> you clearly have never worked in food service or any sort of low wage customer facing role

Weird that you know more about my life than I do, I wonder how I made up those memories of working at Carl's Jr as a young person. Tell me, what else have I done or not done, contra my own lived experience?

>> He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him
> No, it was not because they got just as much work done, but because it would reduce turnover [1].

Weird that you started with "No," and then went on to say the same thing I said? "happier employees, more loyal to him" vs "would reduce turnover" seem like the same thing. You linked to an article covering almost exactly the same ground I did, and thought that represented disagreement? So, so weird.

> And in the real world, corporations have done that analysis and either decided on Ford's approach (as Costco has) or on the minimum pay possible approach (like Walmart).

I'm not sure the last time you checked in with "the real world," but these days Walmart isn't paying minwage any more, at least not where I live. That extreme turned out to be unsustainable in today's labor market--again, at least where I live--so "the market" and "the real world" seem to be moving on.

> But each worker still serves X customers per hour and works Y hours per week with flexible scheduling. If you suddenly have 20% fewer hours, then the worker has to get paid 20% less, else the business now pays more for labor. Considering a lot of restaurants operate on razor thin margins, this doesn't work out as well as you think.

I have a child working in food service today, right now, in 2022, in America, in the real world. So I can tell you that many employers already flexibly schedule their workers, especially their front-of-house workers, and in some cases get closer to 32 hours than 40 already, specifically ensuring that they're not paying employees to sit idle during slow times. Most restaurants don't have 40 rush hours per week. That was my point--businesses that require physical presence are already scheduling as needed. I then contrasted that by shifting to "office jobs."

But yes, costs rise. Industry-wide, chains which had locations paying federal minimum wage and other locations paying local wages as high as $15/hr had menu price differences ranging from 4-10% for the same food at the same chain restaurants. While restaurant margins are thin, many chains find that location rental costs dwarf even labor costs when determining prices. A McDonald's in Manhattan has menu prices higher than a McDonald's in Pocatello, Idaho, not only because they pay their employees more.

Still, yes, part of this popular push at the low-end is alongside a $15 minimum wage. Either way, labor costs are rising. Some fast-food restaurants in my area have resisted the push for higher wages, and have struggled to find workers, with several (Taco Bell, Wendy's, Dairy Queen) reducing hours of operation, or switching to drive-through-only until they could staff up. Many (including a local McDonald's franchisee) had no trouble with hours because they raised wages to $12/14/15/hour. How much of the subsequent rise in menu prices is due to higher labor costs, and how much is due to international shortages affecting everyone, is unclear. Either way, I'm happy to pay even 20% more for my hamburgers if my kids can get better treatment as workers.