Fast Food Worker Strikes!

[laklak]

They just opened a new Walmart grocery store here, just down the road in Da Hood. Sarasota country wanted them to pay a minimum of $10 an hour rather than minimum wage, so they just put in automated tills and have only one cashier on duty at any time, plus one person to go around and reset the automated tills when you try to buy alcohol or ciggies (or the thing fucks up on it's own, which happens about 50% of the time). So Walmart's response to higher wage pressures was to simply hire less people and make the experience of shopping at Wally World even less pleasant. Look for automated fast food cashiers coming soon to a Micky D's near you.

[MrJonno]

They just opened a new Walmart grocery store here, just down the road in Da Hood. Sarasota country wanted them to pay a minimum of $10 an hour rather than minimum wage, so they just put in automated tills and have only one cashier on duty at any time, plus one person to go around and reset the automated tills when you try to buy alcohol or ciggies (or the thing fucks up on it's own, which happens about 50% of the time). So Walmart's response to higher wage pressures was to simply hire less people and make the experience of shopping at Wally World even less pleasant. Look for automated fast food cashiers coming soon to a Micky D's near you.

Well for that sort of job a machine is going to be cheaper in the end that wages regardless of what level. Its not higher wage pressures it the advance of technology

[Robert_S]

They just opened a new Walmart grocery store here, just down the road in Da Hood. Sarasota country wanted them to pay a minimum of $10 an hour rather than minimum wage, so they just put in automated tills and have only one cashier on duty at any time, plus one person to go around and reset the automated tills when you try to buy alcohol or ciggies (or the thing fucks up on it's own, which happens about 50% of the time). So Walmart's response to higher wage pressures was to simply hire less people and make the experience of shopping at Wally World even less pleasant. Look for automated fast food cashiers coming soon to a Micky D's near you.

Something tells me it's more about sending a message than a response to that individual store's profit margin. If they can't come up with $10,00 and hour, then they're either really slow or they're poorly managed.

[laklak]

There comes a point when it makes economic sense to replace low skilled workers with machines. What used to take a gang of people with reel mowers and rakes now only takes one with a riding mower and leaf blower. I don't know what the break even point is, but I'm betting that $15 bucks an hour for somebody to say "uh, you like, want fries with that?" and hand you a paper bag of reprocessed garbage is closing on it. It's obviously cheaper for a retail store to install an automated till than to hire a cashier, as evidenced by how many you see today. In several of the stores I frequent you would wait for 10 or more minutes for a human cashier, but can waltz through the self checkout immediately. While I applaud fast food worker's initiative in seeking better pay, I think it's self-defeating. As soon as someone invents a cheaper automated system for chunking burgers and fries at your car window the counter person will go the way of the buggy whip maker and soda jerk.

[MrJonno]

It's not just the the fast food employees problem its everyone problem. If as a society we can't find some way of keeping 90% + of the population in work AND earning enough to be able to eat then we are all in trouble

[Seth]

Minimum wage is not an 'entry level' job , it basically sets the maximum wage a significant % of the population will ever earn.

Nope.

Like all employees, those earning the minimum wage would like to earn
more money. And in most cases, they soon do. After all, more than 97% of
all American employees move beyond the minimum wage by age 30. (emphasis added)

What differentiates the 2.8% who fail to move on?

Almost always, it’s a question of skills and motivation. This small percentage do not offer the skills — or
even the willingness to learn them — to justify a higher wage. They are the last to get a raise and the first to
lose their jobs following a minimum wage hike

Only 5.5% of minimum wage earners are single parents and only 7.8% are in married,
single-earner families (where the household may or may not include children).

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, young people living with their parents ac-
count for 37.6% of those who benefited from the 1996 minimum wage hike, making
this group the largest segment of minimum wage employees. The same data show that
85.1% either live with their parents (37.6%), are single and live alone (17.1%), have a
working spouse (21.5%), or are extended family members and non-relatives (8.9%).

...only 2.8% of employees above the age of 30 are working at the
minimum wage.

The small percentage of employees who do not advance tend to be the least skilled, the least educated, and
the least experienced members of the work force. For instance, more than 44% of working men and 64% of
working women who dropped out of high school make less than $6.25 an hour.

When you take into account differentials you are getting close to a majority of the population salaries being influenced by it.

The minimum wage also determines benefit levels, a higher minimum wage means lower benefits (ie corporate subsidies) to the the employees.


When it comes to the lower end of the market capitalism does not work as the free market simply can't provide enough jobs/wages for the lower skilled (majority) without subsidies and minimum wage levels (shoot half the population and the problem goes away of course)

Wrong.

[piscator]

. Bottom line, double the minimum wage or "just" increase it by 50%, and a large proportion of the minimum wage workers will be thrown out of work entirely.

So this will close a large proportion of McDonald's? Or are you "just" saying that a large proportion the burger flippers at uber-efficient McDonald's are really unnecessary?

It would close a significant percent of McDonalds - even the small gap between the $7.25 U.S. minimum wage and the $8 youth wage in Australia helps Australia have 30% fewer McDonalds per capita, despite lower beef prices there. In addition, a higher wage would make automation cost effective for a significant fraction of the remaining jobs; in Europe, this has already happened with self service kiosks replacing employees in the McDonalds restaurants there.

If they work out there, they'll soon be here, regardless of the minimum US law allows McDonalds to compensate most of its employees.

That all depends on how expensive the kiosk system is compared to using human cashiers. The evidence is that a kiosk system is more expensive than human workers at current minimum wage, and less expensive than human workers at European wage, thus the use of kiosks in Europe only.

It'll be kiosks regardless. Sooner than later, someone will design a kiosk that will economically replace $0.35/hr counter help in the Philippines. If McDonald's could economically get rid of all human labor, they'd do it this second. They're not employing people out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing what they have to do, regardless of wages.

Substantially increasing cashier wages in the U.S. will change that calculation, causing the workers to be laid off in favor of machines, as Coito pointed out.

So? . There'll be kiosks just as soon as it's feasible.
Sure, higher wages will raise the breakout point. But it's gonna happen. It's in fast food worker's interests to get as much $$ as they can, while they can.
And this will lower the cost of a Big Mac how much? Oh yeah, a buck or so, right?

(And how the heck can Australians raise and process beef cheaper with their exorbitant wage structure in the first place?)

The main input for beef production isn't labor, it's energy. Australia has far more sunlight - or grazing land, if you prefer - per capita, so it has a strong competitive advantage when it comes to raising beef.

No. You're talking about cattle production, grass farming, not beef. (And you're not really even right. They raise more cattle per acre in Alberta than in Aus. )

Here's how beef gets produced from raw materials:



As you can see, there's more to it than just fresh air and sunshine and Australian magic dust. There's ultimately lots of labor involved in beef production...

Incidentally, Australian beef is used by McDonald's China too:

http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2011/08/1 ... ustry.html

Australian and New Zealand beef is used in ALL McDonald's burgers. All frozen McDonald's burgers used by ALL McDonald's stores come from McDonald's USA. The article's going all rainbows and flowers over the 20% whack of Aus/NZ beef used in the American product which ALL McDonald's worldwide buy from McDonald's USA. ANZ's slice of the pie isn't going up, the pie is getting bigger.
You're not really much of a businessman, are you? You damn sure don't know how McDonald's works...

And it's not just McDonalds, of course. An increase in the minimum wage would throw all sorts of minimum wage earners out of work and onto the welfare rolls, which would of course increase the burden on the already shrinking number of employed taxpayers we still have.

... It just translates the grid to a new origin. Everyone makes more $$.

No, it doesn't. Just because the minimum wage doubles does not mean that doctors' salaries will double as well, for example. It just means that people whose wages are worth less than the new minimum wage won't have jobs any more.

Most doctors in America don't hit a clock for a salary. And those that do will see their wages go up when the minimum wage rises (which it will eventually). You really don't want to go into that...

Given time, most every wage earner's wages go up when the minimum wage hikes. That's a simplification, but a good one. The grid distorts outward from its origin, and eventually fully translates. No one labors for $1/day anymore.

[pErvinalia]

It's not just the the fast food employees problem its everyone problem. If as a society we can't find some way of keeping 90% + of the population in work AND earning enough to be able to eat then we are all in trouble

Yeah, this is a problem that is going to get worse and worse as time progresses. Automation and computer intelligence is going to put a hell of a lot of people out of work. Ultimately, that could be a positive for society (i.e. everyone gets to work less and live more), but the problem is how to pay for those that don't work full time. I don't know what the answer is, and I wonder how much thought has been given to this problem. I don't recall coming across many discussions on this point.

[Warren Dew]

(And how the heck can Australians raise and process beef cheaper with their exorbitant wage structure in the first place?)

The main input for beef production isn't labor, it's energy. Australia has far more sunlight - or grazing land, if you prefer - per capita, so it has a strong competitive advantage when it comes to raising beef.

No. You're talking about cattle production, grass farming, not beef. (And you're not really even right. They raise more cattle per acre in Alberta than in Aus. )

I'm talking about the entire chain, since when you pay for the beef, you pay for the entire chain. And the fact they use fewer acres per head in Alberta just confirms my point that they don't have as much free sunlight, and thus have to resort to feedlots using grains grown with fossil fuel derived fertilizer instead.

Here's how beef gets produced from raw materials:



As you can see, there's more to it than just fresh air and sunshine and Australian magic dust. There's ultimately lots of labor involved in beef production.

12 minutes to process something that took 2 years to grow? Again, just proves my point that the labor content of the actual beef is low.

[JimC]

Warren Dew wrote:

And the fact they use fewer acres per head in Alberta just confirms my point that they don't have as much free sunlight, and thus have to resort to feedlots using grains grown with fossil fuel derived fertilizer instead.

Exactly what I was thinking, Warren...

Mind you, in the outback, it would be more efficient still if they farmed kangaroos...

Skippy burgers, anyone?

[piscator]

(And how the heck can Australians raise and process beef cheaper with their exorbitant wage structure in the first place?)

The main input for beef production isn't labor, it's energy. Australia has far more sunlight - or grazing land, if you prefer - per capita, so it has a strong competitive advantage when it comes to raising beef.

No. You're talking about cattle production, grass farming, not beef. (And you're not really even right. They raise more cattle per acre in Alberta than in Aus. )

I'm talking about the entire chain, since when you pay for the beef, you pay for the entire chain. And the fact they use fewer acres per head in Alberta just confirms my point that they don't have as much free sunlight, and thus have to resort to feedlots using grains grown with fossil fuel derived fertilizer instead.

Here's how beef gets produced from raw materials:



As you can see, there's more to it than just fresh air and sunshine and Australian magic dust. There's ultimately lots of labor involved in beef production.

12 minutes to process something that took 2 years to grow? Again, just proves my point that the labor content of the actual beef is low.

Well, you didn't have to carry that carcass in there, stud...

Industrial beef processing is one of the most brutal and dangerous jobs in the world. The big 4 American beef processors - Tyson, JBS, Carghill, and National Beef - have to pay people well over US minimum wage. The industry claims that employees in meat processing plants average more than $32,700 per year. One would imagine that a lot of that gets sent home to Mexico, but I digress...
All McDonald's beef, American And Australian, is "finished" in feedlots on McDonald's-spec cattle feed. 90% of US (and Aus.) beef is "Grain Fed".
You know why? Because grass fed beef is more expensive and more labor-intensive. Grass fed beef needs to be aged for several weeks in cold storage, else it "tastes strong". Grain fed beef doesn't. Cold storage aging costs more than feedlots.

...when you pay for the beef, you pay for the entire chain.

Bull shit. Are you ready to start paying to remove the beef industry's methane and CO2 from the atmosphere? They're only putting megametric shittonnes of new greenhouse gas into the sky every year. Let's not even bring in the ammonia and other refrigerants, trucking, grain farming, barnyard chemicals and fertilizer production, and other sources of pollution the beef industry doesn't charge for, yet.

Then there's the leather and other beef by-products industries. They're helping defray the cost of your Quarter Pounder. So is your tax dollar, in farm subsidies, tax breaks and low interest loans, and inspections, and the CRP, and... well hell, most of the US Dept of Agriculture...

Naive FreeMarketeers...you're really silly when you get on a rant.





Point is, your claim that McDonalds Au. defrays their higher wages by using cheaper Australian beef is way off. Australian McDonald's pays higher wages and higher shipping - higher costs - yet BigMac prices are remarkably close to those in America.
Ipso facto, McDonald's USA could take a minimum wage hike without breaking stride, and it would take a long time for you to feel it when you buy your Happy Meal.

America is not going to change its eating habits over a healthy hike in the fast food wage.

[Coito ergo sum]

They just opened a new Walmart grocery store here, just down the road in Da Hood. Sarasota country wanted them to pay a minimum of $10 an hour rather than minimum wage, so they just put in automated tills and have only one cashier on duty at any time, plus one person to go around and reset the automated tills when you try to buy alcohol or ciggies (or the thing fucks up on it's own, which happens about 50% of the time). So Walmart's response to higher wage pressures was to simply hire less people and make the experience of shopping at Wally World even less pleasant. Look for automated fast food cashiers coming soon to a Micky D's near you.

Something tells me it's more about sending a message than a response to that individual store's profit margin. If they can't come up with $10,00 and hour, then they're either really slow or they're poorly managed.

LOL -- "poorly managed" and "Walmart" definitely aren't words that go together. Walmart is one of the most successful private enterprises of all time. If that's "poor management" then we need more of it. Would twere ever company were so poorly managed.

[Coito ergo sum]

There comes a point when it makes economic sense to replace low skilled workers with machines. What used to take a gang of people with reel mowers and rakes now only takes one with a riding mower and leaf blower. I don't know what the break even point is, but I'm betting that $15 bucks an hour for somebody to say "uh, you like, want fries with that?" and hand you a paper bag of reprocessed garbage is closing on it. It's obviously cheaper for a retail store to install an automated till than to hire a cashier, as evidenced by how many you see today. In several of the stores I frequent you would wait for 10 or more minutes for a human cashier, but can waltz through the self checkout immediately. While I applaud fast food worker's initiative in seeking better pay, I think it's self-defeating. As soon as someone invents a cheaper automated system for chunking burgers and fries at your car window the counter person will go the way of the buggy whip maker and soda jerk.

Now with our modern technology, I would think that we could do an "Automat" right, and really have close to zero employees involved. That would be good, too, because I have an inherent distrust of strangers handling my food.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not just the the fast food employees problem its everyone problem. If as a society we can't find some way of keeping 90% + of the population in work AND earning enough to be able to eat then we are all in trouble

Oh, well, 90% of the population isn't earning so little as to be making minimum wage. The minimum wage bracket is made up of (a) teenagers and part time college students, (b) mentally handicapped who also get government assistance but are hired to bag groceries and such, (c) the few terminally unskilled who can't find a $10 an hour job as adults. Minimum wage earners represent about 5% of all hourly paid workers. That's workers 16 years of age and over.

1/2 of all minimum wage workers are under the age of 25 years. Only 3% of workers age 25 and over make only minimum wage. And, actually, of workers between the ages of 16 and 25, only 23% make minimum wage. 77% of workers between the ages of 16 and 25 are making more than minimum.

[Coito ergo sum]

It'll be kiosks regardless. Sooner than later,

Soon, there will be no need to check out.

Products will be coded and walking out of the store with the products will cause the transaction to be completed and people with credit or debit cards on file will simply take a receipt (if they want, or have it just transmitted to them) when they leave the store. This is already technically feasible. It's just a matter of time. The logistics of getting customers registered and failsafes ironed out will be done.

I already get my receipts emailed to me any chance I get, which ensures that I will save the receipt somewhere (paper receipts are gone with the wind, usually). I already deposit all my checks by snapping a picture on my phone and depositing it from my desk. I have a feeling Sams Club or Costco will be among the first to start a system where all their products have a chip in the label which tracks its location. Just have people push the shopping cart through a scanning archway, and a voice can ask "would you like a paper receipt, or shall I email it to you?" And, you're off.