Robots To Replace Fast Food Workers

[HardOCP News]

I have a bad feeling that we are going to hear a lot more stories like this in the future as long as it is cheaper to use robots in the place of a human employee. Thanks to ccmfreak2 for the link.

"They're always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case," says Puzder of swapping employees for machines.

 

[heatlesssun]

"This is the problem with Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and progressives who push very hard to raise the minimum wage," says Puzder. "Does it really help if Sally makes $3 more an hour if Suzie has no job?"

Fascinating. So when Trump is talking about how he's going to make Apple make iPhones in the US that's not the same thing?

 

[Arbit3r]

This is the end results of those fast food workers and obama wanting to give them 15$ an hour. Robot's gonna replace their butt's to save on costs.

 

[naib]

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend].

 

[heatlesssun]

This is the end results of those fast food workers and obama wanting to give them 15$ an hour. Robot's gonna replace their butt's to save on costs.

Ok. Let's put millions out of work, the types of people that would go to fast food restaurants on a regular basis. I'm sure robots get hungry.

 

[heatlesssun]

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]. Margaret Thatcher

And she was a staunch defender of the NHS.

 

[Osirus]

LOL, will the footbots demand $15/hour though?

 

[heatlesssun]

LOL, will the footbots demand $15/hour though?

No. But they the only way robots will go to these places and pay is for the grease coming out of their grills. These kind of threats are pretty much pointless. People with money don't go to these places enough and neither will the robots that replace the people that do.

 

[HardOCP News]

Ok. Let's put millions out of work, the types of people that would go to fast food restaurants on a regular basis. I'm sure robots get hungry.

Well, fast food used to be a first job or a job to supplement your income, not a job to try to raise a family on. The current batch of "we demand a living wage" people have now taken those jobs from high school students and senior citizens so it seems like a natural chain of progression that robots are now taking the fast food jobs.

AFTER the robot uprising, all these robots will be complaining about a "living wage" after they have been put out of a job by the Matrix pods that feed us more efficiently through tubes.

THEN it will be the Matrix complaining about how advanced alien races put them out of a job....

 

[haste.]

Read about things like this a while ago. Although different than what the article is about (where the customer intervenes in the process), these franchises are looking at full automation. It's a fairly expensive up front investment, but the ROI would kick in quickly when you take out the human element... even at the current wages. I want to say that McDonald's has a test store(s) using one which can cook and package burgers and fries more sanitarily (which isn't a word apparently) and efficiently than human labor. Consumer walks up to the kiosk, orders, and the machine produces the meal ad hoc. No human intervention necessary and you could staff a busy store with one, maybe two educated employees to manage the process. Automation is about to hit other industries than manufacturing and it's going to happen soon. It'll be ironic when working at McDonald's is a fairly high paying occupation.

 

[StaticShoes]

I keep reading the quote given by Pudzer and then thinking of Bender.

 

[Osirus]

At least my order will be correct for once.

 

[heatlesssun]

[

Well, fast food used to be a first job or a job to supplement your income, not a job to try to raise a family on. The current batch of "we demand a living wage" people have now taken those jobs from high school students and senior citizens so it seems like a natural chain of progression that robots are now taking the fast food jobs.

AFTER the robot uprising, all these robots will be complaining about a "living wage" after they have been put out of a job by the Matrix pods that feed us more efficiently through tubes.

THEN it will be the Matrix complaining about how advanced alien races put them out of a job....

Exactly.

 

[haste.]

Well, fast food used to be a first job or a job to supplement your income, not a job to try to raise a family on. The current batch of "we demand a living wage" people have now taken those jobs from high school students and senior citizens so it seems like a natural chain of progression that robots are now taking the fast food jobs.

AFTER the robot uprising, all these robots will be complaining about a "living wage" after they have been put out of a job by the Matrix pods that feed us more efficiently through tubes.

THEN it will be the Matrix complaining about how advanced alien races put them out of a job....

Everyone should have to work one of these jobs in high school! Might treat others a little better.

 

[mynamehere]

At least my order will be correct for once.

And won't be spit on, or having something being dropped on the floor and served anyway. And no crap attitude from the cashier either. I do see an up side, but the down side is definitely a problem as the "displaced" workers will still be getting paid on unenjoyment. Oh the irony of finally getting that $15 hr, just to get 0 hrs.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

Ok. Let's put millions out of work, the types of people that would go to fast food restaurants on a regular basis. I'm sure robots get hungry.

Fast food is a convenience item, as such it costs a premium. I don't know where you live where people who work at fast food joints can actually afford to eat at fast food joints on a regular basis (company provided lunch excluded). If they do eat fast food on a regular basis, I'm sure it's only one of many poor choices that keep them poor and unhealthy. I can make a turkey sandwich for pennies on the dollar compared to a $3 Big Mac. I save a couple bucks and save on my waistline.

And won't be spit on, or having something being dropped on the floor and served anyway. And no crap attitude from the cashier either. I do see an up side, but the down side is definitely a problem as the "displaced" workers will still be getting paid on unenjoyment. Oh the irony of finally getting that $15 hr, just to get 0 hrs.

Here's a thought... they could all go do those millions of jobs people claim "Americans won't do."

 

[Old Paul]

I have a bad feeling that we are going to hear a lot more stories like this in the future as long as it is cheaper to use robots in the place of a human employee. Thanks to ccmfreak2 for the link.

"They're always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case," says Puzder of swapping employees for machines.

Sorry, but Robots did this over 80 years, at least in NYC. They were called "Automats", and provided all kinds of Food, each in a revolving, or openning, compartment after you deposited the stated amount of money in a slot on the compartment.

 

[Ducman69]

Everyone should have to work one of these jobs in high school! Might treat others a little better.

Almost all of us did, or at least we used to. It makes us wonder why a 35 year old is still doing that job and trying to support four kids with it.

 

[Twisted Kidney]

This is why a minimum wage is a disaster, if people were allowed to work for a few cents a day in the developed world this shit couldn't happen.

 

[heatlesssun]

Fast food is a convenience item, as such it costs a premium. I don't know where you live where people who work at fast food joints can actually afford to eat at fast food joints on a regular basis (company provided lunch excluded). If they do eat fast food on a regular basis, I'm sure it's only one of many poor choices that keep them poor and unhealthy. I can make a turkey sandwich for pennies on the dollar compared to a $3 Big Mac. I save a couple bucks and save on my waistline.

If you reread what I said you may come to the conclusion that I agree with what you're saying. In other words, if you put fast food workers out of work, who will eat at such establishments? Robots won't and don't need to worry about their waistline.

 

[heatlesssun]

Almost all of us did, or at least we used to. It makes us wonder why a 35 year old is still doing that job and trying to support four kids with it.

Because Apple makes iPhones in China. And don't look at me, that's what Trump is promoting and he's the favored next POTUS around here.

 

[Ducman69]

If you reread what I said you may come to the conclusion that I agree with what you're saying. In other words, if you put fast food workers out of work, who will eat at such establishments? Robots won't and don't need to worry about their waistline.

Uhhhh...

Think about what you just posted. How exactly would Burger King make a profit if their primary consumers are also their employees? Think about that math on that one...

Clearly, most people eating fast food are not fast food employees, but the population at large. If UAW workers refused to buy the Fords they built, there would still be plenty of consumers on the market to buy those cars, and likewise when many car plants were automated using robots for painting, welding, large part assembly, and so forth, the car manufacturers were plenty profitable and had a large consumer base.

 

[Nolan7689]

Uhhhh...

Think about what you just posted. How exactly would Burger King make a profit if their primary consumers are also their employees? Think about that math on that one...

Clearly, most people eating fast food are not fast food employees, but the population at large. If UAW workers refused to buy the Fords they built, there would still be plenty of consumers on the market to buy those cars, and likewise when many car plants were automated using robots for painting, welding, large part assembly, and so forth, the car manufacturers were plenty profitable and had a large consumer base.

You're right, there are more consumers that are not employees. On the other hand, employees that spend the money they earn at their work obviously aren't making the company turn a profit but they are essentially working for less than their wage.

Using your UAW and Ford analogy, a worker earning $60,000 a year and then getting a $20,000 5 year loan on a new Focus is essentially now a worker that earns $56,000 a year. Not a large difference but a difference none the less and it all adds up. The same concept applies to most lines of work in consumer industries.

 

[Ducman69]

Because Apple makes iPhones in China. And don't look at me, that's what Trump is promoting and he's the favored next POTUS around here.

You're tremendously confused. There is no opportunity cost involved in returning manufacturing of primarily domestically consumed goods and services to the United States. Not at the moment anyway.

We have plenty of unemployed and underemployed that can be put to work, manufacturing involves far more positions than simple entry level minimum wage jobs, there is nothing inherently wrong with entry level positions (just don't buy into entitlement culture that you should never aspire for more as you progress), and if you can put an end to out of control immigration, you may even be able to completely eliminate the need for artificial wage structures, while drastically increasing the available per capita welfare for the truly needy. The reason is that when you import poverty in the form of non net tax contributors (those that use more in taxes than they pay into), and flood the unskilled labor pool as we do with illegal aliens, you cut the amount of aid available per person since it has to be spread over such a wider base, while also creating so much oversupply of unskilled labor compared to the number of jobs that wages fall through the floor.

So, Trumps plan to increase the job pool (increase demand) while reducing the slave labor pool (stop illegal immigration) reduce the trade deficit (improve the economy) while making a greater per capita welfare available for those that truly need it, is absolutely something that will, ehem, Make America Great Again.

Its not rocket science, its just basic supply and demand economics, something every business man understands.

 

[Ducman69]

You're right, there are more consumers that are not employees. On the other hand, employees that spend the money they earn at their work obviously aren't making the company turn a profit but they are essentially working for less than their wage.

True, but I still think you're exaggerating the number of minimum wage employees they have compared to their entire consumer base.

McDonalds employs 1.7 million people. While a guess, I think its safe to say that at least a 1/4 of those jobs are not minimum wage positions. McDonalds serves 68 million customers daily. So they have say 24,820 million served by 1.2 million minimum wage jobs a year, or.... *throws away calculator* virtually zero impact if even a single minimum wage employee didn't eat at their restaurants.

So in any case, increasing the job pool while decreasing the employee pool and reducing the burden on social services can only drive up wages while improving quality of life. Its a win-win for every American except the 1%er multi-national globalists that like having a slave labor pool at their disposal.

Not everything can be automated, at least not yet, and historically automation is what has led to improvements in quality of life. The average schmuck in America today has luxuries that the one percenters of the middle-ages could only dream of, all thanks to various forms of automation drastically increases the amount of goods and services that can be produced per person.

 

[heatlesssun]

Uhhhh...

Think about what you just posted. How exactly would Burger King make a profit if their primary consumers are also their employees? Think about that math on that one...

Who eats at places so cheap owners want to replace their workers with robots? The people that will be replaced by robots. Don't think so hard for once.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

If you reread what I said you may come to the conclusion that I agree with what you're saying. In other words, if you put fast food workers out of work, who will eat at such establishments? Robots won't and don't need to worry about their waistline.

Who eats at places so cheap owners want to replace their workers with robots? The people that will be replaced by robots. Don't think so hard for once.

The people who can afford to eat at those establishments will continue to do so. Notice I said "afford to eat at those establishments." It will just get more expensive until its a luxury item the rich can afford. If it gets too expensive, the business will either find additional cost cutting measures (they could start with cutting executive golden parachutes but probably won't), evolve the company into something else, or simply go out of business. If it goes out of business, something else will fill the gap as long as the need still exists. This evolution occurs all the time. Most businesses branch out to fix these cost issues in their core business. Prime examples include GE, Samsung. I bet in the future McDonald's branches out and goes into chicken and cattle farming to cut additional costs. Eventually McDonald's will get so big or no one will want to eat it anymore, and *poof* it too will disappear like a massive star that ate all the others around it. All those jobs lost will go elsewhere.

Round and round the economy goes.

 

[Skripka]

Almost all of us did, or at least we used to. It makes us wonder why a 35 year old is still doing that job and trying to support four kids with it.

Because the employment market sucks and is getting worse. The wild new era of computers and automation has made people vastly more productive....only resulting in the need for fewer people, who get paid the same for doing (much) more work. Leaving more people unemployable simply because no one wants to use local human labor anymore.

Unfortunately for our vulture capitalist overlords (and all of us) they forget that for them to have US consumers, there need to be US employees with income in order for there to be US consumers.

 

[Ducman69]

Who eats at places so cheap owners want to replace their workers with robots? The people that will be replaced by robots. Don't think so hard for once.

Everyone likes convenient and quick affordable food that conforms to a predictable standard of quality, safety, and taste (ie fast food chains)... *facepalm*

Even if you don't look at the numbers served vs employed, think about the math. If the sole income for a guy is at your restaurant to prepare food that he pays you to eat, even if he paid you everything he makes for the burger, you still have operational costs for the building, management, raw materials, and so forth... and he certainly has to use his pay for other things than food. Please think harder for once.

 

[heatlesssun]

You're tremendously confused. There is no opportunity cost involved in returning manufacturing of primarily domestically consumed goods and services to the United States. Not at the moment anyway.

This has nothing to do with opportunity costs. It is all about the cost of overhead which is mainly labor. What exactly are these newly on shored jobs supposed to pay? Are we just going to bring back a ton of minimum wage jobs?

 

[heatlesssun]

Everyone likes convenient and quick affordable food that conforms to a predictable standard of quality, safety, and taste (ie fast food chains)... *facepalm*

And I'm thinking that Carl's Jr. and Hardee's isn't that. Have you ever eaten at one of these places?

 

[Ducman69]

This has nothing to do with opportunity costs.

Can you explain to me what you think opportunity cost is, or elaborate on why opportunity cost is not important in this context? When you're talking about bringing manufacturing back to the United States and discussing trade deficits, of course its entirely about opportunity costs as that would be the only possible justification for opposing it, lol!

It is all about the cost of overhead which is mainly labor. What exactly are these newly on shored jobs supposed to pay? Are we just going to bring back a ton of minimum wage jobs?

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say with those disconnected concepts. Let me break this down simply... we have lots of unemployed and underemployed people that contribute ZERO to the workforce/economy. That means that literally anything is better than nothing, right? So John working in a factory making motorcycle engines is more productive and better for the US GDP than John sitting at home on his ass unemployed.

Trump also wishes to reduce the oversupply of unskilled labor by deporting illegals and stopping illegal aliens from entering the United States.

If you have more jobs and less people to work those jobs, that means that rationally the wages will have to rise. This is just supply and demand, nothing new. If you have less people reliant on welfare and less non net tax contributors, you have a great surplus of revenue all else equal to do with as you please, including providing better welfare for those that need it, such as ensuring that social security is still there for our elderly that can't work, without raising the retirement age to 70 years old as was proposed.

And as was already mentioned, when you bring back say a Mercedes factory to Alabama from Mexico, you have far more than just minimum wage jobs created in the United States. My brother for example worked at the Mercedes Alabama plant and made a healthy triple digits.

 

[Flogger23m]

If you reread what I said you may come to the conclusion that I agree with what you're saying. In other words, if you put fast food workers out of work, who will eat at such establishments? Robots won't and don't need to worry about their waistline.

Are you saying fast food workers are the majority of the customers at fast food places? I'm sure there is some overlap but I don't think they make up that much of sales. I'd be surprised if it was more than 10%.

 

[Skripka]

Can you explain to me what you think opportunity cost is, or elaborate on why opportunity cost is not important in this context? When you're talking about bringing manufacturing back to the United States and discussing trade deficits, of course its entirely about opportunity costs as that would be the only possible justification for opposing it, lol!

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say with those disconnected concepts. Let me break this down simply... we have lots of unemployed and underemployed people that contribute ZERO to the workforce/economy. That means that literally anything is better than nothing, right? So John working in a factory making motorcycle engines is more productive and better for the US GDP than John sitting at home on his ass unemployed.

Trump also wishes to reduce the oversupply of unskilled labor by deporting illegals and stopping illegal aliens from entering the United States.

If you have more jobs and less people to work those jobs, that means that rationally the wages will have to rise. This is just supply and demand, nothing new. If you have less people reliant on welfare and less non net tax contributors, you have a great surplus of revenue all else equal to do with as you please, including providing better welfare for those that need it, such as ensuring that social security is still there for our elderly that can't work, without raising the retirement age to 70 years old as was proposed.

And as was already mentioned, when you bring back say a Mercedes factory to Alabama from Mexico, you have far more than just minimum wage jobs created in the United States. My brother for example worked at the Mercedes Alabama plant and made a healthy triple digits.

The girl is gone. And she ain't coming back. CEOs want to fund in the short term their own parachutes.

The manufacturing is gone, and it isn't coming back. You can deport illegals sure. But doing so will raise goods/services prices and people will probably not buy those goods and services than pay more-because they themselves don't make much spare money.

Your economic theory is a one legged bar-stool amigo.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

Are you saying fast food workers are the majority of the customers at fast food places? I'm sure there is some overlap but I don't think they make up that much of sales. I'd be surprised if it was more than 10%.

This is what I was trying to point out. Thanks for stating it more clearly.

 

[heatlesssun]

Can you explain to me what you think opportunity cost is, or elaborate on why opportunity cost is not important in this context? When you're talking about bringing manufacturing back to the United States and discussing trade deficits, of course its entirely about opportunity costs as that would be the only possible justification for opposing it, lol!

Can you tell me what a trade deficit is?

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say with those disconnected concepts. Let me break this down simply... we have lots of unemployed and underemployed people that contribute ZERO to the workforce/economy.

At 4% of the world's population in a global economy, nope. As many like to point out, by out standards we have lots of poor people that by global standards aren't.

That means that literally anything is better than nothing, right?

Anything is no better than nothing if it can't pay the bills. I'm not Trump, I can't borrow enough to keep the business running and get paid and then let everything else go to shit.

So John working in a factory making motorcycle engines is more productive and better for the US GDP than John sitting at home on his ass unemployed.

Again, what does it pay?

Trump also wishes to reduce the oversupply of unskilled labor by deporting illegals and stopping illegal aliens from entering the United States.

Ok, reduce the oversupply of unskilled labor. That means that Carl's Jr. or Hardee's meal gets more expensive by simple supply and demand theory.

If you have more jobs and less people to work those jobs, that means that rationally the wages will have to rise. This is just supply and demand, nothing new. If you have less people reliant on welfare and less non net tax contributors, you have a great surplus of revenue all else equal to do with as you please, including providing better welfare for those that need it, such as ensuring that social security is still there for our elderly that can't work, without raising the retirement age to 70 years old as was proposed.

And it means prices go up.

What makes America great is not the power of goods but the inspiration of its ideals in the face of reality. And that's what we're forgetting.

 

[Quix]

The McDonalds near me has already installed touchscreen ordering machines, step one is complete. Am I going to use the machine? You bet I am if the line for the machine is shorter.

 

[heatlesssun]

Are you saying fast food workers are the majority of the customers at fast food places? I'm sure there is some overlap but I don't think they make up that much of sales. I'd be surprised if it was more than 10%.

Have you ever eaten at a Carl's Jr. or Hardee's?

 

[heatlesssun]

The McDonalds near me has already installed touchscreen ordering machines, step one is complete. Am I going to use the machine? You bet I am if the line for the machine is shorter.

Automation in time can replace all of us. That's not the question. The question is is it good for us? At what point does the love of money replace flesh and blood? That's the question that we need to answer.

 

[Ducman69]

The manufacturing is gone, and it isn't coming back.

You repeated that three times without supporting the statement whatsoever.

I hope you'll appreciate that I'm making a thorough effort to justify why that's wrong and that YES...

OF COURSE we can bring manufacturing back. The United States is the world's last superpower, with military power projection to influence world events in favor of US interests, with a GDP that is the largest in the world by a massive margin, with an advanced infrastructure, large access to a great diversity of natural resources, a stable government, ocean access for trade on both the Atlantic and Pacific with the world's most powerful blue water navy, and control of the world's trade currency which ALSO happens to be the petro-dollar used for oil (the world's largest energy resource at present).

The amount of influence we have to negotiate deals in our favor is tremendous. What has been holding us back is that we don't have a collective conscious that acts in self-interest of the greater American good. We have politicians that want to import foreigners or redistribute goods and services and make deals in exchange for votes to keep them in power, and are heavily influenced by lobbyists to create policy that favors their small interests over the greater good in exchange for money (via campaign contributions or "fees" given like the millions upon millions collected by Hillary and Gore to provide short speeches at events for example, which is an informal form of bribery). For 60 years poor people have been voting equally for Democrats and Republicans and they are still poor. So what has changed?

For the first time in US history, unprecedented, we have a non-politician (Reagan counts in that regard, but not the following) that has managed a hostile takeover of one of our two-party system (inevitable in a winner-takes-all government that it will always consolidate to two choices) using a nationalist populist platform that has such massive personal wealth that they are completely immune from special-interest and lobbyist control, and willing to completely self-fund at a financial loss, severing the typical puppet strings.

So for the first time ever, despite having both the left and the right (the GOP even uniting against him with over a dozen other candidates thrown at him even pulling out old heavy hitters like Romney and Fox News to oppose him) fight him, we have someone that at least has the potential to reverse the status quo and leverage US power in a coordinated way to create fair-trade deals and abolish illegal slave labor (with immigration enforcement reform and a wall, among other things).

Why is FAIR trade important, and FREE trade (which we have always been forcefully told we must support) important? Because in this so called FREE trade, we don't tax imports on countries that tax our exports, we allow for largescale artificial currency manipulation, and it is inevitable that we will experience the huge trade deficits we have because multi-national business will otherwise always gravitate to lower costs. That means that a country that has very little pollution controls (like China or Mexico) and cheaper labor (like China or Mexico) and lower corporate taxes (like China or Mexico) will slowly but surely steal our businesses away as we have seen for decades now. With nearly twice the GDP of China in spite of having such a smaller population as seen in the link in the first paragraph however, China relies on US trade more than anything else, which gives us tremendous bargaining power that Trump can leverage, which others cannot since they would bow to multi-national companies that would pay money to ensure unfettered trade with China so they can open their new plants up in China, using Chinese cheap labor, with Chinese low pollution controls, and low Chinese corporate taxes to sell in the huge United States market even though its not in our national interest to do so.

You can deport illegals sure. But doing so will raise goods/services prices and people will probably not buy those goods and services than pay more-because they themselves don't make much spare money.

Wrong, if you abolish illegal slave labor and deport illegals, you reduce the tax burden and labor pool, which will increase wages naturally. There's a reason a factory worker or garbage truck driver in the 1950s and 1960s made a healthy living compared to today. Supply and demand.

Now, will that increase the cost of goods and services? Yes and no. Look at an iPhone for example. The total cost to the consumer is completely divorced from the actual manufacturing cost, which is only a very tiny fraction of the entire cost of the device. If producing the phone in China due to fair-trade policies in our favor is more expensive than producing it in the US, Apple will choose to produce them here, meaning everything else needed to support that endeavor is also moved here (like was mentioned, yes even the plant managers and so forth like my bro making big bucks instead of a Chinese counterpart filling that role and spending that money in China). Even without adjusting the profit margin, which as we all know the cost is based on what the market will tolerate and not fixed on cost of production, the price would barely change. Realistically, because the market tolerance is already maxed, Apple would simply make slightly less profit (just a couple dollars) and the Apple CEO may have to settle for buying only three private islands that year instead of four.

So worker wages increase, tax burdens are reduced, unemployment is reduced, job opportunities (including those for advancement) are increased, trade deficit is reduced or eliminated, and the only possible loser here are career politicians that don't get their $400,000 per speech or consulting fees and luxury resort free trips and multi-national globalists that will make slightly less money. And no, they couldn't just give up the US market, we're too big and too powerful.

And lastly again on automation, its really not much different than the problem of illegal (slave) labor from Mexico/China/India and so forth, that will work for pennies. Eventually, it can concentrate wealth in the hands of very few, but it is inevitable. Learn from the Luddites that try to smash the looms that automated their jobs; you can NOT stop progress, but at least you can put in leadership to make the best of what we can in our favor for as long as we can.