Wendy's Plans To Automate 6,000 Restaurants With Self-Service Ordering Kiosks (investors.com) 921
An anonymous reader writes: In response to the rising minimum wage, the fast-food chain Wendy's plans to start automating all of its restaurants. The company said it will have self-service ordering kiosks available to its 6,000-plus restaurants in the second half of the year. Wendy's President Todd Penegor said it will be up to franchisees to decide whether or not to adopt the kiosks in their stores, noting that many franchise locations have had to raise prices to offset wage increases. California's decision to gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2022 will impact Wendy's 258 restaurants, all of which are franchise-operated. About 75% of 200-plus Wendy's restaurants are run by franchisees in New York, a state that is also on its way to $15. Penegor said, wage pressures have been manageable both because of falling commodity prices and better operating leverage due to an increase in customer counts. The company is still "working so hard to find efficiencies" so it can deliver "a new QSR experience but at traditional QSR prices." The CEO of Carl's Jr., Andy Puzder, is also looking into replacing many of its workers with machines to save money.
How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:3, Insightful)
That would get the biggest savings of them all.
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:4, Funny)
Just make it a chatbot that responds to key terms "bacon" or "cheese" with "yes, more please" and you've got a winner!
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Just make it a chatbot that responds to key terms "bacon" or "cheese" with "yes, more please" and you've got a winner!
I think you meant "Leverage Synergies" "Core Competencies" "Stockholder Value" "You should be happy to just have a job here"
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent comment, although I would have modded funny if I had mod points.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The hot air feels nice but smells like a rotting corpse.
The hot air [from CEOs] feels nice but smells like a rotting corpse.
FTFMyself
Re: (Score:3)
Would help the corporation's bottom line but wouldn't do anything for the franchises, unless you think they'd actually pass the savings on by reducing franchise fees.
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Interesting)
Total CEO compensation was $21 Million out of sales of $2.4 Billion.
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Interesting)
Total CEO compensation was $21 Million out of sales of $2.4 Billion.
The problem perhaps, is not so much the idea that basic percentages of total sales is the bottom line, but what value is added by that 21 million dollar expense.
As well, would it look like such a small percentage if the 21 million dollars is compared against total profit instead of total sales? We all know the answer to that.
There is an inherent problem when Billionaires and multi-millionaires tell people making 20K a year that they are making too much money.
I dunno if my outlook is so screwed up or what, but it seems to me that trying to put as many Americans as possible out of work - or at least have them work for as little as possible, just isn't sound business strategy, especially for substandard eateries like Wendy's, who don't exactly cater to the wealthy.
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno if my outlook is so screwed up or what, but it seems to me that trying to put as many Americans as possible out of work - or at least have them work for as little as possible, just isn't sound business strategy, especially for substandard eateries like Wendy's, who don't exactly cater to the wealthy.
The employees for a Wendy's location make up probably less than 1% of the local population. Probably less than 10% of the general population frequent that restaurant regularly, but employees get half-price meals all the time so they are even less likely than the average person to pay full price for a meal from Wendy's. The impact to revenue is therefore almost non-existent, so any payroll impact is likely to have a much larger effect on net profits.
Granted, once most everybody fires low-wage employees, this will become the problem you describe. But employee wages drive pricing, and if your burgers cost a dollar or two more than the equivalent burgers next door, you lose customers... just as if your burgers cost less, you gain customers. The good guy loses.
It is a problem, it is an inevitable problem, but doing the "right thing" isn't really a viable solution. The good guy will go out of business. The solution has to come elsewhere.
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
You have the general premise wrong.
He's not telling them they are making too much money. He's telling them that due to outside regulation, keeping them around is more expensive than automating the job. You even nailed the 'why' when you said that Wendy's doesn't exactly cater to the wealthy - they need to keep the average selling price down, so they can continue to exist.
What we are seeing is the inevitable consequence of increases in levels of technology, and outside regulation forcing wages up on jobs that have traditionally not been viewed as a career position, but rather a stepping stone for someone starting out in the labor market. The company is going to do what is necessary to keep sales up and expenses down, and some governmental entity just made automation cheaper than people. The consequence of that shift is that those people are free to look for higher paying opportunities elsewhere.
The upside: we've had self check-out in supermarkets for some time now, and there's still plenty of standard check lanes open any time I go to the store, because that shitty scan robot isn't fast enough for anything but a few items, and doesn't give a level of customer service that you can get from another person. The market will decide which model it likes better - a computer that you place your own order on and then use SamdroidplePay, or talking to a person who can be friendly and courteous at the going regulated market wage, and not enraging if you have the gall to pay with cash, because we still haven't figured out a machine that accepts cash properly.
TL;DR: All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again. Are you similarly pissed off that your car wasn't hand-welded together by some guy named Burt that is still staggering around from pounding cans of Pabst the night before?
Re: (Score:3)
What we are seeing is the inevitable consequence of increases in levels of technology, and outside regulation forcing wages up on jobs that have traditionally not been viewed as a career position, but rather a stepping stone for someone starting out in the labor market.
%30 of the entire Labor Market is low-wage service jobs. Considering the large % of the job market, the belief that service-jobs are just stepping-stones to careers elsewhere is unrealistic. At the end of the day having companies at a race to the bottom on their quarterly report payroll line ends up hurting the economy and eventually them as lower salaries eventually end up eroding consumer spending power. This is why you need Government regulation to make sure that the economy is solidly grounded in fundam
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you don't have the right to do is force them to comply.
But it is perfectly acceptable to elect officials to carry out that task for us, to force others to comply. Right?
Well, that is WHY Wendy's does have to comply with the health code, yes.
It'd be easier for them if they didn't, but they do.
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:4, Informative)
What you don't have the right to do is force them to comply.
But it is perfectly acceptable to elect officials to carry out that task for us, to force others to comply. Right?
Well, that was one way to force people stop being assholes enforcing Jim Crow laws for instance. That's another way to force others to stop marrying minors (just another example.) This shit can go both ways, for good and for bad. How good or how bad it goes is a function of education, political participation, and how much the average person in a society indulges in being an asshole.
Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
But socialism as a political system requires high levels of taking at the barrel of a gun.
As the taxation systems of all government types are enforced by their armed police forces, your statement is completely content-free. Do you have a point to make?
Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Every political system requires taking at the barrel of a gun.
At the end of the day, that's the ultimate authority behind any political system - if you don't follow the rules someone has the means to force you. Every capitalist transaction is finally backed up with a gun. Don't pay, we'll sue you / arrest you. Refuse to be arrested we'll shoot you.
Re: (Score:3)
That's true, but in the end it's all about consent. That's what differentiates liberty from tyranny.
Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalist transactions only work because of the threat of violence. Otherwise, what's to stop me from just promising to give you money (or some other item in trade) for your item, and then taking the item and refusing to hand over the money? Social systems like this only work because there's a governmental system that ends up resulting in violent force if you don't play by the rules. Otherwise you'd have anarchy.
It's weird how libertarians are so dense that they can't understand this. They're a lot like the ultra-naÃve loony-left people who think that everyone is just going to behave and play nice because it's human nature, if only you just reason with them and plead with them. It's not.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll bite.
Capitalist systems, like others, function or fail based in part on scale. Most people are decent and don't need a threat of force to behave properly. Most small groups with a capitalist system work fine.
For those that have malicious citizens, making it legal to shoot someone stealing from you goes a long way toward stopping crime.
Of course, there will always be smart criminals who get away with stealing and it's easier in an unregulated environment. And, of course, people with guns and an excuse w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a drama queen. I was in Finland last summer, and I didn't see any "high levels of taking at the barrel of a gun".
When mentioning "socialism", why do people like you immediately jump to North Korea or Mao's Great Leap Forward without acknowledging that there are socialist countries that have better outcomes, more economic and social mobility, greater liberty and more stable economies than anything that capitalism has ever produced?
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's so much more fun to throw everybody's respective True Scotsmen into the arena and watch the mayhem.
Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Your question should be, "Why do people say that capitalism/socialism is a binary, one-or-the-other choice?"
This happens every time socialism is mentioned around here. People try to argue that you can either have socialism or capitalism, but not both, when there are very successful countries that have found a way for the two to co-exist and work together.
Re: (Score:3)
And is now grinding their children and grandchildren into dust.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if it does work, it's no fun unless you force people into it.
Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Interesting)
If I received $2000 a month free:
rent: $950 / month for a modest 2 bedroom apartment in a 100+ year old triplex made of wood. Not exactly the best apartment around.
electricity: $40 / month during the summer. In the winter, this can skyrocket. Last year, while my region of hte planet was the coldest place on earth outside of the poles, my total winter electricity bill was slightly over $1000
internet: $74 / month
mobile phone: $80 / month
monthly bus pass: $82 / month
groceries: $400 / month
$1,626 / month. That leaves me with a scant $374 of disposable income, per month. Except that one month where I bought a pair of jeans and brought me down to $274 for the month. Then there was that time I went camping (which is fun, but at this rate, it's the only kind of 'traveling' I can afford) and I had a flat tire and it ate up $250 leaving me with almost nothing left.
But hey, if my disposable income suddenly shot up by $1626/month as I'm working, then I gee, what will I do with my new found wealth? I know... SPEND IT. I can goto the farmers market and support local farmers who produce expensive tomatoes that actually taste like something. I can goto that local thingamajig store that is more expensive than thinkgeek but gives me instant gratification instead of waiting for shipping. I can go eat at more expensive restaurants, drink higher quality beer, go traveling more often, and for longer periods of time, buy furniture that's better than Ikea, and so on.
Capitalism depends on consumerism. Increasing my ability to spend will help the economy, not hinder it.
Capitalism depends on consumerism. So it seems counter productive to not enable consumerism where possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:3, Funny)
> How about you eat a sandwich?
I will, after I order it from a kiosk.
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Basic income is a concept created by people that want to stifle capitalism and devalue education and personal initiative to better one's self.
Er... not really. Some of its advocates are famous libertarians, such as Friedrich Hayek. And if there is one thing one can never say about libertarians is that they want to stifle capitalism.
The thing is, the worst for capitalism, far worse than taxes, is all the interference by big government itself, and basic income works against this. It allows us to downsize and dismantle entire governmental sectors by simply giving the money that would have gone into them directly to the people, who in turn would use it by purchasing from capitalist companies. Additionally, as more and more of those governmental bodies were dismantled, we could start transferring to the people part of the taxes that went into them, thus also lowering taxes overall. In the end, you get a small government, more freedom, and a functioning society that, while still relying on money from taxes, does it in a most definitely "non-welfarian-statist" manner. Also, less crime, because those who want to use cocaine, crack, heroin or whatever will have the money to engage in that and will be able to do so at home in a manner that would be safe for most everyone.
There's no practical downside to this proposal. It diminishes government, it lowers taxes, it lowers crime, it incentives business, it provides welfare without being actual big government-style welfare, and it requires just a small chunk of all the surplus generated by an exponentially-growing economy. In fact, wealth for those who work will continue expanding exponentially, just a little less exponentially than it might otherwise. It's cheap, and it's effective.
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
I would throw the concept of Mazlow's Pyramid into this. If basic food and security are not present, you will not get much from people in the way of advances. By a guarenteed basic income, which would let people focus on other things than trying to eke enough for food, it would allow people to spend time doing research, making stuff, designing cooler items, and advancing the arts and sciences in general. The Renaissance is an object lesson to this, when people had time to do something other than toil in the fields.
It sounds "cool" to tell people to just go eat cake, but that philosophy has its blowback. Look at how the US has stagnated, while countries that guarantee some means of knowing where one's next meal is coming from are advancing. A population that is barely existing is not a population that is inventing and advancing science.
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:4, Interesting)
Business liability itself is an intrusion of the government (I'm not saying its BAD - but that it is). In an unregulated capitalistic society if your product malfunctioned and killed someone then other people would just know to probably stay away from your products. Bad press would be its own punishment.
Liability is an artificial legal concept, and as such government limitations on it aren't any more hypocritical than the liability itself.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that those companies are themselves likely paying FAR more taxes than you towards paying for those police forces and the justice system?
If you don't like what they're doing - just don't shop there, and DO shop at a company that aligns more precisely with your ideals. If enough like minded people follow suit they will cease to be operate and the other company you supported will thrive.
Re:How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's true they need to get better accountants.
Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score:3)
Half arsed (Score:2, Informative)
From what I have understood they are only removing the person that will mishear what I say and pushes the wrong button in the register and instead lets me do the pushing. That almost as much automation as the pizzeria that allows me to select topping online and have it delivered to door.
The thing with junk-food burgers is that every burger and every bread already have industrial-grade quality.
Making the entire "cooking" process automated shouldn't be harder than any other automated manufacturing process.
The
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once food making machines become a mature technology, they'll be much *better* than human employees. A machine doesn't have enough imagination to get tired, distracted or forget things. If it's programmed to cook something for 178 seconds, that's exactly how long it gets cooked for, every single time.
Putting millions of people out of work is either horrible or great, depending on whether or not we've done basic income [wikipedia.org] yet.
Re: Half arsed (Score:5, Funny)
Machines will not forget things in your order, flirt with the machine next to them, or spit in your food. It will make your order absolutely the way it is told to, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are fed. At least, that's what Sarah Connor told me.
Flirting (Score:4)
When I saw your comment about flirting, it immediately reminded me of my experience patronizing a particular pretzel chain last weekend. My wife and I placed our order, and we were told, "We make those fresh, so it's going to take about 7-8 minutes." We said alright, sat down, and waited. With four workers behind the counter, all female, I didn't expect it to take too long. But as soon as we sit down, Mr. "I dropped out of high school because I look this good" walked up and leaned against the counter. And all that estrogen ran to him like rats to limburger. Except for the one girl in the back... She did all the pretzel rolling...all the baking...all the packaging...and 15 minutes later, we had our order.
But don't misunderstand me. I'm not at all a fan of Mr. Moneybags replacing all his workers with computers & robots, keeping all the profits, and putting them in offshore accounts until he can repatriate the money at a meager 7.5% tax. I'm also not a fan of Mr. Moneybags not paying American workers anymore who are unemployed and unable to buy pretzels at Mr. Moneybags's pretzel shop, drying up the American economy. What that establishment, and every establishment, needs is good management.
Re:Flirting (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not at all a fan of Mr. Moneybags replacing all his workers with computers & robots, keeping all the profits, and putting them in offshore accounts until he can repatriate the money at a meager 7.5% tax. I'm also not a fan of Mr. Moneybags not paying American workers anymore who are unemployed and unable to buy pretzels at Mr. Moneybags's pretzel shop, drying up the American economy.
I am. I think he's doing exactly the right thing. His machines will do a much better job than humans and will do it more efficiently. And if more and more places like that results in the economy completely collapsing and turning into a civil war that makes Syria look like small potatoes, then that's what we deserve for doing such a poor job in electing our government. We need more automation, and to keep our economy strong we need a universal basic income and universal healthcare so that everyone shares in the fruits of the labor of automation. But if we're not going to demand that because we're too stupid, then we deserve destruction due to civil war.
Re: Flirting (Score:4, Interesting)
The chain got his money this time. He might not go back again.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to Jack-in-the-Box which just about failed because of the incredibly terrible mishandling of a food-borne illness situation, which is now a widely used lesson in why accountability matters. As it turns out, when those customers go across the street, and it happens with enough customers, it means shutting restaurants.
Good management (Score:5, Interesting)
Good question. First, good management would have three workers who don't have any customers to serve clean up the establishment and organize the kitchen. Second, good management would be able to determine that, on a Sunday afternoon in May at 3pm, you maybe don't need four workers behind the counter. Third, good management would quickly apologize to a customer who was kept waiting by flirtatious, irresponsible workers. And fourth, a good manager would make sure the customer experience is of a high enough quality to ensure the customer will want to come back.
When you're talking about return-on-investment, I think a good manager is worth paying for. Though, in a fast food establishment, a good manager can replace at least one general worker. A great manager can replace at least two.
Re: (Score:3)
(damn no-editing Slashdot...)
Machine: Here is your order! Share and enjoy!
I really, really hope at least one company is going to add that "Share and enjoy!" bit to its automated registers/whatever. Bonus points if it's the company that manufactures the registers and sells them to lots of fast food joints and adds that bit by default after whatever the chain wants the machine to say.
Re: Half arsed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That also assumes that the people in question have the training and ability to DO these new jobs. Increasingly, tech skills require an extensive background of knowledge, and, frankly, not everyone is capable of that. And, at least in .us, the schools are not delivering the kind of workers we will need.
Given global trends, I do not see "basic income" as a solution likely to be implemented. And the likely long term solutions are not pleasant. The "Welfare Islands" of Niven and Pournelle's "CoDominium" uni
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
by robots
Re: (Score:3)
So let me get this straight:
1. Pass some laws raising labor costs to the point of companies automating low-skill positions and put a bunch of people out of work
2. Unemployment rises due to #1
3. Create a bunch of make-work government jobs in order to deal with #2
4. Pass some more laws raising taxes to pay for #3, because reality.
5. Cost of living goes up because businesses pass on the additional expenses of #1 and #4 to their customers.
6. The new wage created by #1 is no longer a 'living wage' for the
Re: (Score:3)
You mean that the Computer is your Friend. Trust the Computer. . .
. . .now, why am I smelling smoking boots ??
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with junk-food burgers is that every burger and every bread already have industrial-grade quality.
And not only junk food.
each time I'min the US I'm wondering how places that obviously don't do more than heat up pre-made food are allowed to call themselves "restaurant"
To add insult to injury, that ready-to-microwave stuff then shows up under the restaurants brand in the convinience food aisle at the supermarket!
Re:Half arsed (Score:5, Interesting)
And the idiots trying to change the nature of minimum wage from a "minimum" to one that can support a family deserve this slap upside the head. If you are on minimum wage you should not be breeding. Wait until you have the financial stability to be able to devote time and resources to raising a child..
End of story.
You know, I used to feel as you do -- only idiots and people trying live behind their means end up in a screwed up situation trying to get by on minimum wage.
Then, the first summer during college, I worked on a high-speed assembly line of sorts. Made better than minimum wage, but not a lot better. Anyhow, most of the folks there were college students or young people who didn't yet have experience to get anything better, along with a few middle-aged women who were bored sitting at home, so they could come to work and do a non-stressful job while chatting with their friends.
And then there was Mike. I came to find out that Mike had a bachelor's degree, was reasonably intelligent, and was in his mid-40's. One time during a break he told me what he was doing there.
After college, he had a some white-collar office job (I forget). Anyhow, he did quite well, but then some crap happened at the company, and he was laid off. By that point he was married, had 2 kids, had a mortgage, etc. He tried desperately to find a job, but the economy wasn't doing great at that point, and after about 6 months, it was time to "suck it up" and just take what he could get.
For about 10 years he worked at the company I was doing the summer at, mostly as a handler who delivered stuff to the assembly line (which was paid more). He didn't make good money, but the place had good benefits which he needed for his family. And the company used to have a tendency to promote from inside, so he had been hopeful to get a promotion to a foreman or manager of that section... but the company stopped promoting from inside around that time, and started hiring people with business degrees instead.
Just about that time, Mike turned 40-ish, and he started having back problems. So eventually he couldn't do that job anymore, and he ended up working on the line... the most boring, stupid job in the world, with crappy pay. But he had benefits, and he had time in the company -- no longer a path toward management, but leaving there meant finding a better option. But he had been out of his field for so long that nobody would likely hire him (and he was too "old" to start as entry level again).
He was stuck. Not in a minimum wage job, but a pretty low paying job for the skills and intelligence he clearly had. But his family had been through some rough times, and this was a secure job for him (despite the boredom and low pay).
There are a lot more people out there like Mike. Stuff like this happens more than you think, once you get out in the "real world" and start finding out the stories of "poor people." There are all sorts of reasons that people on minimum wage end up having to try to support others or end up in difficult financial positions -- maybe someone has health problems and medical bills, maybe a parent had problems and needed to retire early, etc.
And what about people who go through a divorce, not of their own choice? The spouse abandons them and the kids, and what are they supposed to do? They thought they had a stable family and income, but not all things last. (And child support, etc. doesn't always solve those problems.)
There are lots of stories for why minimum wage people might have to support others. Some of these could be solved by having better social services to deal with some issues and a better "safety net" for these people, if you wanted to go that route. But if you actually talk to many of these people, you might be surprised how many are NOT just ignorant "breeders" who are popping out kids without considering the consequences.
Biological clock ticks faster than that (Score:3)
Wait until you have the financial stability to be able to devote time and resources to raising a child..
If by "financial stability" you mean the ability to provide for a spouse and children despite an extended period of being laid off, then very few people have the resources to retire while still of childbearing age.
Disgustng (Score:5, Insightful)
America is shedding jobs at an epic rate so that the rich can get slightly richer. The only reason these corps "can't afford" a higher minimum wage is because they need to protect their obscene profits. We're all in this together and we're all headed to the same grave. Let's try helping each other out instead of seeing who can amass the biggest pile of cash at the expense of other people. A revolution is brewing.
Re:Disgustng (Score:5, Interesting)
A revolution is brewing.
This was tried 200 years ago [wikipedia.org], it did not stop the rise of the machines, the mill owners became very wealthy. However: I do agree that increasing automation will cause large social problems, I don't know how to deal with them, but we need to go into this with our eyes open not shut.
Re: (Score:2)
" I don't know how to deal with them,"
You do, you just don't like the "how", because human beings at the core are miserable, selfish, misanthropic horror creatures.
* Did I use "horror" in the bizarre yet correct for the UK way? Why do you guys say "horror" instead of "horrible"?
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you guys say "horror" instead of "horrible"?
We don't and that is a horrid accusation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even richer to assume I'm American.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u... [mirror.co.uk]
You use "horror" in a weird way all the time.
Re:Disgustng (Score:5, Insightful)
However: I do agree that increasing automation will cause large social problems,
It's not the automation per se that causes the problems.
it's more the fact that we insist that people somehow "work" in exchange for goods, services and housing, but less and less of that work is needed to provide goods, services and housing, thanks to automation.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that most people are active and busy trying to occupy their time. I believe that to be natural human behavior. I don't think anyone in the world works harder than someone who is homeless trying to survive. It's just that some forms of work are rewarded and others aren't.
How often do you think: why don't those criminals use their talent and get a job?
Because jobs suck!
I have a decent job that I don't mind doing but I cannot imagine any job that I could happily do day in and day out for 50 years...
Yet
Re:Disgustng (Score:5, Insightful)
Stephen Hawking has warned about that trend recently on reddit.
Have you thought of “technological unemployment,” where machines take all our jobs?
The outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
I agree with him. The second option seems more likely.
Re:Disgustng (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Have any of these 'distinguished economists' held honest jobs before settling into their folly?
Based on the theories they are working on, yes I know more about economics than them. Business pays me for my economic knowledge, they work on theories. Theories that likely start by pidgin holing everybodies marxist class.
Re: (Score:3)
Cute, he thinks poor have no income, if that were true, they couldn't buy drugs, booze or lottery tickets. I'm not saying all poor people allocate their resources in such frivolous ways, but some do. Additionally there are some very extensive underground economies in most neighborhoods, that provide incomes that are completely undocumented.
GP was talking about when the poor have no income; i.e. in the future when automation has taken away their opportunities to earn money. Do you really think having a much, much bigger percentage of economic activity based on "drugs, booze (and) lottery tickets" and "extensive underground economies" is going to be good for society?
Besides, what about the principled working poor holding down two, three, or more jobs, working stupid numbers of hours in a day, six or seven days a week, trying legally to provide
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like an opportunity to set up a "full service" fast food restaurant. For $0.10 more you get served by a human being and the food is better. Higher than minimum wages cause the staff to care enough to clean the place properly and not ejaculate in your milkshake.
After that it could maybe get some Starbucks style decor so that it appeals to hipsters and people who would never set foot in Wendy's. Or just stay cheap but slightly better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Disgustng (Score:5, Insightful)
I would think we would be at the point where the HENRYs -- high earners, not rich yet, people like the highly educated professional class and SMB owners, people with a high income and wealth accumulation potential, but still needing to work due to lack of sufficient wealth accumulation -- would be starting to feel some kind of collective fear for their own status.
The working classes have largely been strip-mined for their wealth, the middle classes nearly so, and the next class on the radar screen has to be the HENRYs. There's an awful lot of income still flowing into that class that must look pretty tempting once the middle class has been finished off.
While they remain politically influential by virtue of their income and education, they probably suffer from some identity confusion, believing that their high income gives them a social status equal to the very rich, leading them to believe their interests are aligned. Really, an economic version of the false affiliation working class whites believed they had with Republicans who used social issues as a diversion while stripping them of wealth and income.
When in fact, it would seem that once the wealth accumulators no longer find sufficient wealth to strip from the middle class, they will target the "inefficiencies" of high income earners as their next source of wealth addition.
I would expect that if the HENRYs ever get sufficiently stripped of income and wealth, that the truly wealthy would just start to feed on each other.
Just another CEO mouthing off... (Score:3, Insightful)
To tell us how much a raise in minimum wage will impact the actual cost of doing business - and the cost of the product - they need to open up about two things in particular that they skilfully danced around in this article:
Sure, the wage increase has a cost. What we don't know - and I would argue the people interviewed in this story don't know either - is how large is that cost. Will it actually be offset by replacing more workers with kiosks and robots, or is this just a ploy from the top?
Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... (Score:5, Informative)
We saw the same thing with Subway and Papa John's CEOs telling us how the Affordable Care Act was going to bring the sky crashing down on their empires, yet both are doing just fine.
Subway is not, actually...
How much of the cost of the product is actually labor? This one is a big - and difficult - one to answer.
No it isn't... labor is generally just as expensive, if not more expensive than the cost of the food... These are well known costs within the food business...
A lot of corporate types like to live in the fantasy where doubling a worker's salary means everything they make or do is now twice as expensive, but we know that is not the case.
No one believes that who runs a food business... but it will cause overhead to rise about 16%, give or take, for most such places.
That is their existing profit margin, they don't have 16% to give.
The human cost of their product is likely 10-20% at most.
Then you are misinformed, it is at least double that...
Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's exactly double that by most measurements I've seen. So companies will have to raise prices? There will be more people able to afford them which will only help their bottom line. Henry Ford acted with a great bit of social responsibility by paying his employees enough to where they could afford one of his cars. The least a fast food place could do is pay its employees enough to afford one of its shitty meals.
Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... (Score:4, Insightful)
We saw the same thing with Subway and Papa John's CEOs telling us how the Affordable Care Act was going to bring the sky crashing down on their empires, yet both are doing just fine.
Subway is not, actually...
I don't know what planet you live on, but here on planet earth Subway overtook McDonald's some time ago as the fast food chain with the largest number of locations world wide. They are continuing to open new locations - in the US and around the world - at a much faster clip than McDonald's as well. Even with most of their locations franchises, how would they be able to keep opening so many new restaurants if they were not doing well? They would have a hard time convincing franchisees to put down the capital to open a new location if they were doing poorly.
How much of the cost of the product is actually labor? This one is a big - and difficult - one to answer.
No it isn't... labor is generally just as expensive, if not more expensive than the cost of the food...
You're only looking at part of the equation. Sure, you can say you pay an employee $X per hour and that they can make Y sandwiches per hour. You can say that the raw materials in each sandwich is $B. What you can't as easily predict though is how much you will pay to keep the lights on, or how much it will cost to maintain the equipment in the restaurant. You can't predict how much your parking lot will cost you or when your landlord (if you are in a shopping mall and don't own your property) will raise your rent. They also cannot always predict what the franchise fee will be any given year. These restaurants have only one source of income - the food they sell. They have to cover all their costs through that.
A lot of corporate types like to live in the fantasy where doubling a worker's salary means everything they make or do is now twice as expensive, but we know that is not the case.
No one believes that who runs a food business
And how often do CEOs actually come from within the industry? There is always pressure from the board to bring in outside executives, which leads to blowhards like this guy.
but it will cause overhead to rise about 16%, give or take, for most such places.
16% isn't that much for fast food, really. A $2 sandwich goes up by about $.30, that really isn't that much. People don't flinch at that kind of price fluctuation on gasoline any more, why would they change their habits on food over it?
Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what planet you live on, but here on planet earth Subway overtook McDonald's some time ago as the fast food chain with the largest number of locations world wide. They are continuing to open new locations - in the US and around the world - at a much faster clip than McDonald's as well. Even with most of their locations franchises, how would they be able to keep opening so many new restaurants if they were not doing well? They would have a hard time convincing franchisees to put down the capital to open a new location if they were doing poorly.
Are you sure about that? http://www.wsj.com/articles/su... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
16% isn't that much for fast food, really. A $2 sandwich goes up by about $.30, that really isn't that much. People don't flinch at that kind of price fluctuation on gasoline any more, why would they change their habits on food over it?
I already have. I used to get the Asiago Ranch Chicken sandwich from Wendy's every week. They raised it by almost a buck, earlier this year, and now I go to Chick-fil-a instead (despite the lines).
Re: (Score:3)
So they can't go up three times as much as GP suggested without losing business. Would an incremental increase of $0.30 have driven you away if Chick-fil-a had also gone up by $0.30?
Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... (Score:5, Informative)
When I worked in fast food, our store seemed to hover at 20-25% of revenue for labor cost. I've been told that that is fairly low, and that 30% is the industry average. California has a current minimum wage of $10 per hour. This would mean that $15 would be a 50% increase. If a fast food location there were to give everyone a 50% raise, that would result in needing to increase revenue by 15% to make up the difference. I don't feel that 15% over six years is a very large increase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously don't know how these companies run. Most of this affects franchise owners not big parent companies. People who buy into a brand and have a few stores. Maybe even just one or two. They have to pay the parent company a percent of gross earnings and the rest they get to apply to costs such as labor, maintenance, inventory. All the variables the parent company doesn't absorb. Not to mention the small independent business owner without brand support who is on their own. In the restaurant business l
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... (Score:5, Interesting)
Restaurant operating cost typically are 1/3 Labor, 1/3 Food Cost. You can lower one by increasing the other. You can lower your food cost by purchasing more raw ingredients but you need the staff to prepare it. You can lower your labor cost by buying prepared and just heating it.
The remaining 1/3 goes to Sales and Marketing, Admin, Heat Light and Power, and other overhead. Hopefully after that it's profit.
He should ask himself the question that if everyone replaces their employees who will have the funds to eat his food?
Re: (Score:3)
Replacing people with machine does allow to run the "restaurants" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no "closed for holiday XYZ" downtime. Even if you only get a few dozen customers overnight, it's still only the cost of having the lights on. And with LED lighting it's now a negligible cost.
Re:Just another CEO mouthing off... (Score:4, Insightful)
Basic economics says you can't really create a minimum wage without creating lots of inflation
Then you should go back to school.
Inflation only comes from a few base interest factors handled by the central bank, or by the amount of "new printed money" (which no one does any more as using the base interest are more effective). It has nothing at all to do with wages.
I want as person there (Score:2)
I hate these fucking machines that put the labor costs on me. Besides what do I know about the hygene of some stranger who accidentally touched a food stuff I'm going to consume, blech. hmmmm, I like the smell of my ass crack sweat..oh look a bit of lint...I wonder why it is always blue...hey lets get ice cream gross wrong yuk, no fucking way.
If I have to make an *ice cream*, then I want to be paid for making it.
You can have minimum wage of $3000 per hour (Score:2)
and you can still afford it if your company has no human employees.
Capitalism does capitalism things (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were in a mega corporation at C level wouldn't you complain about how anything negative to your business would ruin it?
Wouldn't you try your best to stall any change that ends up causing you to have less profits (even a minuscule reduction) until you implement a process that circumvents the more expensive method?
Minimum wage will drive your business to the ground...like when uhm minimum wage was first introduced?
Otherwise wasn't the future of burger flippers always to be replaced by automation? -we'll only need minimal supervision of a human that can also greet customers should they care for a smiley service person.
Those C-level folk are disconnected from the reality of everyday people. It's all about profit margins, quarterly statements, shareholder meetings, bonuses and so on. It's not about how their business will crash and burn supposedly affecting their poor employees, it's about earning a single cent than they did before and fuck everyone else.
Already Trialed (Score:2)
Re:Already Trialed (Score:4, Informative)
walmart has self-service lines and they are usually faster than the cashiers. YMMV
Aldi on the other hand has the fastest cashiers anywhere. They start them at $13 an hour plus bennies. They usually only need 1 in the store on duty.
Already seen in other types of fast food places (Score:3)
Sheets gas stations have always had kiosks for ordering food for as long as I can remember. However I find the interface really frustrating to navigate. I only keep coming back because this one Sheetz place is in a convenient location.
I also saw a kiosk in a McDonalds last year. Not sure if it was just a trial or a part of a store revamp.
Wendy's Automats? (Score:3)
[1] http://www.wired.com/2008/07/g... [wired.com]
Royal Farms in Maryland (Score:3)
has been doing this for years.
Enjoy your extra big ass fries. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the movie it was Carl's Junior, but Wendys seems to want to get there first.
This is good to stop paying welfare (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Liberal Solution: Outlaw Automation (Score:4, Insightful)
You're an idiot.
"Ideology I don't like will advocate something dumb because of course they will because I'm on the other team". Then "it's a race issue cause I want it to be"
The only loophole here is that the "idiot branch" of conservatism gives you a loophole to feel insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
False choices (Score:2)
It is a false choice between $15 an hour and $7.25 an hour. If they had kept minimum wages up with inflation they would be about $9.90 an hour. Lets the raise the minimum wage to $9.90 am hour and then automatically index it for inflation every year.
Re:Predictable and self-inflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, deduct expenses (health insurance, housing etc.) and that $31k will melt away like a snowball in an oven.
Secondly, the fact that we pay many professions insultingly low wages is not an argument against paying burger-flippers $15 an hour. It is an argument for paying other undervalued professions more.
Thirdly, whether someone spends 40 hours a week transplanting hearts, laying bricks, nursing the elderly or flipping burgers, none of those is a leisurely stroll in the park. Anyone working a full-time job deserves to be able to afford a modest standard of living in my book. Otherwise, what is the point?
Re: (Score:3)