Fmr. McDonald's USA CEO: $35K Robots Cheaper Than Hiring at $15 Per Hour.

[Linri]

the robot isn't going to mess up my order, sorry.

[Reeve]

A robotic arm would be stupid. The process of flipping a disc shaped patty of meat onto a cooking surface could be accomplished with a hopper and a conveyor belt.

You could also get rid of the entire building. A Red Box but with shitty hamburgers.

Except there's one problem: most of these fast food restaurants are franchises owned by individuals with no other affiliations to the brand. These franchise owners can't afford high tech robotics out of pocket.

That's what financing is for. Those franchise owners couldn't afford their stores out of pocket originally either. If robots could cut their labor costs to a third or less of what they pay now, they would pay back these loans pretty quickly. Given how safe such a loan would be, they could probably get pretty good interest rates too.

If you don't have enough money to execute a great idea, just use someone else's.

[Youn]

http://www.gizmag.com/hamburger-mach...=true#picture9

So, it's pretty possible to do...

[HAcoreRD]

i don't need to worry about the robot spitting in my food either

[Masark]

Wait why would it just fail?

They run out of other peoples' money.

Seriously, without significant measures, you end up with practically no customers, as the wealth and income becomes so concentrated that only a very few have enough money to be customers.

[lockedout]

And, what do you think is going happen in 10 to 15 years anyways? Seriously, do you think we should lower minimum wage to avoid this?

The reality is that we have a problem of greed. Corporations are unwilling to give up just a portion of their profits to pay reasonable salaries. Corporations are unwilling to pay to retrain their workers for future jobs (whether themselves directly or paying their fair share of taxes). The people at the top of the corporations don't care one bit about the workers and should be viewed as the sociopaths that they are.

But, more importantly, the McDonald's CEO is blowing a bunch of BS out at people. Here's the math for people:

$15 / hr x 52 weeks / yr x 25 hrs / wk (avg hours given to most fast food workers) = $19,500

One thing to keep in mind is that the type of robots that can do the type of work aren't remotely $35k. Tokyo's Robot Restaurant cost about $100 million (yes, US dollars) to build in 2012. Yes, the technology has gotten cheaper...but it isn't anywhere near $35k at this point...and maintenance isn't going to be cheap for the more sophisticated robots.

In other words, stop buying corporate BS. The only thing less trustworthy than politicians are CEOs speaking to things that affect their bottom line.

You're thinking actual robots when it will just be an automated line with one human instead of 5 or 6 and a kiosk instead of human cashiers.

[Swizzington]

I read an interesting thing today. 1 in 8 people in the US have been an employee at Mcdonalds.

[Youn]

That is probably true. Alot of people in highschool and college take those style jobs.

[GennGreymane]

I love it when people keep assuming that the lower we keep wages, it will stall out automation.... even China is using more and more machines to replace workers. China is not known for an expensive workforce.

Gotta say though, most restaurants moving towards automation kinda suck. They cut the staff so much as to make the service suffer.

[Derecho]

Even looking just at 16-24 workers, there's still very little correlation. Plenty of cases where both lines move in opposite directions.

If there's a causal link, you'd see similar behaviour across the entire span of time in both lines. It's only "correlation" if there's significant similarity across the entire time axis; if it's only occasional, that's not correlation, that's coincidence.

This is what a strong correlation looks like;



Across the entire time axes, both lines follow nearly identical trends, with some minor variance. The same is not true of unemployment and minimum wage, in the graph I linked.

I wasn't going to bump this thread to respond to this, but I saw it again on the front page, so I will take the chance to respond.

I appreciate you trying to educate me on what correlation is and what strong correlation looks like. I learned about this rather simple concept in middle school and took statistical courses in college.

You are being intellectually dishonest at this point, Endus. (Something you often accuse others of being)

You posted this graph to try to show that there was essentially no correlation between unemployment and minimum wage. In my original post, which I now suspect you didn't read through, I specifically mentioned how minimum wage hikes impacts the young and unskilled people.

Your graph, and your own words, show that there is a correlation. Just because there are times where the data doesn't seem to move together doesn't mean there is not a correlation overall. You, with a science background, know this. You then change your argument to state there's not a strong correlation.

I didn't say there was a strong correlation. There are many things that can factor in to unemployment rates. There isn't going to be, nor should we expect to see, a 1:1 relationship. Just because there is not a strong correlation doesn't mean there isn't a correlation, which your graph shows. It shows it if you are being honest with yourself and not trying to win an argument on the internet.

If you look at the red line vs. the green line, you can see how they, more often than not, move in similar directions. The times they don't would be coincidence or some other factor that played in to the difference.

I will come back to my original point, as I don't want to argue how to read a graph (like you did by posting the graph above) or what correlation means - these are red herrings.

Raising the minimum wage impacts the young, unskilled person when looking for that first job or some job experience. It also impacts businesses that are forced to A) pay more in wages and B) pay more in taxes due to the increase in wages. I argue that these two factors effect the economy overall.

I'd also like to say this: Go and look at the minimum wage history. Calculate a year over year increase to the minimum wage to get an idea for what kind of bump occurred at each interval. Bumping the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 dollars in (5 years or less?) would be the biggest % increase to the minimum wage in the shortest time, ever. So even then we aren't comparing apples to apples.

[alexw]

I wasn't going to bump this thread to respond to this, but I saw it again on the front page, so I will take the chance to respond.

I appreciate you trying to educate me on what correlation is and what strong correlation looks like. I learned about this rather simple concept in middle school and took statistical courses in college.

You are being intellectually dishonest at this point, Endus. (Something you often accuse others of being)

You posted this graph to try to show that there was essentially no correlation between unemployment and minimum wage. In my original post, which I now suspect you didn't read through, I specifically mentioned how minimum wage hikes impacts the young and unskilled people.

Your graph, and your own words, show that there is a correlation. Just because there are times where the data doesn't seem to move together doesn't mean there is not a correlation overall. You, with a science background, know this. You then change your argument to state there's not a strong correlation.

I didn't say there was a strong correlation. There are many things that can factor in to unemployment rates. There isn't going to be, nor should we expect to see, a 1:1 relationship. Just because there is not a strong correlation doesn't mean there isn't a correlation, which your graph shows. It shows it if you are being honest with yourself and not trying to win an argument on the internet.

If you look at the red line vs. the green line, you can see how they, more often than not, move in similar directions. The times they don't would be coincidence or some other factor that played in to the difference.

I will come back to my original point, as I don't want to argue how to read a graph (like you did by posting the graph above) or what correlation means - these are red herrings.

Raising the minimum wage impacts the young, unskilled person when looking for that first job or some job experience. It also impacts businesses that are forced to A) pay more in wages and B) pay more in taxes due to the increase in wages. I argue that these two factors effect the economy overall.

I'd also like to say this: Go and look at the minimum wage history. Calculate a year over year increase to the minimum wage to get an idea for what kind of bump occurred at each interval. Bumping the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 dollars in (5 years or less?) would be the biggest % increase to the minimum wage in the shortest time, ever. So even then we aren't comparing apples to apples.

Errr what?

If there are time periods when two data series seem to move in parallel and other times they do not then that is just randomness. To correlate the link must ALWAYS be present. That is just basic statistics. And looking at that graph the correlation looks to be about zero.

[Endus]

If you look at the red line vs. the green line, you can see how they, more often than not, move in similar directions. The times they don't would be coincidence or some other factor that played in to the difference.

I'm looking at that graph again, and I don't see any such pattern. There's very little correlation in terms of when spikes and falls occur in either line. The only real periods of correlation I see are 1974-1975, 1990-1992, and 2008-2010. Everywhere else, the two lines are moving (or not) in different directions, or minimum wage is stable and unemployment is spiking and falling just as violently as at any other time. You haven't provided any evidence of any such correlation. I stand by that graph.

Unless there is significant overlap, over a large percentage of the time frame, there is no correlation. Single instances of seeming correlation are just coincidence. If it's deviating as often as it's matching, that's random behaviour with no connection whatsoever.

If I flip a coin and draw a card from a deck, there's a 50% chance that the coin will be Heads up, and the card will be a red suit. If I graph that trend, there will be times when I get a streak of reds and heads, and times when I don't. That random variation shows that there's no connection between the random action of the coin and the deck of cards; one is not influencing the outcome of the other. If it came up red when I flipped and got heads 75% of the time or better, I could start to wonder if there was a correlation. There's nothing close to that in the graph I presented.

[Logwyn]

They run out of other peoples' money.

Seriously, without significant measures, you end up with practically no customers, as the wealth and income becomes so concentrated that only a very few have enough money to be customers.

Wait what? Why would you keep producing anything when no one can buy it? How do you? Even if you have robot workers. You have to get the materials somehow. Having robot works doesn't just make the cost of say aluminum = zero.

[Yvaelle]

I love it when people keep assuming that the lower we keep wages, it will stall out automation.... even China is using more and more machines to replace workers. China is not known for an expensive workforce.

Gotta say though, most restaurants moving towards automation kinda suck. They cut the staff so much as to make the service suffer.

Yea, they're automating the wrong part of the restaurant IMO.

They should automate the manufacturing - printing a big mac out of a burger-printer machine should be the automated part - managing the store should be automated - cleaning up should be automated - the last thing to automate should be your frontline service.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Yea, they're automating the wrong part of the restaurant IMO.

They should automate the manufacturing - printing a big mac out of a burger-printer machine should be the automated part - managing the store should be automated - cleaning up should be automated - the last thing to automate should be your frontline service.

Urgh, as if McDumbles food isn't already processed enough, the next step is paste for astronauts.

I see a couple of problems here:

1. If they can get a robot for 35k, which according to most industrial standards should last easily 5-8 years, we are already talking about wage in the range of 2.30$. They would get replaced either way and this is just shit talking because they fear a rise expenses and one yacht less this month.
2. Replacing service with machines will still be a nightmare for the next couple decades. We have at least 2 completely incompetent generations around that can hardly handle a ticket machine or a cash machine. They either distrust them or flat out don't know how to use them, even with screen prompts. Getting them to use a service they don't want to will be quite the challenge, unless you are okay with granny not buying (disgusting) burgers for her grandchildren.
3. I already dread the increased waiting times of people trying to figure out these things and the amazingly sanitary touch screens /shudder .. though I guess my local Döner Kebab store will not be affected anytime soon by such changes..

[Orlong]

Likewise I can't understand why people don't comprehend that there are basically two choices. A living wage, or welfare. If you are in favor of paying taxes, to supplement the income of Mc Food workers, then you can be against an increase in the minimum wage. Otherwise, you can only logically be in favor of the increase, even if it means the loss of a 99 cent "cheese burger".

And yet again, you ignore option 3 which is the correct option. People who refuse to work hard and earn skills can work multiple jobs or live with family/roommates and cut unnecessary expenses like cable TV/broadband internet, air conditioning, etc.. to reduce their bills instead of raping other people's wallets

[Kujako]

My mind keeps going back to this... not sure why.

[Height]

I don't think it matters. First, people can boycott and go somewhere else. Second, in a certain number of years it'll be more efficient no matter what the wage cost is. Third, other jobs will open up. I don't think we should artificially keep jobs alive that are no longer useful. Society will find a way to shift.

[Masark]

Wait what? Why would you keep producing anything when no one can buy it? How do you? Even if you have robot workers. You have to get the materials somehow. Having robot works doesn't just make the cost of say aluminum = zero.

That's the result of the "run out of money". Production crashes as there's nobody buying.

[Fahrenheit]

If machines produce everything we need, 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.
-S.W.Hawking

I'm glad some people are at least talking about what this means about the future of the Protestant work ethic and what to do when 20, 30, 40% of the adult population is unemployable and unable to add economic value.