wouldn't they have replaced those workers with robot arms anyway?
Hilariously stupid to tie this to a reaction to increasing minimum wage.
What's hilariously stupid is that you think a change in cost per hour of at least 50% wouldn't be a catalyst for re-evaluating the value proposition of automating more processes. Perhaps at $8 per hour they looked at it as something they should investigate and evaluate, whereas for $15 per hour, it's something they actively pursue.
Like others have said, if a robot is a good idea, it is a good idea regardless of token changes in the minimum wage.
50% increase in the cost of labor is not a "token change". It's a significant enough change to warrant further investigation into alternatives.
It's just like oil. At $50 per barrel, alternative fuels are just not that interesting, but when the price gets to $130 per barrel, you'd better believe there's a lot of interest in speeding up the move towards other energy sources. Regardless of price per barrel it's something that will be done in the long term, but the price sets the pace.
It is interesting comparing the comment in the OP's post with McDonald's wage hike last year leading to more profit, better employee retention, and better customer satisfaction this year.
Do you have data supporting causality for those things? Did profit go up because of a wage hike, or was it one of the factors, or was it not a factor at all and it was correlation rather than causation?