The Economy

[Rightguide]

Long term results are in, via a massive Univ of California Berkely longitudinal study
The two most prominent conclusions of the study:

• Overall, fast food employment did NOT decrease.
• The overall cost to the consumer was SIX CENTS FOR EVERY FOUR DOLLARS SPENT

The study (at the two year anniversary of the law), basically validated the Howard University study done at the one year mark. The one study that Rightguide touted here included here was found to include data from 10 months before the act went into effect. The Hoover Institute (a favorite of MAGA here) formally retracted a study it had previously published when it was found that the author's conclusions were not backed up by verifiable data.

Link here.

Side note to Rightguide: I own you, boy.

“I own you, boy” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for two cherry-picked bullet points. That Berkeley study you’re waving around is one piece of a very contested literature, not a final verdict handed down from Mount Sinai. Other analyses, using different methods and timeframes, have found reduced hours, slower hiring, automation substitution, and compression of entry-level opportunities. “Employment didn’t decrease” in aggregate can easily mask shifts such as fewer workers being scheduled, more kiosks replacing cashiers, or fewer first-time hires getting a foot in the door. And that “six cents per four dollars” line? That’s an average. It doesn’t capture localized spikes, cumulative effects across multiple cost layers, or how small franchise operators absorb (or fail to absorb) higher labor costs. Margins in fast food are thin; costs don’t just disappear because a study smooths them out. “That’s not ‘owning’ me, that’s mistaking a single citation for a brain and hoping no one in your posse notices the difference.

 

[ll74]

“I own you, boy” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for two cherry-picked bullet points. That Berkeley study you’re waving around is one piece of a very contested literature, not a final verdict handed down from Mount Sinai. Other analyses, using different methods and timeframes, have found reduced hours, slower hiring, automation substitution, and compression of entry-level opportunities. “Employment didn’t decrease” in aggregate can easily mask shifts such as fewer workers being scheduled, more kiosks replacing cashiers, or fewer first-time hires getting a foot in the door. And that “six cents per four dollars” line? That’s an average. It doesn’t capture localized spikes, cumulative effects across multiple cost layers, or how small franchise operators absorb (or fail to absorb) higher labor costs. Margins in fast food are thin; costs don’t just disappear because a study smooths them out. “That’s not ‘owning’ me, that’s mistaking a single citation for a brain and hoping no one in your posse notices the difference.

Contested by who?

Source your other studies.

 

[RobDownSouth]

“I own you, boy” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for two cherry-picked bullet points.

The two conclusions I listed above were the end results of the study, not "two cherry-picked bullet points.
I own you, boy.

That Berkeley study you’re waving around is one piece of a very contested literature, not a final verdict handed down from Mount Sinai.

If it's "very contested" as you claim, feel free to link to a study that "contests" it. All I ask is that you provide a study referencing some 2026 data.
Until then, I own you boy.

Other analyses, using different methods and timeframes, have found reduced hours, slower hiring, automation substitution, and compression of entry-level opportunities. “

Irrelevant. YES, fast food restaurants ARE using reduced hours, kiosks, etc. The end result remains unchanged: fast food employment has not decreased.
I own you boy.

Employment didn’t decrease” in aggregate can easily mask shifts such as fewer workers being scheduled, more kiosks replacing cashiers, or fewer first-time hires getting a foot in the door.

Yes I readily admit there could be outliers, but earlier studies you referenced referred to the aggregate fast food employment rate, so I used the same standard that you originally did. Now you want to change the standard to include outliers, because you hope it will support your own conclusion.
I own you, boy.

And that “six cents per four dollars” line? That’s an average. It doesn’t capture localized spikes, cumulative effects across multiple cost layers, or how small franchise operators absorb (or fail to absorb) higher labor costs.

The end result remains unchanged: fast food employment did not decrease as you previously claimed. The six cents for each four dollars trivial increase in the aggregate completely destroys your conclusion that "prices will skyrocket and employment will fall".
I own you boy.

Margins in fast food are thin; costs don’t just disappear because a study smooths them out. “That’s not ‘owning’ me, that’s mistaking a single citation for a brain and hoping no one in your posse notices the difference.

I recognized that fast food margins are thing. and I did not state that the costs would "disappear". The study I linked to definitively showed that the cost of a $20 per hour fast food wage increase was, in fact, trivial. Your "sky is falling" narrative is completely invalid.
I own you boy.

 

[SebastianHolt]

"I followed him out to the car with my pussy burning with excitement!"

When I Became A Hotwife - SebastianHolt

Does the woman in your story have a STD?

what a bad little stalker you are

 

[SebastianHolt]

The two conclusions I listed above were the end results of the study, not "two cherry-picked bullet points.
I own you, boy.


If it's "very contested" as you claim, feel free to link to a study that "contests" it. All I ask is that you provide a study referencing some 2026 data.
Until then, I own you boy.


Irrelevant. YES, fast food restaurants ARE using reduced hours, kiosks, etc. The end result remains unchanged: fast food employment has not decreased.
I own you boy.


Yes I readily admit there could be outliers, but earlier studies you referenced referred to the aggregate fast food employment rate, so I used the same standard that you originally did. Now you want to change the standard to include outliers, because you hope it will support your own conclusion.
I own you, boy.


The end result remains unchanged: fast food employment did not decrease as you previously claimed. The six cents for each four dollars trivial increase in the aggregate completely destroys your conclusion that "prices will skyrocket and employment will fall".
I own you boy.


I recognized that fast food margins are thing. and I did not state that the costs would "disappear". The study I linked to definitively showed that the cost of a $20 per hour fast food wage increase was, in fact, trivial. Your "sky is falling" narrative is completely invalid.
I own you boy.

cost of labor goes up for fast food enterprises, say hello to Mr. Robot burger flipper

 

[PersonalFavors]

Personalfavors, as a producer I have very little control on the price of beef. Also I have little control on the inflated cost of beef. That said, I'll qualify my statement.....
Neary all commodities and the prices of commodities are controlled by Chicago mercantile/Chicago board of trade and the London metals exchange. Yes I have a small amount of control over my consumables. However the price the public pays for nearly all commodities are controlled by a handful of people, and are heavily manipulated using "future contracts", with short selling these evil motherfuckers daisy chain the contracts manipulating the cost of your consumables to the edge of affordability.....what would serve you well in the understanding of this shitfuckery, is to research commodity markets and understand future's trading.....
A side note, these evil sons of bitchs have been doing this from the beginning of time. They are parasites, they absolutely produce nothing but misery ......

This is an AI quote, so dumbed down to protect the obiden regime.

Beef prices during the Biden administration reached record highs primarily due to a 70-year low in U.S. cattle inventory (2025), driven by severe drought, high feed/fuel costs, and pandemic-related supply chain bottlenecks, leading to panic selling of cattle herds. While inflationary pressure increased input costs, the market was also shaped by severe industry concentration (four companies control ~85% of processing) and labor shortages.

Inventory, artificial inflation and bottlenecks can all be overcome. Does the beef industry actually like selling less beef for high prices? Or will we be able to enjoy beef again? Previously he obummer regime made healthcare unattainable and we don't have that back yet either.

 

[Rightguide]

The two conclusions I listed above were the end results of the study, not "two cherry-picked bullet points.
I own you, boy.


If it's "very contested" as you claim, feel free to link to a study that "contests" it. All I ask is that you provide a study referencing some 2026 data.
Until then, I own you boy.


Irrelevant. YES, fast food restaurants ARE using reduced hours, kiosks, etc. The end result remains unchanged: fast food employment has not decreased.
I own you boy.


Yes I readily admit there could be outliers, but earlier studies you referenced referred to the aggregate fast food employment rate, so I used the same standard that you originally did. Now you want to change the standard to include outliers, because you hope it will support your own conclusion.
I own you, boy.


The end result remains unchanged: fast food employment did not decrease as you previously claimed. The six cents for each four dollars trivial increase in the aggregate completely destroys your conclusion that "prices will skyrocket and employment will fall".
I own you boy.


I recognized that fast food margins are thing. and I did not state that the costs would "disappear". The study I linked to definitively showed that the cost of a $20 per hour fast food wage increase was, in fact, trivial. Your "sky is falling" narrative is completely invalid.
I own you boy.

You keep repeating “I own you, boy” like it’s a conclusion. It isn’t, it’s a substitute for one. You say those are the “end results,” not cherry-picked points. Fine, but summarizing a complex study into two favorable lines is cherry-picking if you ignore the margins of error, the methodology, and the competing findings. A conclusion isn’t stronger just because you repeat it louder.

On the “very contested” point: the literature didn’t suddenly begin in 2026, and it doesn’t become invalid because it predates your preferred dataset by a year or two. Research on minimum wage effects spans decades, with credible economists on both sides using modern data and different identification strategies. Demanding only studies stamped “2026” isn’t rigor; it’s your filter designed to avoid inconvenient evidence.

You also call reduced hours, automation, and hiring slowdowns “irrelevant,” which is where your argument really falls completely apart. Those are labor market outcomes. If total headcount holds steady while hours shrink or entry-level access tightens, that’s not a neutral result; it’s a shift in how employment is distributed. Aggregate employment is a blunt instrument; it can stay flat while opportunity erodes underneath it.

On “changing standards”: no, this is about not pretending one metric tells the whole story. You’re clinging to a single top-line number because it’s clean and convenient, not because it’s comprehensive.

As for prices, calling an average increase “trivial” doesn’t make it universally trivial. Averages compress variation. Some operators absorb costs, some pass them on, some cut elsewhere. That dispersion is the point; you’re smoothing it away to preserve a neat narrative.

And finally, the study you’re leaning on doesn’t “definitively prove” what you think it does. Social science rarely deals in definitive proofs; it deals in estimates, assumptions, and confidence intervals. Treating one study as the final word isn’t confidence, it’s leftist rubber room overreach.

If you want to argue the policy works, make the case across the full set of evidence and trade-offs. But repeating a slogan after every paragraph doesn’t strengthen your position; it just advertises that you’re more interested in declaring victory than actually defending it.

 

[MajorRewrite]

You keep repeating “I own you, boy” like it’s a conclusion. It isn’t, it’s a substitute for one. You say those are the “end results,” not cherry-picked points. Fine, but summarizing a complex study into two favorable lines is cherry-picking if you ignore the margins of error, the methodology, and the competing findings. A conclusion isn’t stronger just because you repeat it louder.

On the “very contested” point: the literature didn’t suddenly begin in 2026, and it doesn’t become invalid because it predates your preferred dataset by a year or two. Research on minimum wage effects spans decades, with credible economists on both sides using modern data and different identification strategies. Demanding only studies stamped “2026” isn’t rigor; it’s your filter designed to avoid inconvenient evidence.

You also call reduced hours, automation, and hiring slowdowns “irrelevant,” which is where your argument really falls completely apart. Those are labor market outcomes. If total headcount holds steady while hours shrink or entry-level access tightens, that’s not a neutral result; it’s a shift in how employment is distributed. Aggregate employment is a blunt instrument; it can stay flat while opportunity erodes underneath it.

On “changing standards”: no, this is about not pretending one metric tells the whole story. You’re clinging to a single top-line number because it’s clean and convenient, not because it’s comprehensive.

As for prices, calling an average increase “trivial” doesn’t make it universally trivial. Averages compress variation. Some operators absorb costs, some pass them on, some cut elsewhere. That dispersion is the point; you’re smoothing it away to preserve a neat narrative.

And finally, the study you’re leaning on doesn’t “definitively prove” what you think it does. Social science rarely deals in definitive proofs; it deals in estimates, assumptions, and confidence intervals. Treating one study as the final word isn’t confidence, it’s leftist rubber room overreach.

If you want to argue the policy works, make the case across the full set of evidence and trade-offs. But repeating a slogan after every paragraph doesn’t strengthen your position; it just advertises that you’re more interested in declaring victory than actually defending it.

Just accept that you were wrong about the impact of the fast food minimum wage hike in California and move on. Your attempt to spin spin spin your way out of it is dumb.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Beef prices during the Biden administration reached record highs primarily due to a 70-year low in U.S. cattle inventory (2025)

Who was president in 2025? Hint: not Biden.

 

[PersonalFavors]

Who was president in 2025? Hint: not Biden.

The low was caused by the biden regime. The beef prices are still climbing higher and higher today. Which is why we are talking about this.
Why is the beef industry keeping the price high? How long until they recover from the foolishness of the biden regime? It was not only inflation that jacked the price up.

 

[RoryN]

The low was caused by the biden regime.

The above user is a Deplorable who's into underage sex:

I like that you thought my dick pic was underage!

Context: https://forum.literotica.com/threads/cock-talk.1548444/post-94708721

He is 15...The stepmom is super hot. He got to live a fantasy!

Context: https://forum.literotica.com/threads/is-this-incest.1641186/

Dude. This is not allowed. You need to edit your comment to comply with the rules of the forum. Underage anything is a HUGE NO in these places.

ok. Sorry.

Context: https://forum.literotica.com/threads/cock-talk.1548444/post-94675428

 

[SebastianHolt]

Who was president in 2025? Hint: not Biden.

we need the price of beef to rise so that Democrats can't afford it

 

[MajorRewrite]

The low was caused by the biden regime.

Don’t make things up. It just highlights your ignorance.

 

[ll74]

This is an AI quote, so dumbed down to protect the obiden regime.

Beef prices during the Biden administration reached record highs primarily due to a 70-year low in U.S. cattle inventory (2025), driven by severe drought, high feed/fuel costs, and pandemic-related supply chain bottlenecks, leading to panic selling of cattle herds. While inflationary pressure increased input costs, the market was also shaped by severe industry concentration (four companies control ~85% of processing) and labor shortages.

Inventory, artificial inflation and bottlenecks can all be overcome. Does the beef industry actually like selling less beef for high prices? Or will we be able to enjoy beef again? Previously he obummer regime made healthcare unattainable and we don't have that back yet either.

Weird enough, your source leaves out disease, which is the primary reason for low inventory.

 

[Lazaran]

Drought (obviously related to climate change) is the primary cause of low beef cattle herds and high beef prices:

Search Assist

Yes, drought is a primary cause of low beef cattle herds and high beef prices, as it has led to significant herd liquidation and reduced forage availability for cattle. This ongoing drought has resulted in the U.S. cattle herd shrinking to its lowest level in decades, driving up prices due to decreased supply.

 

[PersonalFavors]

Weird enough, your source leaves out disease, which is the primary reason for low inventory.

In the US it was not. They claimed severe drought conditions and reduced the legal size of herd per acre. Severely culling herds o small farms no where near a drought issue. Blanket stupidity put us in this situation.
So far the cattle industry seems to like the high prices and the liberals here and like you see the reduction in consumption some kind of success. I just want to be free to eat beef and have the choices I had before. In my area the "rancher" branded beef at Harris Teeter was generally the best you could find. For Strips and Rib Eye's which I most frequented I preferred their "Angus" label. The Blue wrapper at Giant stores is better than the black label. Their gold label is marked Prime but I never paid for it so do not know if it tastes any better. I would sometimes eat Sirloin from Safeway. Never cared for Food Lion beef. We have Wegman's here. Before I lived in Virginia where a large % of beef must be local, I enjoyed their always fair priced Montana Beef. Now their prices are generally higher than I pay. The large Sirloin cuts that are still the Montana beef I do enjoy. Their Chuck and Round roasts are still fairly flavorful, but not what they were.
Very little if any of the high beef costs in the US we are experiencing now are from disease.

 

[PersonalFavors]

Drought (obviously related to climate change) is the primary cause of low beef cattle herds and high beef prices:

Search Assist

Yes, drought is a primary cause of low beef cattle herds and high beef prices, as it has led to significant herd liquidation and reduced forage availability for cattle. This ongoing drought has resulted in the U.S. cattle herd shrinking to its lowest level in decades, driving up prices due to decreased supply.

Drought in the obummer and obiden regime's was their version of climate bullshit used to jack up costs.

 

[Lazaran]

Drought in the obummer and obiden regime's was their version of climate bullshit used to jack up costs.

PersonalFailures’ posts need a MAGAt to English translator.



PersonalFailures



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[justawnnabewriter]

The economy is doing well. Tomorrow im looking at rental condos and some town homes

 

[heathrowinneo]

When Americans have to decide between feeding their families, getting medical care and insurance coverage, the economy is having some faltering issues. Airlines are asking for financial help thanks to the ill-thought out war and its consequences. Inflationary measures are growing and affordability issues are hurting too many.

 

[coati]

The economy will be the demise of the MAGA cult at the polls. Republicans promising to be the saviors of working class economics was ludicrous from the beginning, but the Pig somehow got Amerikan suckers to fall for that con.

I still have to give the Pig credit for raising the price of petroleum products, LNG, and beef. This will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Give credit where credit is due.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Europe de-riskig from the US Finanacial System

Europe is not announcing a break with America. ESMA is warning that elevated US-driven equity valuations could expose European markets to disorderly corrections.

It is doing something more consequential: quietly building redundancy across finance, defense, energy, and infrastructure before the next shock hits.

ESMA is warning that elevated US-driven equity valuations could expose European markets to disorderly corrections.
European investors hold trillions in US equities and debt, making American market instability a direct EU financial risk.
Europe’s Hormuz coalition shows the same logic at sea: critical infrastructure security without US command.
NATO’s reported shift from Boeing to Saab signals a broader move toward European defense suppliers.
France and Poland’s nuclear discussions point to a European deterrence framework less dependent on Washington.
ECB officials are openly discussing ways to reduce reliance on dollar-dominated financial systems.
The pattern is not panic — it is strategic insulation from American volatility.

 

[ChloeTzang]

World Leaders SHUT DOWN Trump in MAJOR POWER SHIFT!!!

Trump has pushed Europe into re-asserting itself

 

[ChloeTzang]

Canada DELIVERS MAJOR BLOW to Trump’s END GAME!!

Bombast, ignorance and thrests from the USA on trade with Canada - Trump gangster regime demanding pay to play - says Canada "the nastiest people we've ever dealt with."

 

[ChloeTzang]

World Cup Mess WORSENS As U.S. Gets Slapped With Travel Warning​

Trump's screwed the expected tourist boom associated with the World Cup, turning it into a non-event. It's not like soccer is that big in the USA...