McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[Conservative65]

How do you know? A kid making $8.00 an hour might be cheaper than the infrastructure costs needed to keep kiosks running. What we do know is that companies always look ahead for things (at least the successful ones do) and their concern might be that $15 an hour STILL won't placate the union idiots, and then they want $20 an hour.

Minimum wage has been frozen for eight years and McDonalds is still moving to kiosks

How much of a pay cut do you want before McDonalds takes them out?

What pay cut?.

once they go to kiosks

they aint switching back

why would they

Customer satisfaction will be higher. Order completed in a more prompt manner and correct.

It's unlikely that order fulfillment accuracly will become better or worse; however, order delivery times should decrease. McDonald's burden for receiving orders and accurately communicating them to the food preparation unit will drop dramatically. Additionally, automating and assigning the order placement process function to the customer will enable a whole new level of performance management capabilities on the remaining routine and exceptional operational processes so that the fulfillment window delta between peak and trough periods can be better anticipated and managed.

For example.

• Let's say that in a given area there are several venues that often have publicized large events that result in "over peak" traffic/demand.
  • Inventory levels -- from "raw materials" and "customer ready" standpoints -- can be predicted so as to:
    • move people through more quickly,
    • optimize inventory levels and need to place a rush order for restocking,
    • have at the ready hot and ready go foods rather than having to ask customers to wait while a new batch of, say, fries is cooked,
    • know what food items to have more and less of at those times, and
    • know what impulse buy promotions/point of sale "ticklers" to use at those and other times.
  • Reduce store manager's span of control so they can devote more time to analyzing and managing store performance and less time performing human resource management.
• Cup and condiment dispensers can be attached to the kiosks to aid in managing traffic flow to the pick-up counter and to ensure customers get the items they need.
• At high volume stores, and at inordinately high traffic times, stores can take automated and human orders.
• In certain types of venues -- airports and arenas, for example -- kiosks can be placed at key locations so that customers can order "now" and by the time they walk to the actual store that's, say, closest to their departure gate, the food will be ready for pickup, thereby reducing the delay. (This tactic can add value especially for slower restaurants like Legal Seafoods that can provide food to-go, but generally require customers to have 10-20 minutes of free time. This can also be done via phone app.)

There will still have to be human involvement like you say with volume issues. However, any failures in a timely delivery or order accuracy won't be the machines fault.

 

[Conservative65]

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

That's where you and I differ. You think someone should be paid a certain amount solely because they breathe and I expect them to earn what they get. If it isn't enough, it's the fault of the one offering shitty skills not the equivalent wages to it.

You deserve what the one doing the paying says you deserve. You don't care about skills. That's why I say there is no reason for some freeloading piece of shit to ever do anything better than the minimum because people like you support paying them a certain amount when they don't. Sad part is you think by doing what you do they'll get better. They don't have to if you enable them to be leeches.

Why are you not paying attention. I don't want anyone to be paid more than the value of their production. NOBODY. Everyone should be paid at least fifteen dollars an hour. If the job doesn't produce at least that much value to the economy--ELIMINATE THE JOB. If the industry shuts down. GOOD. There has to be an alternative use of the resources devoted to perpetuating that job or industry that provides a better return to the economy. Hell, that is what economics is all about.

That's even dumber than wanting to pay people more than they are worth.

He contradicts himself when he says he doesn't want someone paid more than they are worth. He already claimed that skills don't matter and someone should get paid enough to support him/herself and one other simply because the work is 40 hours. What he doesn't seem to get is that there are jobs that don't produce a dime in revenue yet he's willing to pay them a substantial amount.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He contradicts himself when he says he doesn't want someone paid more than they are worth. He already claimed that skills don't matter and someone should get paid enough to support him/herself and one other simply because the work is 40 hours. What he doesn't seem to get is that there are jobs that don't produce a dime in revenue yet he's willing to pay them a substantial amount.

Maybe I have it wrong, but from what I can understand, he's saying that companies that have jobs that pay less than $15.00 per hour (because those positions don't produce enough profit) should be eliminated. Okay, eliminated by who? Should government close down McDonald's because they have jobs that don't produce enough profit to pay a worker $15.00 an hour or more? People in a community should suffer because of that?

I can't figure out what he's offering as a good solution to the problem.

 

[martybegan]

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

That's where you and I differ. You think someone should be paid a certain amount solely because they breathe and I expect them to earn what they get. If it isn't enough, it's the fault of the one offering shitty skills not the equivalent wages to it.

You deserve what the one doing the paying says you deserve. You don't care about skills. That's why I say there is no reason for some freeloading piece of shit to ever do anything better than the minimum because people like you support paying them a certain amount when they don't. Sad part is you think by doing what you do they'll get better. They don't have to if you enable them to be leeches.

Why are you not paying attention. I don't want anyone to be paid more than the value of their production. NOBODY. Everyone should be paid at least fifteen dollars an hour. If the job doesn't produce at least that much value to the economy--ELIMINATE THE JOB. If the industry shuts down. GOOD. There has to be an alternative use of the resources devoted to perpetuating that job or industry that provides a better return to the economy. Hell, that is what economics is all about.

That's even dumber than wanting to pay people more than they are worth.

He contradicts himself when he says he doesn't want someone paid more than they are worth. He already claimed that skills don't matter and someone should get paid enough to support him/herself and one other simply because the work is 40 hours. What he doesn't seem to get is that there are jobs that don't produce a dime in revenue yet he's willing to pay them a substantial amount.

His view is that a business that can't pay someone some arbitrary value (say $15) shouldn't be in business, or that good or service shouldn't be available. That's even more loopy than saying pay people more than they are worth, and let the management/owner eat the difference.

 

[danielpalos]

If you pay someone 7 bucks an hour do you expect good productivity and people to stay? McDonalds doesn't want nor expect good workers to stay. Otherwise they would pay more. Their business model is low wage and expecting little or no productivity. Some companies have to attract the least productive. Pretend to pay me I pretend to work.

When you're forced to pay someone a minimum of $7.25/hour because the federal government mandates it instead of paying based on skills required to do the job, absolutely I expect efficiency. You're already getting paid more than what you offer is worth.

They pay that amount because the job being done requires skills at that amount.

Pretend to work because you don't like what you agreed to work for and that won't be a problem. Someone else will be in your spot either doing the job correctly or they'll be replaced if they have the same attitude. When you offer low skills, don't expect anyone to come knocking on your door.

Only the right wing is that, fantastical.

Your current metrics are based on our current minimum wage.

My current metrics are based on the concept of if you take a job knowing the wage before you take it, do the job to the level it should be done not to the one you decide because you now don't like the pay.

I said nothing of the amount but the concept of doing what you were hired to do to the level you were hired to do it.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage makes knowing you can labor and have some money to spend, before you take the job, makes a lot of difference. I agree.

A $15/hour minimum wage is about 3x more than what a fast food job is worth.

If you took the job, regardless of the pay, knowing what it was BEFORE you took it, you have no argument. It's called whining if you do.

the job is worth, whatever the market will bear.

 

[danielpalos]

The current "Henry Ford" concept IS automation..

your point?

the left already has an answer to the right wing, canard, of unemployment.

and what is that? Pay people to do nothing?

hire them, if it, "offends you"; especially in, Right to Work, States.

why hire them if the labor they produce is not economically justified by the minimum pay mandated by the government?

That's his point. He doesn't want them to be hired and actually work, he just wants them to be paid, basically turning businesses into welfare distribution centers.

why is there any homelessness, in right to work States?

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it is in any mixed market economy.

increasing the cost of labor means capital must seek gains from efficiency.

or they raise prices, which is made easier by people making more money, but doesn't lead t"o an increase in buying POWER.

that is up to them; but, they may have to compete, with Henry Ford imitators.

The current "Henry Ford" concept IS automation..

No, Henry Ford utilized the specialization of labor, a concept that was first addressed by Plato. But Ford was a Georgist, he understood Adam Smith and economic rent, which is why he utilized his knowledge of Marx and his arguments against the specialization of labor, and offered high compensation to offset employee disappoint and unrest due to consistently repeated actions. The very "spiritual and physical depression" that Marx had addressed.

No question here. Henry Ford would be an advocate of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. He would be absolutely horrified at the structure of the McDonald's organization and it's efficient extraction of economic rent from multiple sectors of the US economy.

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, he did not whine about minimum wages.

 

[danielpalos]

hire them, if it, "offends you"; especially in, Right to Work, States.

why hire them if the labor they produce is not economically justified by the minimum pay mandated by the government?

the left already has an answer to the right wing, canard, of unemployment.

"something i made up and think may work" is not an answer.

i did not just make it up; unlike the right wing, with nothing but diversion.

we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

So people work when they feel like it, and if they don't want to, we pay them something?

sure; you don't believe in Capitalism?

only True socialists, require a work ethic.

 

[martybegan]

or they raise prices, which is made easier by people making more money, but doesn't lead t"o an increase in buying POWER.

that is up to them; but, they may have to compete, with Henry Ford imitators.

The current "Henry Ford" concept IS automation..

No, Henry Ford utilized the specialization of labor, a concept that was first addressed by Plato. But Ford was a Georgist, he understood Adam Smith and economic rent, which is why he utilized his knowledge of Marx and his arguments against the specialization of labor, and offered high compensation to offset employee disappoint and unrest due to consistently repeated actions. The very "spiritual and physical depression" that Marx had addressed.

No question here. Henry Ford would be an advocate of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. He would be absolutely horrified at the structure of the McDonald's organization and it's efficient extraction of economic rent from multiple sectors of the US economy.

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, he did not whine about minimum wages.

He also wasn't forced to do that. he took his own risk for his own reward.

 

[martybegan]

why hire them if the labor they produce is not economically justified by the minimum pay mandated by the government?

the left already has an answer to the right wing, canard, of unemployment.

"something i made up and think may work" is not an answer.

i did not just make it up; unlike the right wing, with nothing but diversion.

we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

So people work when they feel like it, and if they don't want to, we pay them something?

sure; you don't believe in Capitalism?

only True socialists, require a work ethic.

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

 

[danielpalos]

"something i made up and think may work" is not an answer.

i did not just make it up; unlike the right wing, with nothing but diversion.

we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

So people work when they feel like it, and if they don't want to, we pay them something?

Yep, kind of like that. No food stamps, no welfare, no housing subsidies, no social security, everyone has Medicare. Everyone gets a check. The wealthy get a check, the poor get a check, the elderly get a check, the kids get a check. You can make it on the check, you happy, we all happy. Hell, I hope you can make it on the check.

Only those who are actually unemployed, need a check.

Only those that work deserve a check.

Only those that spend money, need a check.

 

[danielpalos]

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

You have no solution to capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

For the millionth time how can your employer pay you that if your only producing $5 bucks worth of goods an hour?

.

the employer needs to re-think the job.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm calling bullshit.

They would have done the kiosk thing anyway.

How long does it take to design and develop the kiosks and computer programs? How long to install them nationwide?

This has been in the works longer than the call for wage increases.

How do you know? A kid making $8.00 an hour might be cheaper than the infrastructure costs needed to keep kiosks running. What we do know is that companies always look ahead for things (at least the successful ones do) and their concern might be that $15 an hour STILL won't placate the union idiots, and then they want $20 an hour.

Minimum wage has been frozen for eight years and McDonalds is still moving to kiosks

How much of a pay cut do you want before McDonalds takes them out?

A government mandated minimum wage shouldn't exist.

a war on drugs, should not exist.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm calling bullshit.

They would have done the kiosk thing anyway.

How long does it take to design and develop the kiosks and computer programs? How long to install them nationwide?

This has been in the works longer than the call for wage increases.

How do you know? A kid making $8.00 an hour might be cheaper than the infrastructure costs needed to keep kiosks running. What we do know is that companies always look ahead for things (at least the successful ones do) and their concern might be that $15 an hour STILL won't placate the union idiots, and then they want $20 an hour.

Minimum wage has been frozen for eight years and McDonalds is still moving to kiosks

How much of a pay cut do you want before McDonalds takes them out?

Minimum wage has not been frozen for eight years. Some have already moved to a $15.00 minimum wage and most states pay above the federal minimum.

No matter what the minimum wage is, many places pay above it anyway since they can't find people to work for minimum wage.

Seattle moved to the higher minimum and within months, those the left told us would do for themselves and step up if they were paid a higher wage started complaining about making more because they're handouts were being cut.

privatizing costs means less welfare. the right wing, should be happy.

 

[danielpalos]

Why are you not paying attention. I don't want anyone to be paid more than the value of their production. NOBODY. Everyone should be paid at least fifteen dollars an hour. If the job doesn't produce at least that much value to the economy--ELIMINATE THE JOB. If the industry shuts down. GOOD. There has to be an alternative use of the resources devoted to perpetuating that job or industry that provides a better return to the economy. Hell, that is what economics is all about.

Economics is a company producing products or goods for a profit. It's the only reason they exist. You nor anybody else can dictate what kind of profit or pay they have. if people are willing to work for six bucks an hour, so be it. Nobody is forcing them to do the work and the worker freely accepted the terms of employment.

same goes for sixteen dollars an hour.

 

[danielpalos]

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

That's where you and I differ. You think someone should be paid a certain amount solely because they breathe and I expect them to earn what they get. If it isn't enough, it's the fault of the one offering shitty skills not the equivalent wages to it.

You deserve what the one doing the paying says you deserve. You don't care about skills. That's why I say there is no reason for some freeloading piece of shit to ever do anything better than the minimum because people like you support paying them a certain amount when they don't. Sad part is you think by doing what you do they'll get better. They don't have to if you enable them to be leeches.

Why are you not paying attention. I don't want anyone to be paid more than the value of their production. NOBODY. Everyone should be paid at least fifteen dollars an hour. If the job doesn't produce at least that much value to the economy--ELIMINATE THE JOB. If the industry shuts down. GOOD. There has to be an alternative use of the resources devoted to perpetuating that job or industry that provides a better return to the economy. Hell, that is what economics is all about.

When you said you don't care about skills and that people should be paid based on them working forty hours, since doing so would produce that very result, you do want someone being paid more than the value they offer.

Not all jobs are worth $15/hour. If you pay a floor sweeper, trash emptier, and toilet cleaner that much, what value do they provide to production. What they do produces zero revenue but costs a lot to do that.

save money, and do it, yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

[

No, I don't go down that Libertarian path. I believe there is some value to patents and trade secrets that should be passed to the owners as a reward for their innovation. But that is just it, there must be innovation. Creating a timed released version or changing the color of a pill is not innovation and should not be rewarded with an extended patent. And, to the extent those rewards actually reflect the value of that patent or trade secret to the economy, well I am not opposed nor would I call it rent seeking. That is not what we are talking about in respect to McDonalds.

I'm not sure what you mean "Libertarian Path."

Murray Rothbard would certainly never suggest that patents OR BRANDING be hampered by the state.

McDonalds has built a brand name that holds a great deal of value. To expect or demand the owners of that brand to simply give it away is ignorant. Branding is an important type of innovation, whether that is creating the Coca-Cola brand or one's personal brand through professional reputation. Brand carries reputation and is one of the most critical elements of marketing.

The Marxian concept that we should eschew rents is highly ignorant of how markets work.

I do. It means he opposes the government not having a say in what a private business does related to pay and benefits.

we used to have that in the US; when we were a third world economy. only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm calling bullshit.

They would have done the kiosk thing anyway.

How long does it take to design and develop the kiosks and computer programs? How long to install them nationwide?

This has been in the works longer than the call for wage increases.

How do you know? A kid making $8.00 an hour might be cheaper than the infrastructure costs needed to keep kiosks running. What we do know is that companies always look ahead for things (at least the successful ones do) and their concern might be that $15 an hour STILL won't placate the union idiots, and then they want $20 an hour.

Minimum wage has been frozen for eight years and McDonalds is still moving to kiosks

How much of a pay cut do you want before McDonalds takes them out?

They are reading the tea leaves and seeing the trending. The "Fight for $15" movement may not have started the automation trend, but they are adding a force to it.

better products at lower cost, what a concept.

 

[martybegan]

I'm calling bullshit.

They would have done the kiosk thing anyway.

How long does it take to design and develop the kiosks and computer programs? How long to install them nationwide?

This has been in the works longer than the call for wage increases.

How do you know? A kid making $8.00 an hour might be cheaper than the infrastructure costs needed to keep kiosks running. What we do know is that companies always look ahead for things (at least the successful ones do) and their concern might be that $15 an hour STILL won't placate the union idiots, and then they want $20 an hour.

Minimum wage has been frozen for eight years and McDonalds is still moving to kiosks

How much of a pay cut do you want before McDonalds takes them out?

They are reading the tea leaves and seeing the trending. The "Fight for $15" movement may not have started the automation trend, but they are adding a force to it.

better products at lower cost, what a concept.

Not when forced by the government, and which results in higher costs down the road.