4 ms·

I think implied point was, that while raising minimum wage also forced fast food joint to raise prices, demand stayed same. Things to be wary about - this is l

I think implied point was, that while raising minimum wage also forced fast food joint to raise prices, demand stayed same. Things to be wary about - this is limited experiment with two fast food joints. 1. This might be a fluke, with only two fast food places compared data sample is very small - at best it is case study. Apparently this is incorrect, see comment below. 2. Their monitoring period was only 11 months. Who knows what will happen in 5 years? All that said, I applaud their effort. Too many things are taken for granted in Economics because they "make" sense. Real world is so complex that things are often counter intuitive.

brey 13y ago
I don't think they only surveyed two - the article doesn't say how many or link to the paper, but this could easily be misread as 'they found two fast-food joints': The two found fast-food joints along the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border edit: found it: http://www.nber.org/papers/w4509 http://www.nber.org/papers/w4509 - 410 restaurants
norswap 13y ago
To me, it seems common sense that the fast-food will simply increase wage and keep the same amount of people. The fast-food is profitable up to a wage of X, but it prefers to pay the lowest it can to attract workers instead, which happens to be (by law) the minimum wage. And I'm convinced fast-foods can afford to pay employees more.
- aetherson 13y ago
  What's your theory for why competition doesn't solve this problem? That is, if I am opening a new Wendy's in this area you're postulating, and the deal is that I can have generous profits despite a substantial increase in my employee's wages, why don't I offer $1 more than the other fast food joints in the area and steal all of their best employees? I see a few possible explanations: 1. Fast food employees do not substantially differ in quality. The best fast food employee in the world is not really better than the median, in terms of their ability to drive additional business to a location. 2. The owners of the fast food restaurants in the area have formed a cartel, and are (flagrantly illegally) engaged in anti-competitive practices. 3. There is simply no competition among fast food restaurants -- the field is so sparse that when I open a new restaurant, there are no competitors to steal from. 4. The labor market is incredibly overpopulated such that every fast food restaurant can fill its ranks with employees who are first-tier, without raising their wages. What's your theory?
  - jacalata 13y ago
    From when I worked in fast food - 1, absolutely. The big corporations can't afford to allow variation in employee quality to change their food/experience, so instead it is all run as though they are all low-quality employees, which means it doesn't really benefit you to get higher quality employees (who in any case probably can't stand the micro-management and will quit as soon as they get another option).
    - aetherson 13y ago
      It seems kind of impossible to me for that to be the whole story. I mean, I totally buy that it doesn't matter how competent or incompetent a cook you are in terms of assembling McDonald's meals, but there are a lot of axes that employees can vary on: 1. Speed. Employees are going to be better or worse at turning orders quickly, and I can't see how good preparation from the corporate overlords can entirely compensate for this. 2. Graft/Wastage/Slackery. If your employees steal from you, that's going to affect your bottom line real fast. If they're dropping burgers on the floor all the time, that's a big deal. If they are chatting with each other instead of serving your customers, that's a big deal. 3. Customer Service. It has traditionally been the case that a bright smile, eye contact, and polite language has seen some reward among food service workers, and again it doesn't seem possible that McDonald's has figured out how to make all employees great at this. I would be provisionally ready to believe that the combination of corporate work to provide a simplified work experience plus a slack labor market has created a situation where there's a glut of potential fast food workers who are somewhere between the 60th and 99th percentile in worker quality, and the difference between 60th and 99th percentile is small enough that it doesn't warrant paying a higher wage.
      - jacalata 13y ago
        Well, where I worked they solved a lot of it with literally constant supervision and feedback by managers - like 'hey Jane, smile more! Tom, don't just stand there, wipe that bench again. And again, if you have nothing else to do.' That cuts stealing and slacking down pretty fast. Customer service - pretty clear scripts, constant reminders to smile, warnings about mystery shoppers (and actual mystery shoppers), to keep you focusing on it. A three part diagram of something like 'hello - SMILE - can I take your order please?' on each register. Speed - yea, I guess there's a few clumsy workers who just aren't going to be able to do it, but it's like a factory line - a small set of tasks that you pretty much memorize then do over and over. In very busy times where every second counts, you'd put the slightly faster people on the register and have about two runners for each three registers to actually bring the food, which is simpler. I guess there must have been a reasonable availability of workers behind this, because all the pressure was based on 'or you'll be fired'. Or they just relied on us taking them seriously - the city was at about 4% official unemployment (Brisbane, 2006), so it can't have been that bad a glut.
- brc 13y ago
  I live in a country with one of the highest mandated minimum wages in the world. Guess what I saw passing by a KFC the other day? An automated ordering kiosk. Just use a touch screen to place your order, swipe your card and your food will come out with your number. It is just wishful thinking to think that raising minimum wages makes people better off. At best, it just creates inflation for the very products that those workers buy. At worst, it cuts the rungs off the bottom of the job ladder and increases the incentive to permanently replace low-wage employees with automation. Most people start work on the lowest wage there is. I certainly did. Making it harder to employ people at low cost removes the ability to start working your way up the ladder. You can argue the morality of the minimum wage - whether it should exist or not, what the level should be, but you can't argue the marketplace effects.
  - swang 13y ago
    Are you talking about those self-serve kiosks that they have next to the ordering station or do these robots actually cook the food as well? The reason I ask is because no one wants to use those self-serve kiosks. They've had them everywhere as a means to "free" an employee up but what ends up happening is an employee has to come by and help the customer because 1) the interface sucks and 2) people dont want to read screens then tap then read more screens, they'd rather just tell a cashier what they want and have the cashier press the buttons. But if you mean the robots also serve and cook the food... where do you live again?
    - AjithAntony 13y ago
      > The reason I ask is because no one wants to use those self-serve kiosks. I could totally see automated ordering happening. Look at big box stores and self-checkouts. At my local home depot, walmart, and mejier, and smaller stores like county market, there are often only two cashiers for the whole store (I only go at night, i guess). One oversees a bank of 4-8 self-service check-outs, and the other handles one full service checkout. Self-service grocery store checkout is way more complicated than fast-food ordering. There are coupons, produce codes, scales, large qty of items, and the actual act of scanning and bagging. By intentionally under-staffing the full service lanes, people naturally adapt to self-service. This is the standard now. Imagine how efficient fast food could be. One touch for predefined meal, accept the defaults or maybe one more touch for size change, tap your NFC credit card or device, done.

brey 13y ago

I don't think they only surveyed two - the article doesn't say how many or link to the paper, but this could easily be misread as 'they found two fast-food joints': The two found fast-food joints along the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border edit: found it: http://www.nber.org/papers/w4509 http://www.nber.org/papers/w4509 - 410 restaurants

norswap 13y ago

To me, it seems common sense that the fast-food will simply increase wage and keep the same amount of people. The fast-food is profitable up to a wage of X, but it prefers to pay the lowest it can to attract workers instead, which happens to be (by law) the minimum wage. And I'm convinced fast-foods can afford to pay employees more.

aetherson 13y ago
What's your theory for why competition doesn't solve this problem? That is, if I am opening a new Wendy's in this area you're postulating, and the deal is that I can have generous profits despite a substantial increase in my employee's wages, why don't I offer $1 more than the other fast food joints in the area and steal all of their best employees? I see a few possible explanations: 1. Fast food employees do not substantially differ in quality. The best fast food employee in the world is not really better than the median, in terms of their ability to drive additional business to a location. 2. The owners of the fast food restaurants in the area have formed a cartel, and are (flagrantly illegally) engaged in anti-competitive practices. 3. There is simply no competition among fast food restaurants -- the field is so sparse that when I open a new restaurant, there are no competitors to steal from. 4. The labor market is incredibly overpopulated such that every fast food restaurant can fill its ranks with employees who are first-tier, without raising their wages. What's your theory?
- jacalata 13y ago
  From when I worked in fast food - 1, absolutely. The big corporations can't afford to allow variation in employee quality to change their food/experience, so instead it is all run as though they are all low-quality employees, which means it doesn't really benefit you to get higher quality employees (who in any case probably can't stand the micro-management and will quit as soon as they get another option).
  - aetherson 13y ago
    It seems kind of impossible to me for that to be the whole story. I mean, I totally buy that it doesn't matter how competent or incompetent a cook you are in terms of assembling McDonald's meals, but there are a lot of axes that employees can vary on: 1. Speed. Employees are going to be better or worse at turning orders quickly, and I can't see how good preparation from the corporate overlords can entirely compensate for this. 2. Graft/Wastage/Slackery. If your employees steal from you, that's going to affect your bottom line real fast. If they're dropping burgers on the floor all the time, that's a big deal. If they are chatting with each other instead of serving your customers, that's a big deal. 3. Customer Service. It has traditionally been the case that a bright smile, eye contact, and polite language has seen some reward among food service workers, and again it doesn't seem possible that McDonald's has figured out how to make all employees great at this. I would be provisionally ready to believe that the combination of corporate work to provide a simplified work experience plus a slack labor market has created a situation where there's a glut of potential fast food workers who are somewhere between the 60th and 99th percentile in worker quality, and the difference between 60th and 99th percentile is small enough that it doesn't warrant paying a higher wage.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      Well, where I worked they solved a lot of it with literally constant supervision and feedback by managers - like 'hey Jane, smile more! Tom, don't just stand there, wipe that bench again. And again, if you have nothing else to do.' That cuts stealing and slacking down pretty fast. Customer service - pretty clear scripts, constant reminders to smile, warnings about mystery shoppers (and actual mystery shoppers), to keep you focusing on it. A three part diagram of something like 'hello - SMILE - can I take your order please?' on each register. Speed - yea, I guess there's a few clumsy workers who just aren't going to be able to do it, but it's like a factory line - a small set of tasks that you pretty much memorize then do over and over. In very busy times where every second counts, you'd put the slightly faster people on the register and have about two runners for each three registers to actually bring the food, which is simpler. I guess there must have been a reasonable availability of workers behind this, because all the pressure was based on 'or you'll be fired'. Or they just relied on us taking them seriously - the city was at about 4% official unemployment (Brisbane, 2006), so it can't have been that bad a glut.
brc 13y ago
I live in a country with one of the highest mandated minimum wages in the world. Guess what I saw passing by a KFC the other day? An automated ordering kiosk. Just use a touch screen to place your order, swipe your card and your food will come out with your number. It is just wishful thinking to think that raising minimum wages makes people better off. At best, it just creates inflation for the very products that those workers buy. At worst, it cuts the rungs off the bottom of the job ladder and increases the incentive to permanently replace low-wage employees with automation. Most people start work on the lowest wage there is. I certainly did. Making it harder to employ people at low cost removes the ability to start working your way up the ladder. You can argue the morality of the minimum wage - whether it should exist or not, what the level should be, but you can't argue the marketplace effects.
- swang 13y ago
  Are you talking about those self-serve kiosks that they have next to the ordering station or do these robots actually cook the food as well? The reason I ask is because no one wants to use those self-serve kiosks. They've had them everywhere as a means to "free" an employee up but what ends up happening is an employee has to come by and help the customer because 1) the interface sucks and 2) people dont want to read screens then tap then read more screens, they'd rather just tell a cashier what they want and have the cashier press the buttons. But if you mean the robots also serve and cook the food... where do you live again?
  - AjithAntony 13y ago
    > The reason I ask is because no one wants to use those self-serve kiosks. I could totally see automated ordering happening. Look at big box stores and self-checkouts. At my local home depot, walmart, and mejier, and smaller stores like county market, there are often only two cashiers for the whole store (I only go at night, i guess). One oversees a bank of 4-8 self-service check-outs, and the other handles one full service checkout. Self-service grocery store checkout is way more complicated than fast-food ordering. There are coupons, produce codes, scales, large qty of items, and the actual act of scanning and bagging. By intentionally under-staffing the full service lanes, people naturally adapt to self-service. This is the standard now. Imagine how efficient fast food could be. One touch for predefined meal, accept the defaults or maybe one more touch for size change, tap your NFC credit card or device, done.