Depends on cost of a machine. Plus, McDonalds is a weak even if common example. Many companies push employees go focus on good service or at least sales (esp upselling). Computers still arent as good at that with a good chunk of customers rejecting them outright in such uses.
Far as machines, depends on how cost of installation, maintenance, and licensing vs humans it replaces. Varies case by case.
McDonald's was used as an example due to their work at automating their franchises, and their comments about increasing this to full automation due to the $15 minimum wage[0].
The bigger point (and the dirty secret of globalism) is that nobody can really afford labor, especially multinationals.
"The bigger point (and the dirty secret of globalism) is that nobody can really afford labor, especially multinationals."
That's a lie they tell you. McDonalds may not to some degree. I've worked with many companies that are low-margin, including food companies. The low-cost, food industry is tough enough that tradeoffs can be harsh. $15 might be too much to ask for them. But better than minimum wage, crazy scheduling (below), pushing them to skip breaks, and so on? Yeah, they can do it but don't want to. What's common in most of these are tons of highly-paid, corporate people with expenses, catered meetings, jets, 8-digit CEO's, and so on. Almost all I've ever worked for could afford all that but not labor that generates revenue. Strange, eh?
Anyway, I like citing rebels from low-margin industries to disprove the general claim that people can't be paid well. I mean, we had an article on Hacker News recently showing all the big companies used to do it but switched to a shareholder focus. But what about companies making pennies on the dollar? Two favorites:
These companies operate in a very-rough industry where margins usually range from below 1 to about 3.5% for Walmart. Most companies in it are clear people can't and shouldn't be paid almost anything unless they're management, executives, or board members. Yet, these two do the opposite with more profit as a result than most of them. Also show you can get good executives in 6-digit range instead of 8-digits. Lean, too, with Publix having a 200 to 1 worker to manager ratio without breaking a sweat. Motivated people and their supervisors, esp with financial stake in earnings, tend to manage themselves mostly.
So, even if I conceded McDonalds after seeing detailed accounting, I'd still like to take a closer look at the books and management practices of most of these other companies that say they can't afford labor. I think they probably can if a lower-margin business can. Just a hunch.
I take it you're not speaking from knowledge in regards to this. The reason online ordering with Pizza Chains receives more per ticket is the fact that algorithms are much better at upselling than a cashier behind the register.
I know quite a few that make their money on service. There's others that can use algorithms. Again, food is an extreme example whose operational and labor tradeoffs don't apply to most markets. There's usually more flexibility or margin involved where paying people more might make sense.
I'm sorry why are you still typing? You apply anecdotal examples and your feelings with regards to this topic in the face of actual data. I've written some of those upselling algorithms, 2016 is a long ways from the comparative decade of the 90s you're offering up. Algos and robots can do many of the things you seem to believe to be too expensive, and they do so more cost efficiently and with a greater degree of consistency
Far as machines, depends on how cost of installation, maintenance, and licensing vs humans it replaces. Varies case by case.