Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Correct. Increasing efficiency. That was the old paradigm technology. It made employees more valuable because they were able to do more with the technology.
The new paradigm technology is about REPLACING people and making employees worthless. It is not about making them more efficient.
Please support your statement about technology "making employees worthless." Show any business or sociological program that would forward such a plan, purportedly for the benefit of business or society.
PS: Still waiting for your "Mea Culpa" for misrepresenting our earlier conversation.
Yes, automation is only cost effective when it replaces a large number of salaries and benefits, and most beneficial when doing unskilled work that is easier to design, build and program, such as flipping burgers. Artificial intelligence is a long way from being able to do the work of a CEO. More importantly, the CEO salary of a few million is peanuts in comparison to potential savings from replacing most of the million plus franchise workers.
Correct. Increasing efficiency. That was the old paradigm technology. It made employees more valuable because they were able to do more with the technology.
The new paradigm technology is about REPLACING people and making employees worthless. It is not about making them more efficient.
It makes those still working more efficient, able to do the same wok with fewer people.
It makes those still working more efficient, able to do the same wok with fewer people.
Until newer technology is developed that replaces even more of those still working, resulting in less and less people working and more and more work being done with robots, computers, and other machines.
Until newer technology is developed that replaces even more of those still working, resulting in less and less people working and more and more work being done with robots, computers, and other machines.
Are you suggesting that at some point we should cease trying to find better ways to accomplish tasks? Should we also stop searching for cures for disease and other developments that may put people out of work?
Please support your statement about technology "making employees worthless." Show any business or sociological program that would forward such a plan, purportedly for the benefit of business or society.
That's easy. Look at self-driving cars. Those will replace drivers. It won't benefit society, just the businesses.
When nobody can earn a living by being a taxi driver, truck driver or delivery driver, that's not "making anyone more productive" as a driver - it puts them out of work permanently.
And kiosks in the fast food restaurants. Those replace the cashiers. Tell me how the remaining cashiers will become more productive when they no longer exist as employees?
Quote:
PS: Still waiting for your "Mea Culpa" for misrepresenting our earlier conversation.
That's easy. Look at self-driving cars. Those will replace drivers. It won't benefit society, just the businesses.
When nobody can earn a living by being a taxi driver, truck driver or delivery driver, that's not "making anyone more productive" as a driver - it puts them out of work permanently.
And kiosks in the fast food restaurants. Those replace the cashiers. Tell me how the remaining cashiers will become more productive when they no longer exist as employees?
What are you talking about?
A person like you with "3 business degrees" sure doesn't like or understand business.
Another lack of logic post. A couple hundred years ago 90% of people worked in farming. By your logic the unemployment rate should be 90%. What happened?
I can't wait for self drive no cars. That means I can work in my car on the way to work.
Are you suggesting that at some point we should cease trying to find better ways to accomplish tasks? Should we also stop searching for cures for disease and other developments that may put people out of work?
Absolutely not! You are making assumptions about what I said that are not true. Better ways for accomplishing tasks will always be done, with or without my permission. My point is that people can dance around all they want and try to stay marketable, try to obtain new training, but in the end everything is going to be automated. People won't have jobs because their labor is not going to be needed, since robots, computers, and other machines will be able to do jobs faster and cheaper than people. It is just the march of progress.
That's easy. Look at self-driving cars. Those will replace drivers. It won't benefit society, just the businesses.
When nobody can earn a living by being a taxi driver, truck driver or delivery driver, that's not "making anyone more productive" as a driver - it puts them out of work permanently.
And kiosks in the fast food restaurants. Those replace the cashiers. Tell me how the remaining cashiers will become more productive when they no longer exist as employees?
What are you talking about?
Your response about driverless vehicles does not support your claims unless you actually believe that automation makes people worthless.
As for your last sentence, I am talking about post #230.
Steak N Shake is also good, I'm getting a triple steakburger + fries for $3.99 and a Big Mac alone (like a double hamburger) is more than that. One of many examples of McDonalds providing less for more money.
Several other places do that better than McDonald's does IMHO. Unless I'm getting the bacon BBQ, I'm typically getting chicken nuggets. I much rather go to a Carl Jr.'s, Whataburger or even Jack in the Box. All have a good deals or a slightly better value than the McDonald's deals. Even, Taco Bell IMHO is a better offering even if they aren't in the same avenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960
agreed.
McD's needs to automate to compete.
By adding kiosks, many casual dining places eliminated full mw staff, retaining tipped staff like waitresses who now have time to clean table.
Result is casual dining % of workforce at tipped rate went up-which McD's can't match. But McD's can reduce full time equivalent employees overall, via automation, to even score a bit.
In a way, yes. but it isn't exactly the case here. McDonald's problem is they have the higher end BBQ Bacon sandwich along with their value menu trying to attract people who want the artisan style chic burgers and the simple burgers that made McDonald's work in the first place. Their problem is management wants them to be all things to everyone and open to everyone and not miss revenue options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1alker
Automation is a godsend for the types of businesses that operate on razor-thin margins. These businesses really can't afford to pay workers good wages. So the kind of workers you get for low wages are stealing left and right or are generally unreliable.
It is, but I would say that the companies are going for that style of worker rather than say an In and Out higher wage (and most burgers aren't that expensive unless you talk off-menu items.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsell
But here's the thing: Steak & Shake hasn't automated - they just provide a good product at a good price. A radical idea. If McD's must automate to compete against that, that says a lot about how badly they do things.
Executives make mistakes and then put the blame on the file that followed their orders. They're not responsible for anything. Their solution is to get rid of the rank and file.
The issue I find with the higher end is that they look to benchmark what works elsewhere but is not always effective. As I've stated, kiosks work best in fast food, more so than retail IMHO because of the nature of special orders and the problems with the cashier added who do not type the right entry on the ticket before it could be read wrong by the people putting the orders together. I say retail is a problem as most places it isn't a good for large sized items and often age restrictive items like alcohol or R-rated movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berteau
You have this strange obsession with proving you know more than executives.
McDonald's is much bigger and profitable than steak and shake. There is no competition with steak and shake.
Well executives don't exactly know and many blindly benchmark without stopping and thinking, "Will this work with our culture and our customers." McDonald's has continually done this with their various tries to get into the adult market (Arch Deluxe), hip popular burgers (Angus) or expanding lines (McPizza or Mighty Wings) and most fail, maybe not spectacularly, but they fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MongooseHugger
Actually, he's got a point. If Steak & Shake can manage to sell cheaper yet manage to do well (and remain open 24 hours) and McDonald's feels that they need to fire loads of their staff via automation while charging the same higher prices, then clearly McDonald's IS doing it wrong and is taking it out on their workers for their executives's bad ideas. These kinds of mistakes and golden parachutes happen a lot, sadly. Look at HP and Toys R Us for examples. Executives screwed it up, canned loads of workers, then jumped with a golden parachute from the wreckage.
BTW, scullduggery against your workers to save your big executive profits won't necessarily save your company. Toys R Us learned (or would have learned had the bankruptcy court not gone easy on them) that the hard way after thinking they could keep afloat by making their IT workers train their H1B replacements in order to receive severance as a way to "cut costs". STILL didn't stop them from going bankrupt.
Thus, if McDonalds is doing poor and replaces their workers with kiosks to "cut costs", it still doesn't protect them from possible bankruptcy if they are making a poor product or doing a bad job.
The issue with comparing the profitability of say an In and Out or Steak N Shake to McDonald's is the fact that they are smaller. Steak N Shake is smaller, and In and Out is far smaller. Even if you combine Carl Jr.'s and Hardee's combined are smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berteau
As I already pointed out, steak and shake is not doing well compared to McDonald's, and McDonald's is not firing staff for automation! Click the links. Educate yourself.
McDonald's doing "great" due to the economy of scale. McDonald's operate in every state and often in suburbia, within a 5 minute drive (if that) of another. Steak & Shake isn't as widely available, even when you combine Carl Jr.'s and Hardee's they aren't. Only Wendy's and Burger King are in that territory.
As for firing for automation, that was mentioned by several different posters who think it is a good reason and what places like McDonald's should all do to maintain costs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
