SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
Gone are the heady days of cashiers asking if you want your order "supersized."
Not only has the infamous upgrade gone by the wayside, but cashiers at fast-food restaurants are becoming increasingly uncommon. McDonald's started rolling out ordering kiosks at its US locations in 2015, and the chain hasn't looked back since: by 2020, most of its 14,000 locations will have kiosks installed.
Panera Bread has also committed to digital ordering. Admittedly, when I first tried it in 2015, I found it had decidedly dystopian vibes. But it ended up being a fairly pleasant and painless experience.
A recent poll conducted by Business Insider's partner MSN suggests that diners aren't big fans of automated kiosks: 78% of customers said they would be less inclined to go to a restaurant that has automated ordering kiosks.
The popular narrative is that kiosks and mobile ordering are here to take jobs and hours away from underpaid cashiers, ultimately saving companies money in the face of rising labor costs — but the data suggests that isn't true. It may be true for some, but most chains are simply reallocating labor behind the scenes. And with such a tight labor market, many chains are struggling to hire and retain customer-facing employees.
Americans don't seem too threatened by automation in general. Nationally, only 21% of responders to MSN's poll believe their job may one day be done by machines. And restaurants like automated ordering for its increased accuracy and efficiency as more chains look towards cashless options.
But for now, a question remains: are kiosks, in fact, better for customers?
Source: Business Insider
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Sunday April 01 2018, @03:36AM (15 children)
That's a comforting myth. I think it's rather that if a society punishes employers, then they'll go out of their way to not employ people.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @05:53AM (3 children)
Interesting that you consider non-starving employees a punishment for employers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 01 2018, @12:46PM
Interesting how you frame it instinctively as employees starving.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 01 2018, @01:00PM (1 child)
You're making the unwarranted assumption that the restrictions and costs imposed on employers make for less starving employees. After all, that's the gist of a lot of minimum wage research right? But here we see the dark side which all that research ignores, namely, that there's a huge incentive for businesses to do what they can to strip employees out of their business.
But I guess if one ignores the half century of employers automating and moving parts of their business to the developing world, then one might indeed get the impression that there's no consequences to these games.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 01 2018, @04:32PM
(Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Sunday April 01 2018, @08:53AM (9 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 01 2018, @12:48PM (8 children)
Employers want to make money, not reduce costs. And automated systems are a cost too.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 01 2018, @04:13PM (7 children)
Reducing costs *is* a form of making money. Who do you think you're fooling with this disingenuous bullshit? The market is not God, and your continual advocacy of effectively feeding it a stream of slow-motion human sacrifices is not doing you any favors.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday April 01 2018, @04:31PM (5 children)
They can also reduce costs by reducing automation, or for that matter, not having a business at all.
Let's keep in mind also the ultimate implication of FatPhil's original assertion, that businesses will be equally willing to cut labor no matter how much the cost. Who really thinks that is true?
My point instead is that smart changes in regulation, and imposed costs on labor will result in cheaper labor costs for businesses. At that point, they have increased incentive to both keep current employees and to hire more since there is more profit from the current employees as well as increased opportunities to profit from hiring more people.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 01 2018, @04:44PM (3 children)
Slavery is cheap labor too, so why don't we do that? Jesus, do you ever THINK about the implications of the shit you say?!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday April 01 2018, @05:02PM (1 child)
Because I'm about getting the most value for the employee. The problem is that employment is a trade. Put the thumb down on the scale so that it artificially favors one side and you damage the value of the trade. Slavery is an extreme push to favor employers and thus, even ignoring the destruction of human freedom, harms employment.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 01 2018, @06:05PM
But starvation wages, lack of benefits, and so on don't? In the name of not putting one's thumb on the scales, as you put it, you'd deregulate business entirely to the point that even slavery would be preferable as at least the slaves were housed (poorly) and fed (poorly)?
How many times do I need to say this?! The market is not God, making money is not humanity's sole purpose in life, and peoples' lives have more value that ideology, however pure. You would feed, as I said, mass amounts of slow-motion human sacrifices to your idols.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2018, @02:02AM
Slavery is NOT cheap labor. It's only cheap compared to housing, feeding, AND paying other people to work your fields. Look up the adjusted cost of slave, there's a reason only the wealthy had them.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday April 01 2018, @09:39PM
When companies announce massive layoffs, share prices rise. That means a lot of people think it's true, in particular, influential people.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday April 01 2018, @09:34PM
Nah, only jesting, happy to see any hit-him-with-the-you're-a-dimbo-stick posts. It takes the weight off my back, and I'm not sure I want to interact too much as I think he's stalking me.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @03:32PM
these scum you call employers are just leechers