduced staff (sure, you will still wait for the actual food, but not for ordering.
- there is much more time to make your selection without queue peer pressure. With tradidional setup some people act as if they have never been to McDonald and ask details about everything holding the hungry queue behind them. Some people need 5 minutes at the counter to decide if they want large or superlarge fries. With kiosks you can take your time - they effectively eliminate head-of-line blocking.
- time to receive food has decreased by 1/3rd. Average order value increased, probably because customers don't feel bad ordering quadruple big-mac from a machine :-/
- people swarming McDonalds seem to be school-age kids and teens. They have absolutely no problem interacting with kiosk and paying with a contactless bank card (standard here for 10 years), minimum fuss for them.
- older people can typically afford (money-wise and health-wise) to eat better food, you don't see that many of them in McDonalds (unless their kids/grandkids drag them there).
- queue to order, which was the source of problems when crowded, is now replaced by almost no queue to the kiosks and a crowd of people politely waiting until their order number is displayed.
- it seems that the same number of people who were previously accepting orders are still there - they assemble orders and give them out, making the process more efficient.
- you can still come up to the counter and interact with a human being as before, should you have a special request, a question, or need assistance with ordering process or the order.
- employment has increased since introduction of the ordering kiosks.
- social part is still there, kids hang out with each other (or with their phones), they don't need the staff for that.
- there is on average 50 employees per restaurant (38 workers, 9 assistant managers, 3 managers) and that number doesn't seem to have fallen in the past 3-4 years. There are still summer jobs (about +10% of workforce).

Re:$15 (or more) minimum wage = no jobs lost

[AvitarX]

Those 6/10 are able to spend more, creating jobs in other places.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[Alioth]

Given kiosks have a 50c/hr TCO at most, increases in minimum wage aren't the things that are bringing automation here, it's inevitable. Unless you think people should work for under 50c/hr, I guess.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[RobinH]

Ontario has a $15 minimum wage coming in. Last time I was at Starbucks, all the employees were panicking they're going to lose their jobs.

Good riddance. It's not like they're anything more than a glorified Keurig, and most of them probably have university degrees.

No, let me guess...

[BadTuna]

.... all these people that will no longer work at McDonalds can just run over to WV and get one of those millions of new jobs in the coal industry?

Yes, exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's also point out that many brainy jobs don't have much market demand. For example, theoretical physicist. Or how about aerospace engineer. There are only so many jobs for those folks - that's why if you have a colleague with an engineering degree slinging code, it's probably an aerospace engineer.

Folks above cite economic theory "Broken Window Fallacy" and whatnot, but let's remember modern economic theory was created during the Industrial Revolution. We are now in a new Industrial Revolution or as some economists argue, Phase II of the Industrial Revolution that started in the late 18th century (1770s). Modern Economic theory is not wrong, but it is incomplete.

Economic theory today is where physics was before Faraday/Maxwell or something like that.

And back in the Industrial Revolution, the folks who displaced by automation were screwed. And that's when the riots started. We are seeing the same social unrest. Other reasons are blamed (immigrants or billionaires) but there are some serious economic changes happening in the USA and the World. And folks are being pushed DOWN the socioeconomic ladder. My standard of living has been declining since 2001. I'm working harder and longer but the rewards are declining - I'm working harder for less. And it's happening to everyone.

The owner and ruling classes are gonna have to buffer the transition or there is going to be some very nasty stuff happening. Venezuela today? Russia 1917?

Referendum with dollars

[hyades1]

I guess it's time average Americans made a choice: are they so spoiled they'll be fobbed off with a minor, temporary improvement (table service) in return for what will doubtless turn into massive job losses at the entry and desperation level, or will they just not use these things after the novelty wears off?

There's no doubt that if this experiment is successful, such kiosks will cut into staffing levels. The jobs they replace are typically first jobs and those held by retirement-age people who have no choice but to keep working...because even though the economy has tripled in size, wages have stagnated and pensions are now almost unheard of.

21st Century Pit Fighting

[crafoo]

Pay them to fight to the death in open pits for the wealthy.

They can also clean houses, be the butt of jokes, and just generally act as disposable servants and entertainers.

Re: 21st Century Pit Fighting

[that this is not und]

Perhaps they will take it into themselves to torture and kill wealthy people in open pits.

Re:21st Century Pit Fighting

[Anne Thwacks]

Pay them to fight to the death in open pits for the wealthy. They can also clean houses, be the butt of jokes, and just generally act as disposable servants and entertainers.

Or, they can join Madame La Guillotine's fan club.

Do not forget they have the right to arm bears - and some bears are less cuddly than Yogi.

Re:21st Century Pit Fighting

[Opportunist]

You know, when enough poor assemble, rich people get recycled as pinatas.

Re:See what happens when strikes for $15/hour happ

[conquistadorst]

Well, now that machines do all the easy jobs, shouldn't the salary be $15/hr, since all the remaining low-wage jobs are probably harder?

Harder jobs likely do pay more but that's really not how it works though. It's more about supply & demand than anything. Easy to fill jobs will pay less than hard to fill jobs. What makes them "easy" or "hard" to fill is a long, long list of possibilities. Who can/wants a job that clean sewers? Few. Who can/wants a job where you stand around with minimal responsibilities? Many. Who can/wants a job programming in an x86 instruction set? Few. Who can/wants a job where you get to stock shelves in a store? Many. Who can/wants to live offshore away from family and operate an oil rig in the ocean? Few.

The can vs. want are vastly different things but they both unfortunately affect supply & demand the same way. That's how you can have sectors where jobs demanding low skill but nobody wants to do can pay well. While jobs demanding high skill but everyone wants to do pay poorly. Then factor in how many of those jobs are even out there.

People STILL eat that garbage?

[AnalogDiehard]

I haven't eaten at MickeyD's since *1984*. Their food is just plain AWFUL.

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[mspohr]

I agree. Bachelor degree should be free.

Minimum Wage?

[jasontromm]

This is happening because of the Fight for 15 movement. Restaurants of all kinds are going to start eliminating minimum wage jobs with kiosks. Being a McDonald's server/cashier is not supposed to be a lifetime job, it's supposed to be a starting place where youngsters learn a work ethic.

Curse of the Invisible Hand.

[Thud457]

Hey, I'm sure all those cashiers will retrain to be lawyers and doctors, thusly increasing their earning potential. Everybody wins! /S

Re:A+ Econ 102: Macroeconomics.

[Anne Thwacks]

The money usually goes into a hedge fund and does very little for the economy

Do you think "putting it in a hedge fund" means hiding it in the bushes?

A hedge fund is a "vehicle for investment in equity" - in other words, invests the money in shares of corporate entities - Apple and McDonalds, for example. Although possibly in a different country - hedging their bets (investment) on the USA by betting on, say European Commercial Property. (Just in case the dollar tanks in response to fatuous statements by Trump).

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[apoc.famine]

Worse, there's often a wage gap where you make enough to lose your benefits, but not enough to replace them. I know one family that is fairly poor, and was on medicade for health insurance. They "screwed up" by earning $500 too much last year, and now need to buy insurance on the market at $250/month or something.
 
So earning $500 too much money last year is going to cost them $3,000 this year. How's that incentive to work again?

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[MiniMike]

Not only that, but in many places if you do earn money your welfare is reduced. This produces perverse and counterproductive incentives. It seems that the system works well enough as is for the politicians, so little is being done to fix it for those on welfare.

In other news...

[rnturn]

... Wall Street awarded companies with higher stock prices based on whether they helped bettors^Wanalysts quarterly bets^Wpredictions and not whether the companies were being well managed.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[cyberchondriac]

Maybe they shouldn't have pushed so hard for a $15 minimum wage, even if it does follow cost of living. Unlikely that this is pure coincidence.
Some people may not believe in "trickle down" economics, but you'd better believe in "trickle up" economics... when operational costs at the low end of the totem pole are perceived as too high, cuts or changes get made by the top of the pole.

Easy solution

[IGnatius T Foobar]

There is a very, very, very easy solution. If we deport all of the illegal immigrants (many who work at places like McDonald's) there will be enough low-paying jobs for those who are in the country legally and legitimately.

Thank the unions, people.

[biggaijin]

If not for the current push for a $15/hr minimum wage, there would not have been serious motivation to move ahead with this automation. Say goodbye to thousands of entry-level jobs!

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[Anne Thwacks]

The problem with universal basic income is that many of us will become an expense with zero return.

That is not inherently a problem.

The benefits may outweigh it:

a) Some people not having to waste their lives doing pointless jobs better done by a highly skilled robot, will start companies, become talented artists or musicians, or care for others.
b) Others will start new industries employing others and reducing the total number of people who sit around idle.

The 60's music scene in the UK was very much a case of (a). Jobs were hard to get, and benefits much easier.

I should also point out that, here in the UK, the benefits system is so insanely complicated that it (allegedly) costs £30 to manage each £1 paid to benefit claimants. UBI would probably cost about the same, and leave people massively less stressed and fearful, but "moral panic" prevents it.

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[Anne Thwacks]

What you need is not a college, it is a "Tea Party".

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[Anne Thwacks]

No, what is needed is to understand that you can learn without going to college, but you have to do the learning. Its no help to YOU if someone else does it.

All of what you want to know is on the Internet. And the Internet is on your phone.

There is a bit of a problem that some people's ability to learn is not great.
A somewhat larger problem is the number of people engaged in an active fight against learning (its not just Boko Haram).

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[ooloorie]

At some point someone will want to turn off the faucet.

We have seen time and again what happens when bread and circuses spiral out of control in a country and it follows predictable patterns. Once things reach a tipping point, capital and skilled workers leave within a few decades to countries that value them more (and there are always such countries). Then there is an indeterminate period (often centuries) of poverty, totalitarianism, and violence. It's usually some historical accident that causes eventually recovery.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[Charlotte]

Education is only for the few who are blessed with rich parents.

Please take off your USA glasses. Most industrialised nations seem to do fine with a year's tuition being less than $1000 a year.

The Kiosks are Great!

[jimmifett]

McD near me installed the kiosks a few weeks ago. They were simple to use, gave incredible level of customization, a server brought the meal to my table, and I didn't have to deal with cashiers that barely speak english (a HUGE problem in south florida) that are guaranteed to get my order wrong, even when I just call out numbers.

I'm all in favor of these kiosks. To hell with $15/hr desiring employees that can't even communicate with me.

Almost, but not quite

[fyngyrz]

As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs

FTFY:

As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the franchisees and shareholders will have more money to spend on reducing other segments of the job market, while customer costs continue to rise at the usual rate and employees go jobless.

The money flows upwards. Not downwards. The "trickle-down" theories are pure fancies; the facts have illuminated the actual reality, which isn't so much "trickle-up" as "cascade-up."

Anyone who thinks this is good for the traditional workforce in the existing economic structure is deluded. Anyone who doesn't think so but says it is... well, it's pretty obvious at this point.

Until / unless we change the fundamental nature of the economy to an automation-based, human supporting one, this kind of thing represents the tightening of the economic noose about the lowest level worker's necks. I submit that it is inevitable, given the drive for companies to always increase revenue, but it's damned painful and there is no additional compensating mechanism available. In fact, with the Republicans in charge at the moment, what compensating mechanism there was is under pressure to be significantly reduced in effectiveness.

Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[mspohr]

You're lucky.
In the US most students end up with a big college debt. Banks do really well. Students suffer.

Trump signs EO mandating all kiosks run on coal...

[kimgkimg]

... to bring the jobs back. Big announcement in the coming weeks folks.

And in other issues

[fyngyrz]

How is it moral to pay someone to do a job that is pointless?

How moral is it to let them starve?

How moral is it to deny them healthcare?

How moral is it to let them end up living on the street?

The "pointless job" concern pales next to any of the above, and can be the trigger that causes all of the above.

This is not a black and white issue of "job is pointless."

Experience the race to the bottom

[mr.dreadful]

Yum, third-rate food products from what is basically a vending machine. Good luck with that.

Re:See what happens when strikes for $15/hour happ

[fluffernutter]

BE COMPLACENT!

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[phantomfive]

It definitely varies by state, and a single male is in the worst position as far as welfare goes (there's no WIC for them). If you really want to make money (relatively speaking, of course), the way to do it is either have kids of get on disability or both.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[david_thornley]

The big reason people stay on welfare is Medicaid. That's worth a lot. Have some sort of health care system like every other developed nation has, and that's no longer an obstacle. Then, set benefits so they all go away slower than income rises, and people will be able to afford to get jobs.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[david_thornley]

By your logic, any minimum wage would be too high. If we look at empirical results, we see that places with minimum wages like that tend to do pretty well.

Re:Gas Stations?

[knorthern knight]

> Did people freak out like this when self-service instead
> of full-service at the gas station became the norm?

If they had to navigate umpteen levels of menus, yes they probably would've, At "gas stations" you'l probably see at most 3 different options... Regular/Premium/Diesel. And the pump nozzles are supposed to be sized to match the car's fuel-tank nozzle, so even that is partially idiot-proof.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[fluffernutter]

Americans have to start realizing when capitalism fails to work for them.

Automation & Capitalism

[Organic Brain Damage]

Capitalism relies on the fundamental assumption that 80-90% of humans can find something valuable to do with their time for ~40 hours per week. If/when automation reaches the point where most of us cannot find something of value to do with our work week, Capitalism will break down and society will need to find another way to portion out resources.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[cyberchondriac]

That's not my logic at all. There's just a point at which businesses will decide they have less expensive options. And we are looking at empirical results, right in this article- 2,500 kiosks, likely to be replacing as many workers.
My logic is, with kiosks at fast food joints, counter salespeople can be reduced, and hard to argue for a raise when suddenly you're not as necessary as you used to be.

Companies will weigh the costs of going with Path A : stay with workers and pay more for them, or alternate Path B: automate, pay a little more initially but ultimately reduce costs over the longer term.
Next, food cooking and dispensing itself will be automated as well, resulting in fewer fry cooks and drive through window workers. If the purchase and deployment of these machines costs less than the payroll of an employee over x years, that's an ROI a large corporation will probably see as profitable and desirable. Most likely those systems will have an upfront maintenance contract, so even repairs can be factored into the costs.
Corporations have options today they didn't in years past, with increasingly sophisticated automation.
I'm not personally against raising minimum wage, by at least something, but push too hard and it's not going to end well over the long term for many unskilled workers. That tipping point will vary of course between industries, and corporations, but I think we're already seeing some places pushing back.

Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage.

[david_thornley]

Ah, I misunderstood you.

With any rise in minimum wage, some low-paying jobs will go away, but that's not the only result. Wages are set at the amount needed to attract people of the necessary quality, by and large, and no more than the value the employee brings. There's plenty of easily replaceable people doing jobs that need doing, and they get more money. Giving more money to low-income people is a good driver for increased economic activity, and so we see the Seattle success.

Automation has been going on for a long time. I first heard about it something like fifty years ago, and it's proceeded since. The use of kiosks instead of order-takers is just part of this, and the exact minimum wage isn't going to matter for long. Even if humans don't get more expensive, machines keep getting cheaper. I think it's going to end well, but there's going to be a lot of problems in the meantime.