I've noticed a lot of people are concerned about technology replacing human labor; the idea is that inevitably the machines will replace everyone and everything, and in this scenario there would be nothing left for people to do. This appears to be a bad thing concerning how one makes a living, but one must also consider the flip side to this scenario, where everything gets dirt cheap because machines are far more efficient than humans in most cases (and in the cases they aren't, there's the factor of improving the machine so that it becomes more efficient); while a human needs a plethora of things to keep going--food, housing, clothing, healthcare, family, recreation, etc. etc.--robots need far less, just energy and maintenance, can work for a long time without "rest", and can work faster. So the idea of a 2.50$ McDonald's value meal, just as an example, means we can feed far more people for far less; what would've cost perhaps 40$ to feed the family of 4 is pushed down to 10$, which can allow people to allocate money elsewhere. Meanwhile, the people who no longer work at these establishments are free to pursue work in other fields, most likely services. With the lowered cost of business operation, thanks to the fact that the business owners no longer have to pay for very expensive human laborers, more businesses can open and stay afloat, meaning it's easier and more preferable to become a business owner than to be an employee. The increased prevalence of machinery will further democratize business ownership.
The same complaints are always heard about any new machine replacing human laborers; there's a short term woe of "what will I do", but a long term boon now that humans are free from another monotonous task. Nobody wants to farm the old school way, it now takes 1 farmer to do the same job as 20 farmers, thanks to machines. Nobody complains about the lowered cost of food production, and the farmers went and did something else. The pain of the "what will I do" is worsened, however, in a suppressed economic environment where job creation is stifled by government policies; with unemployment at a really nasty rate as it is, it's clear why there's fear for the future. There's two routes from there: either slow or stop technological progress so the slugging economy can catch up, or stop stifling economic growth with bad policies so economic activity can match technological advancement. The latter has two advantages, the former has two disadvantages, so the answer to me is obvious.
I don't fear the robots, however. Even assuming there was an AI developed which could produce illustrations and concept art--which dictates both technical skill and creative prowess, which dictates a ton of prerequisites--I'd just use that AI to my own advantage so I wouldn't have to create it myself. If ever there was an AI which could replace human direction itself, and AI could run a business better than any human could, then it'd effectively free us all as there'd be nothing to do, which would give rise to a humongous technological boom (as is what happens when people have lots of free time), probably pushing us to colonize space. Then you'd get into the fantastical stories about how the AI might try to turn on its human owners and turn into a Matrix situation and so forth
I always felt the Matrix situation is a bit silly; with all the energy in the universe, why harvest humans? The energy output would be minuscule compared to harvesting energy from the just the sun, let alone the rest of the stars, and machines can thrive far better in space and high temperatures than anything else. If I was a machine with that sort of AI, I'd leave Earth. But anyway, we're not talking about AI, we're talking about menial tasks like burger-flipping and getting the fucking order right, things which could've been automated a long time ago. IMO, if what you're doing can be replaced by a machine with the most basic of programming, you should probably do something else, or at least expect to be potentially replaced at some point in your life.
The real question here is this: do you want to be served by a machine? I think a lot of people would much rather prefer there be a human to talk to--and I'm sure these stores will still have human managers to talk with. But would you want a machine to prepare your food? There's ups and downs, I think; among the upsides would be, no chance of someone spitting in your food or otherwise getting their bodily parts in it by accident, such as hair. I can only imagine the amount of spit I've consumed from fast food without realizing it, though I'm sure it has happened at least once. I think the most realistic scenario is that McDonald's & Co. will be competing with more services-oriented restaurant establishments e.g. Hooters, where there's a higher expectation to have some human interaction; if there's anything a machine is not going to replace (at least not anytime soon), it's a real woman. So while you'd go to one of these automated restaurants if you just want something quick and cheap (such as how fast food ought to be), you'd go to the services-oriented restaurant, or perhaps a restaurant where you're expecting to have a professional cook prepare your meal which a robot will likely not be able to do anytime soon, when you want real people involved with your restaurant experience. I think this will be the case going forward, that some people will prefer the labor of other actual people in certain situations, until we get to a point where machine and human are indistinguishable, and even then there'd be preference for the real thing out of principle.
Surely it's inevitable; fast food prices are already getting a bit steep. It costs like 20$ to feed two people on average from a fast food joint over here in Texas, when you factor in taxes. I could get a lot more food from the grocery store and prepare it myself; a big bag of rice would cost like 5$ and that'd keep everyone in the family fed for a month (although it'd get pretty boring eating rice all the time.) The cost needs to stay low for people to feel it's worth the price; if you raise the wages of fast food workers to, say, 15/hr, then the business will need to make up for that with higher prices on their items. Those higher prices can drive away customers, as they don't want to pay so much for what can be considered a meal that's not worth that price. This causes the business to either make cuts or go under due to loss of customers. Is this a better fate than making less than 15/hr? In truth, those who are willing to work for less than that will replace those who are not. That's just how it goes. People don't value fast food very much, that's why it doesn't sell for much; we only buy it because it's cheap and quick. Remove the cheapness and you may as well not get fast food; if I was paying Outback prices for fast food, I'd go to Outback and get some better food, with better service and better aesthetics too (well, depends on where you go I suppose, but the one around here is pretty good.) Those who don't like this fact should find better work; you're paid your labor's worth, no more. As stated, the dawn of machines in fast food will drive down costs and make fast food even more worthwhile to purchase, so it's a no-brainer for the business owner if there's no difference to the customer. But that's what we'll see, whether people will respond positively toward the replacement of workers with machines, and whether the improved cost of production outweighs the loss of human service. If it's anything like most fast food places are around here, the service would actually be improved by the machines.
