
McDonalds answers $15 minimum wage with the Big Mac ATM - eplanit
http://www.worldtribune.com/mcdonald-answers-15-minimum-wage-with-the-big-mac-atm/
======
smcl
"Soon the McDonald’s workers Sanders and Democrats promised would get a “fair
living wage” to take customers’ orders for Big Macs “will have absolutely no
wages at all courtesy of the ‘Fight for $15,’ ” Zero Hedge reported on Jan.
26."

I love how these guys spin things, truly impressive. So Bernie wanted a $15/hr
minimum, but didn't even get the Democratic nomination. Hillary _sorta_ backed
$12.50/hr, but lost the election. Yet somehow the World Tribune lays the blame
for some future job losses in the fast food industry at their feet?
Incredible!

We are well and truly in The Zone now ...

~~~
dxhdr
> Yet somehow the World Tribune lays the blame for some future job losses in
> the fast food industry at their feet? Incredible!

I don't think anyone is blaming Bernie and Clinton, it reads to me that
they're criticizing the idea of a $15 minimum wage as counterproductive. And
mocking the politicians who support it, sure.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
It makes so much more sense to permanently freeze wages while inflation makes
its steady march. What could possibly go wrong?

~~~
smcl
Are you for real? That is not what minimum wage is - you don't just set the
level once and then forget about it forever. The UK has managed to have
minimum wage for decades, increasing more-or-less in line with inflation every
year.

Edit: ... furthermore at least this way you get some kind of increase. As
inflation makes its steady march do you think the fast-food industry (or the
service industry overall) have kept up?

~~~
CaptSpify
I think he was being sarcastic

------
ctrl-j
It's silly to think this is due to a $15 an hour minimum wage. This was coming
as soon as the cost of installing the thing was cheap enough to make back the
difference.

Automation is coming for all jobs that do not require critical and/or dynamic
thinking.

A higher minimum wage may have accelerated the process, but this would have
happened regardless.

~~~
pwagland
Indeed. We have had these things in Europe for a long time already. They tend
to be really convenient when you are in a foreign country, since you don't
need to be able to speak to them, you just press the buttons, and get what you
want, without fear of the order getting "lost in translation".

And given that they are in use in thousands of restaurants in Europe, then you
know that the price per machine is only going down, not up. Which means that
at some point they will _always_ end up price competitive with humans, unless
the humans also keep on accepting wage cuts to stay "competitive".

Forcing people into sub-poverty incomes is not a viable long term solution to
this problem of low paid labour.

~~~
dogma1138
One of the reasons you see these in Europe is because of high employment costs
(and I don't mean minimum wage alone, that one isn't particularly high in
Europe).

These things are pretty common in the UK, but on the other hand in Asia I
haven't seen those yet, Hong Kong, China, Philippines don't have them despite
having on average huge McDonald's stores with considerably more staff and
customers than the average Western European one.

It's also worth noting that you can pretty much follow the employment costs in
Europe to see where are these things deployed and at any country that is below
a certain threshold you won't really see those.

Service automation is a simple calculation of TCO of the automation vs wages,
as long as the wages are even marginally lower than the cost of automation
there is no point.

I would say tho that while I visit McDonalds maybe 3-4 times a year (I love
their fries, even tho you can't get mayo in the UK anymore... because "health
and safety") I much rather use the ATM than talk to the person at the counter.
They can't hear/understand half of the things you say, and vice versa, orders
are often taken wrong, and you some how always get stuck behind a group of 5
people that can't make up their mind.

So all in all they might also get a better customer satisfaction from
automated service than from human employees.

~~~
rahimnathwani
McDonald's in China (at least in some branches in Shanghai) has automated
kiosks for ordering. They're similar to the ones they've had in the UK for a
while now, except that they have a way to scan a QR code from your phone's
screen (commonly used for WeChat and Alipay payments via QR code).

------
gdulli
Interesting that the article mentions Democrats. They were the ones who saw
the inevitability of automation and tried to make education free to counter it
in a real, long term way. The strategy of blaming immigrants instead can
apparently win an election in the short term, but technology isn't going away.

------
manmal
Here in Austria McD recently installed the second version of ordering
machines. The first one was not bad, but it was deployed inconsistently and
seemed like a trial run. Now just about every McD has at least 2 of those HUGE
terminals with a reasonably responsive and friendly UI. You can order gluten
free options, choose ingredients for every dish, and even choose kids' meal
goodies (they call that Happy Meal here). It's also integrated with their
smartphone apps, so you can order in the car and then just pick it up. At the
same time, they restructured many branches' service counters into two sections
- one for ordering with an actual human and one for picking up your finished
order. And I think they already reduced active staff by 1 or 2 in the process
(for most branches).

I have to admit, it makes for a more streamlined process, and your order is
always correct (or it's your fault if wrong). One downside is that staff at
the takeaway counter is very stressed since there is no switching between
tasks - they become handing-out-food-machines.

~~~
fuzzfactor
Imagine if you will, a modern cafeteria in one of the 48 US states during the
1950's, back when McDonald's was really just a startup with less than 100
outlets, not universally familiar.

This would be in black & white.

There were already well-established positions as handing-out-food-machines in
the cafeteria serving line.

These never have been high-paying jobs, but otherwise over the decades
evolving levels of stress would seem to be dependent on benevolence of owners
when it comes to balancing the gradual benefits of mass production/automation
with their employees.

These were usually very low stress jobs back then, so at one time there was a
lot to work with.

------
pcvarmint
The minimum wage is a step function -- if the employee is worth less than the
minimum wage, then they get $0; if they are worth the same or even slightly
more than the minimum wage, then they get _only_ the minimum wage.

The minimum wage essentially says "It shall be unlawful to employ people if
they are worth less than a prescribed amount". If they are unemployable
because of the law, then welfare will make them dependent on the state, and it
will make sure that they are never fully employed.

These are the real consequences to well-meaning but misguided policy.

~~~
DougN7
That's a really interesting way of putting it, and it makes sense.

------
VeejayRampay
I'm surprised that those machines are just being set up in the US. We've had
them for years here in France at most American fast-food franchises.

------
lazyant
I go to McDonalds once every 4-6 months or so. A couple weeks ago i noticed
the machines and tried them. As an old fart I prefer the human interaction,
also the machines seems slower to me to get all the details of the order
right. Also I don't like the extra touching a place where everybody is
touching (more so in the soda machine where the button is in the same place),
seems very unhygienic.

I did ask the manager if the machines meant there were less people working at
the location but he told me that no, same employees as before.

------
moomin
People seem to think that minimum wages are some left wing idea. They're not.
People not earning enough to live cost the state money. They cost it in terms
of benefits (believe it or not, the cheaper option) or in terms of law-
enforcement and the corrosive effects it has on your society. Paying people
below a certain level is tantamount to taking government subsidies.

Where exactly that level is is a matter for debate, but everyone should stop
pretending like it's a choice between "tough" and "kind".

~~~
jbuzbee
_Paying people below a certain level is tantamount to taking government
subsidies._

And the flip side to that: A minimum wage higher than the market rate, is
tantamount to employees taking company subsidies which inevitably is passed on
to consumers via higher prices.

~~~
moomin
You won't find any argument from me that higher wages can translate into
higher prices. They're separate decisions, but in the case that the principal
value comes from the labour, highly linked. So changing the wage of Apple
Store staff is unlikely to impact the price of an iPhone too much, whereas I
agree a burger is much more likely to be materially affected.

My point is, it doesn't matter what the "market rate" is if the consumer is
going to be paying the price anyway, either in terms of taxes or other
effects, such as an increased probability of violent crime.

Basically, it's the difference between micro and macroeconomics.

~~~
gremlinsinc
Higher wages will translate into higher prices, until you tie wages to
executive pay, make it so no executive can take home more than 80X what the
average worker in the company makes - Not including salaries of excutives in
the tally - then raising wages = raising their own salaries. When executive
pay is tied to employees' \-- you'll have surplus because they won't be able
to give themselves bonuses or extra pay and will either have to grow the
business and hire more employees are just keep it in the company bank vault
for a rainy day.

------
peterwwillis
France and Spain have had them for a while, and they're only mildly
complicated. Used them twice, no complaints.

Spain has been really eye opening in terms of what's possible in big cities
with cost of living. Everything here costs 1 to 3 euros, unless you're eating
fancy, in which case 6-12 euros. It's nutty compared to the US. So I'm
hesitant to believe we need to raise pay for unskilled, manual labor (no
labor?) jobs when we pay so much for basic things (that don't come out of a
trade deal or conglomerate pressuring global production to lower its cost with
harmful side effects)

That said, they were just protesting in Barcelona against, of all things,
tourism. Tourism! You know, the free money a city gets from charging people to
stare at a building? Apparently hotel rooms raised property taxes. I'm
somewhat of a dunce at tax laws, but I thought the ridiculously high tax rates
for hospitality services were meant to help offset this? Either way it sucks
that Joe Schmoe can't see the Sagrada Familia, and it sucks that their
neighbors can't afford rent. But I think Barcelona is lame, so, meh.

Why don't they just make an app? Seems simpler.

~~~
Oletros
> That said, they were just protesting in Barcelona against, of all things,
> tourism.

You don't live in Barcelona, isn't? The protests were against the
gentrification of the city. People that live or work there are suffering the
increase of costs without having any benefit.

~~~
ryanlol
>People that live or work there are suffering the increase of costs without
having any benefit.

 _Some_ people that live or work there are suffering the increase of costs
without having any benefit.

On the other hand many entrepreneurs are making millions off the tourism.

~~~
Oletros
Yes, there are a lot more entrepreneurs than people that doesn't work in the
tourist sector, are you serious?

~~~
ryanlol
Admittedly my comment was poorly worded and could be easily misunderstood.

I'm saying tourism has opened up huge opportunities for _everyone_. Many are
opting to not take advantage of those opportunities, but it feels hard to
argue that they don't benefit from tourism.

~~~
Oletros
And exactly how someone that works in an office in Barcelona, an elderly or a
couple that is looking for a flat can take advantage of those opportunities?

------
gremlinsinc
I say AMEN -- let's move to automation faster, the faster we get robots and
automation the faster we will realize the need for universal basic income..
Bring on the robots so maybe we all can work 30 hours a week so more people
can get hours, and have a more productive happier society, and share the
leisure that a 75% or higher automated society can bring. There's plenty to go
around we can choose to enrich the 80 families at the top, or spread the
resources and wealth so everyone can have the necessities of life, and at
least a little bit of comfort.

------
Overtonwindow
It was only a matter of time until fast food chains did this. I'm more shocked
that they didn't do it sooner. Ordering in any language, with zero human
interaction, I think society is not only primed for it, but in a weird sort of
way, looking forward to it. Give it ten years and companies will starting
using the fact that they employ actual people as a selling point. "Stop
ordering from machines, and enjoy dinner with a real human being." Until they
too are replaced by AI humanoids.....

------
DrScump
Why isn't anybody paying attention to the fact that this is a "fake news" site
without so much as a mailing address anywhere on its site?

~~~
grzm
Here's some more info on the World Tribune. Looks like the publisher was at
one time associated with the Reverend Moon.

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/09/08/fit-to-
print-2](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/09/08/fit-to-print-2)

------
Oletros
>"Soon the McDonald’s workers Sanders and Democrats promised would get a “fair
living wage” to take customers’ orders for Big Macs “will have absolutely no
wages at all courtesy of the ‘Fight for $15,’ ” Zero Hedge reported on Jan.
26."

Because even if there were no fight for increasing wages McDonalds wouldn't
automate their restaurants

~~~
TomMarius
They maybe would, but many years later, maybe so many, that it wouldn't even
matter. Tons of people would get to keep their jobs for a little (or not so
little) longer.

~~~
Oletros
And you know that it will by many years later exactly why?

------
masterleep
Perhaps governments shouldn't try so vigorously to make it expensive and
legally risky to hire people?

~~~
gwright
Why is this being voted down? It is a simply a restatement of the basic
economic concept that when the price of a service goes up the demand will go
down. In this case the service is labor.

In general I think labor costs in Europe are higher than the US and the
observation in another comment that these sorts of ordering systems are common
in Europe doesn't surprise me.

The cost of labor isn't just the hourly wage, but all the associated
regulations and liability that surround having a human employee. Changes in
minimum wage are just the most visible cost component.

~~~
CaptSpify
Because, as has been pointed out by most of the other comments here, this was
going to happen anyway. It didn't really matter that wages went up, other than
it potentially hurried it along.

~~~
jbuzbee
_this was going to happen anyway_

As pointed out by other comments here, this is not happening as much in Asia
where labor and regulatory costs are lower. The parent comment has a valid
point. It's a balance. Higher labor and regulatory costs tilt the scales
toward automation.

~~~
CaptSpify
> this is not happening as much in Asia where labor and regulatory costs are
> lower.

 _Yet_

It's still going to happen, it just isn't happening as fast. Even if you are
paying a person $2 a day, a machine that costs $1 a day, and doesn't need
breaks is cheaper.

~~~
gwright
This is true but not very interesting observation.

Machines and humans are not 100% substitutable. There are tradeoffs and cost
is just one of those tradeoffs. Humans, for example, are pretty good at
improvising when something goes wrong, not so much for machines.

When regulatory policies (including minimum wage rules) raise the cost of
labor the tipping point with regard to those tradeoffs switches towards
automation. It isn't a universal tipping point though. It will be different
for every particular industry and job type and regulatory regime.

While automation is getting better, it is obviously not sufficient to replace
humans in all situations. But if the costs of human labor go up (direct costs
and indirect regulatory costs), then the tradeoff changes in favor of
automation sooner and in more situations.

There is a significant difference between automation that rolls out because it
provides a better solution, all other things being equal, and automation that
rolls out because the regulatory environment just took human labor out of the
running.

I've actually had conversations with party activists regarding the minimum
wage where I asked why $15/hour?, why not $20, $25, $50? What was magic about
$15? The answer was stunning. They actually wanted to go to $20, $25 or higher
giving the argument that that way people would have more money to spend and it
would boost the economy. They really and truly believed that there were no
consequences to raising the minimum wage. That everything else would stay the
same and that workers would simply have more money in their pockets. That
amount of economic ignorance is stunning when coming from someone actively
involved in state level party politics.

As a final note, when automation isn't available to substitute for labor and
the labor costs costs up then the result is simply that the service
evaporates. Suddenly there is absolutely no supply for the service/product
because the regulatory regime has made it economically infeasible. For example
there are businesses leaving or actively avoiding California because the labor
regime is too onerous for some economic activity.

