Remember when Rightguide whined "The California fast food market is collapsing!" Yeah, about that...

[Rightguide]

All right, I'll bite if it will shut you up.
Yes, raising the minimum wage would cost jobs if you raised it that dramatically. But no one is calling for that, and you know it.

So, you don't think a 25% percent rise in the minimum wage in a single sector isn't dramatic for those owners? If you don't you've never run a business.

 

[rainsol]

Recall these numbers are based on Gov, Newsom's administration numbers in an election year. My prediction, they will go the same way almost a million of Joe Biden's employment numbers just went.

A hint as to why this might be true is the simple fact that so many fast-food businesses have simply closed down and have not reopened.

Simply fact, Joe lies and so does Newscum. When wages go up, its a good market for robot sales. Californica is not the national standard for anything except crazy legislators.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So, you don't think a 25% percent rise in the minimum wage in a single sector isn't dramatic for those owners? If you don't you've never run a business.

I've ran a business, and served on the BoD of several others. Yes a 25% increase in the starting tier wage would be "dramatic" ( though I would use the phrase wage augmentation), however the increase was first mandated by government, second it was not "overnight". Third and most important, it had a long lead up time frame for the increase to land.

Corporations listen to the "wind", it is no secret that the legal minimum wage was due to rise. Public pressure was building and no BoD worth their salt would have failed to notice this, and planed for it. Financial forecasting would have been in place months, to even years in advance. The directions to mitigate the hit to the bottom line would have detailed, ( if you check out MacD's annual pubic shareholders documents I'll bet you'll find that buried in them) and CFO's would have prepared several methods to keep the bottom line profitable.

You coming in here with your childish mindset about multi billion dollar corporations being blindsided and taking a hit to the bottom line with the only recourse being a rise in the selling price to mitigate the increased cost is fucking absurd. It only shows your lack of business acumen, and ignorance about the financial plans Senior executives spend 90% of their time defining and forecasting.

It's no wonder, as RDS stated, you couldn't afford to live in Cali, and moved to butt fuck Idaho.

PS how about all those years where the shareholders dividends increased, while operating costs fell behind. You don't think they should have given something back to the people who created them? It took Government stepping in and saying "ok you've earned enough, time for the employee's to catch up".

 

[Rightguide]

Simply fact, Joe lies and so does Newscum. When wages go up, its a good market for robot sales. Californica is not the national standard for anything except crazy legislators.

Yes, and those lies are based on economic fantasies that only unearned wealth can imagine.

 

[YDB95]

So, you don't think a 25% percent rise in the minimum wage in a single sector isn't dramatic for those owners? If you don't you've never run a business.

I have run a business (and paid a living wage to my staff), but that's beside the point. The point is, Babyboobs asked (presumably rhetorically) why we didn't just raise it to $30 or $40. If he - or you for that matter - felt what really did happen was so dramatic, there was no reason to toss out bigger numbers.

And I've already provided some numbers as to how those owners you refer to are doing. This isn't going to put anyone out of business, and meanwhile it will put money in the pockets of people who really need it and will pump that money back into the economy. Just like people like you always say will happen if we cut taxes on the rich, except in this case it actually will happen.

 

[ChinoMoreno]

When California raised fast food wages, jobs actually increased.

That’s not what the industry wants you to think
The data is especially relevant ahead of a ballot measure to add $2 to California’s minimum wage.

 

[MajorRewrite]

When California raised fast food wages, jobs actually increased.

That’s not what the industry wants you to think
The data is especially relevant ahead of a ballot measure to add $2 to California’s minimum wage.

That article from Fast Company was very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[MajorRewrite]

The impact from the workers’ perspective.

What really happened after California raised its minimum wage to $20 for fast food workers

Despite the dire warnings from the restaurant industry and some media reports, the Shift Project's study did "not find evidence that employers turned to understaffing or reduced scheduled work hours to offset the increased labor costs." Instead, "weekly work hours stayed about the same for California fast food workers, and levels of understaffing appeared to ease." Further, there was "no evidence that wage increases were accompanied by a reduction in fringe benefits… such as health or dental insurance, paid sick time, or retirement benefits."

And the impact on prices was remarkably small.

While workers enjoyed significantly higher wages, the impact of prices was modest. A separate study by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE) used Uber Eats data to compare prices at fast food chains before and after the new minimum wage took effect. The IRLE study found that prices increased about 3.7% after the wage increase — or about 15 cents for a $4 hamburger.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The impact from the workers’ perspective.

What really happened after California raised its minimum wage to $20 for fast food workers



And the impact on prices was remarkably small.

The Shift is not an unbiased source. It’s a labor advocacy organization. Nothing wrong with that but readers need to be aware of the self interest in producing this report. The same holds true for reports issued by the fast food industry that produce different conclusions.

It’s still a bit early to understand the full impact of the law. Here’s an article that profiles some fast food franchisees in Southern California. It doesn’t prove anything about the statewide impact on the industry or employees, but it does provide some insight into choices fast food operators are making.

https://smdp.com/2024/12/02/california-fast-food-workers-now-earn-dollar20-per-hour/

 

[MajorRewrite]

The Shift is not an unbiased source. It’s a labor advocacy organization. Nothing wrong with that but readers need to be aware of the self interest in producing this report. The same holds true for reports issued by the fast food industry that produce different conclusions.

It’s still a bit early to understand the full impact of the law. Here’s an article that profiles some fast food franchisees in Southern California. It doesn’t prove anything about the statewide impact on the industry or employees, but it does provide some insight into choices fast food operators are making.

https://smdp.com/2024/12/02/california-fast-food-workers-now-earn-dollar20-per-hour/

Shift is a labor advocacy organization, so if workers hours were cut or benefits reduced they would report it.

Quoted from your article:

Past wage increases have not necessarily led to job losses. When California and New York nearly doubled their minimum wage previously to $15 compared to the federal level of $7.25 per hour, job growth continued, according to a University of California, Berkeley study.

So far, the industry has continued to show job growth. In the first two months after the law passed April 1, the industry gained 8,000 jobs, compared to the same period in 2023, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. No figures were available yet for June.

Joseph Bryant, executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, which pushed for the raise, said the industry has not only added jobs under the new law but “multiple franchisees have also noted that the higher wage is already attracting better job candidates, thus reducing turnover.”

️

There’s no reason to hate the idea of low-income people making more money.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Shift is a labor advocacy organization, so if workers hours were cut or benefits reduced they would report it.

Quoted from your article:



️

There’s no reason to hate the idea of low-income people making more money.

As I said, Shift has an interest in touting positive impacts of the law it advocated for. Readers of the report they produced should understand that. Same holds true for reports produced by the fast food industry that opposed the law.

Also as I noted, the article I shared proved nothing (good or bad) about the statewide impact. It profiles some franchisees, illustrating the choices they are confronting under the new law.

The law has only been in effect for 8 months. We don’t have sufficient data and analysis from any independent sources to draw conclusions at this point in time.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The law has only been in effect for 8 months. We don’t have sufficient data and analysis from any independent sources to draw conclusions at this point in time.

Well, 90 days is the standard for reporting results on Wall Street. Eight months seems reasonable to me.
If that's not reasonable to you, why not share the time period you feel comfortable drawing conclusions from then?
One year?
Five years?
Tell us.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Well, 90 days is the standard for reporting results on Wall Street. Eight months seems reasonable to me.
If that's not reasonable to you, why not share the time period you feel comfortable drawing conclusions from then?
One year?
Five years?
Tell us.

Apples and oranges. Quarterly earnings reports reflect one quarter’s performance, subject to seasonality and external and/or unforeseen events. They may or may not be indicative of a trend. And the reports are subject to accounting standards and independent audits.

I’d like to see a full year minimum with data and analysis produced by independent, reputable sources.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Well, 90 days is the standard for reporting results on Wall Street. Eight months seems reasonable to me.
If that's not reasonable to you, why not share the time period you feel comfortable drawing conclusions from then?
One year?
Five years?
Tell us.

Also worth noting The Shift only looked at April through June. 3 months

 

[Lance_Castro]

$4 is a big raise for the working poor.

What are Rory & Delux doing with all that extra cash?

 

[Comshaw]

Apology accepted. I bet you wish you hadn't slunk out of California now!
Not a lot to do up there in Idaho, I would imagine.
Got enough firewood for the winter yet?
Found a doctor who will take Medicare?

Comshaw

 

[ChinoMoreno]

View attachment 2437523


Comshaw

That invisible man exhibit is dope AF!

 

[icanhelp1]

Apples and oranges. Quarterly earnings reports reflect one quarter’s performance, subject to seasonality and external and/or unforeseen events. They may or may not be indicative of a trend. And the reports are subject to accounting standards and independent audits.

I’d like to see a full year minimum with data and analysis produced by independent, reputable sources.

Quarterly earnings are also measured against estimates and projections.

 

[MajorRewrite]

I’d like to see a full year minimum with data and analysis produced by independent, reputable sources.

It’s fair to say that BabyBoo is highly disappointed by the positive results of the minimum wage increase so far.

 

[Rightguide]

As an aside, the voters in California just rejected an increase in the Minimum Wage in California. So, they see the economic danger of a "living wage" for all workers.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Apples and oranges. Quarterly earnings reports reflect one quarter’s performance, subject to seasonality and external and/or unforeseen events. They may or may not be indicative of a trend. And the reports are subject to accounting standards and independent audits.

I’d like to see a full year minimum with data and analysis produced by independent, reputable sources.

Fair enough, I'll set a reminder for one year. Begun, the fruit salad war has! Game on!

As an aside, I created this thread in response to Rightguide's (Lit's own Chickenshit Little) post from two weeks earlier stating that "teh sky was falling" because the Hoover Institute, Condolleeza Rice's think tank that shares his own preconceived political bias (i.e. "profits > people") , breathlessly announced that fast food jobs were estimated to be in freefall based on one quarter's worth of data.

I will nevar EVAR pass up an opportunity to rub Rightguide's nose in it when my facts are better than his "estimates".

 

[RobDownSouth]

It’s fair to say that BabyBoo is highly disappointed by the positive results of the minimum wage increase so far.

Nah, I think this may be a rare instance where he has a legit point. I'm fine waiting for a year of hard data, if only to make Vetteman/Rightguide look more ignorant.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It’s fair to say that BabyBoo is highly disappointed by the positive results of the minimum wage increase so far.

I don’t believe 3 months worth of questionable data from questionable sources is sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. But if you if you like hanging your hat on that type of game, I’ll play along and share a more recent report from an organization called the Economic Policy Institute that sharply rebuts the reports from The Shift and its sister organization UC Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. Their report shows that 4,400 fast food jobs have been lost (and at a faster rate than full service restaurants) this year, that fast food restaurants have raised menu prices by over 10%, and that 89% have reduced employee hours.

New Policy Brief Proves California’s $20 Fast Food Wage is Costing Jobs, Raising Prices - Employment Policies Institute

I’ll leave it to you to decide what you want to believe. I’m going to wait until there is more complete, unbiased data and analysis before reaching any conclusions.

 

[Comshaw]

Nah, I think this may be a rare instance where he has a legit point. I'm fine waiting for a year of hard data, if only to make Vetteman/Rightguide look more ignorant.

As I said, Shift has an interest in touting positive impacts of the law it advocated for. Readers of the report they produced should understand that. Same holds true for reports produced by the fast food industry that opposed the law.

Also as I noted, the article I shared proved nothing (good or bad) about the statewide impact. It profiles some franchisees, illustrating the choices they are confronting under the new law.

The law has only been in effect for 8 months. We don’t have sufficient data and analysis from any independent sources to draw conclusions at this point in time.

Apples and oranges. Quarterly earnings reports reflect one quarter’s performance, subject to seasonality and external and/or unforeseen events. They may or may not be indicative of a trend. And the reports are subject to accounting standards and independent audits.

I’d like to see a full year minimum with data and analysis produced by independent, reputable sources.

The problem here is this: the doomsayers weren't forecasting a gradual decline, or a boost than a gradual decline, or a small boost than a crash. Ya'll were forecasting a huge crash for both businesses and employees from the git go. That didn't happen. Anyone can go, "Well that doesn't mean anything we should wait X (X being 3,4,5,10,20 years) amount of time before we say it's working.

Why not just admit it's working now (which it is) and if it crashes in a year then one can say, "I told you so!" But they ain't a gunna do that are they? Course not!


Comshaw

 

[MajorRewrite]

I don’t believe 3 months worth of questionable data from questionable sources is sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. But if you if you like hanging your hat on that type of game, I’ll play along and share a more recent report from an organization called the Economic Policy Institute that sharply rebuts the reports from The Shift and its sister organization UC Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. Their report shows that 4,400 fast food jobs have been lost (and at a faster rate than full service restaurants) this year, that fast food restaurants have raised menu prices by over 10%, and that 89% have reduced employee hours.

New Policy Brief Proves California’s $20 Fast Food Wage is Costing Jobs, Raising Prices - Employment Policies Institute

I’ll leave it to you to decide what you want to believe. I’m going to wait until there is more complete, unbiased data and analysis before reaching any conclusions.

Ha. That’s another bullshit “study” that uses data from before the wage increase happened. The “institute” putting out that nonsense should be ashamed, but I suppose it exists solely to feed gullible MAGAs.