Thanks for the thread starter, but your OP article does not support that I bolded in your post, and instead claims this:
"Many chains like McDonald's have struggled with slower food delivery in recent years, because there are more items on the menu (among other factors). But the world's largest restaurant chain, which serves approximately 68 million customers daily in 119 countries, is trying to change that."
Also, the article title byline additionally supports the above paragraph I quoted:
"The largest restaurant chain in the world is trying to put the 'fast' back in fast food."
In fact the entire thrust of the article, from start to finish, seems to revolve around the concept of providing a faster experience.
To the bolded: Nope, when raising or lowing minimum wage it is not common sense for it to change labor demand, at least not appreciably. There is some elasticity, but labor is a product of business demand. Lower wages will do nothing if business demand does not support hiring. Businesses do not hire unnecessary employees! And conversely, if business demand warrants hiring, it will be done even with higher wages. Labor is a demand function.
I suspect your thinking of consumer demand, where consumer demand is driven by product pricing. Lower the price of a consumer good, and it's likely to stimulate demand. But labor doesn't work like that. It is driven by business demand.
Now there may be some elasticity there, but not to the substantial degree that's being suggested.
However, you are very right in that higher wages can accelerate the implementation of technology. No doubt about that. But again as you said, usually the technology was on it's way in (as in the example here), and lowering wages only forestalls the future implementation marginally. Lowering one's wages to compete with technology is a fool's errand, resulting in a race to the bottom where the machine will eventually win regardless; tech gets cheaper over time too, don't forget, so the employee will never win that gambit.