But you concede that some jobs would be automated if the labor prices were higher, and yet you think that's fine? Do you acknowledge a trade-off whereby fewer

But you concede that some jobs would be automated if the labor prices were higher, and yet you think that's fine? Do you acknowledge a trade-off whereby fewer workers can get higher wages OR more workers can get some wages and prefer the former? For argument's sake, let's assume that no jobs can be automated. The cost to the franchise owner to operate goes up, and in response they raise prices -- but at some prices they're going to really start losing business, so they also have to lower costs elsewhere or simply get lower profits. How does it all shake out? The fact is that it has to be paid by someone, and it'll likely mean fewer McDonalds are opened because it'll just be harder to make them profitable. Maybe you're OK with that trade-off, but it IS a tradeoff that will happen, and it means fewer jobs. Your analysis presumes that the business owners can and will absorb anything without reacting, as if more value can be extracted but there won't be a new equilibrium. I assume that the franchise owners aren't making the kinds of profits where that is true, I assume they're mostly bumping along on fairly low margins.