Who would have thought this would have happened?
This reminds me of a few years back when Seattle announced $15 minimum wage. The highest in the nation at the time. Conservatives were terrified but had they looked at the data they might have felt different. After all, “facts don’t care about feelings.” We don’t have to speculate about what would happen if minimum wages went up. Every single state in country, along with the Fed has raised min. wage multiple times. We can look at history to see that every time it leads to an improved economy.
So what happened in Seattle? Are all the restuaurants closed? Are low wage workers out of jobs? Has Seattle failed? No quite the opposite. Washington, like all ‘blue’ states has a stronger economy than most other states. That’s why Fox doesn’t talk about it anymore. There was a ‘Foster Freeze’ in Seattle too that conservatives loved to trot out at the time. Forced to close because the mean old government demanded that people pay living wages. Of course we later learned that the owner wasn’t able to retain employees due to poor scheduling, wasn’t paying taxes and wasn’t paying vendors all long before the wage increase. Fox for some reason didn’t provide that update.
And now they have found a new martyr to trot out. Of course this one even admits up front that the restaurant is EXEMPT from the law, and laments that she wasn’t given any warning! Somehow the rest of the nation knew this was happening. It seems the real issue is this: Why on Earth would anybody continue working at Foster Freeze when the Mcdonald’s next door is paying a living wage?
Restaurants are a luxury. Either the pay reflects that and they get paid a decent wage or the market will react somehow.
This was a government action and not a market action. As the article states, the people were happy with their pay. Now they don’t have a job and they are unhappy with their pay. The free market already had this under control.
Everyone’s cost of living has increased post-pandemic, minimum wage need to rise. The restaurant could have raised their price as well but chose not to, either because they think their clientele can’t afford it (increased cost of living, which is what rising the minimum wage can offset), or because the market is already saturated and they’re no longer competitive.
Something/someone has to give in when there’s inequality.
By forcing a higher wage, they just created more inequality. Now these people don’t have jobs and the total number of jobs has been reduced.
And these vacant positions elsewhere also need to pay minimum wage. It’s a temporary setback until the system adjust to the new minimum.
The total job market is reducing. That means there will be fewer jobs. California already has higher unemployment. So they just created a worse situation for these people. The job market for them keep getting smaller.
Your belief in a fair market has you blaming all the wrong people for all the wrong things.
Wages are set by supply and demand. I blame the correct person in this situation. The California government
With the raising cost of living, the job market is going to shrink, minimum wage increase or not. It just means that the more fortunate need to pay more to those who are less fortunate if they want to employ someone.
The market obviously can’t regulate itself correctly and needs a little nudge if someone can’t make a living wage from a full-time job. It’s not normal for someone working their asses off full-time and still barely make ends meet and living in squalor. Someone has to give, and these employees are already giving their fair share, it’s justified to ensure they get their slice of the pie.
If they can’t afford to pay a decent wage, then that job has no reason to exist.
The market obviously can’t regulate itself correctly and needs a little nudge if someone can’t make a living wage from a full-time job.
They were living before and now they have no money. The market was working fine.
ThE fREE mArKeT
“He did blame it on the minimum wage increase. Although, from my understanding, I think we were exempt from it because of the amount of locations that he personally owns. But, he did ultimately blame it on that increase,” she said.
So, this article is about the alleged effects of the California minimum wage increase despite the one piece of evidence not demonstrating the relationship between cause and effect?
This is like saying climate change isn’t happening because the sun is burning hotter with your one piece of evidence being a scientist that says “The sun has nothing to do with climate change,”, and then blatantly insisting that climate change isn’t happening because of the sun.
Article after article say the same thing. This was predicted from the start.
This was predicted from the start.
The economic evidence for minimum wages increases points to either small shocks to low-wage labor and teenagers or no effect at all.
That something was predicted at all is unsurprising. Economist especially have predicted that minimum wages increases will cause hell to break loose since Milton Friedman. But that’s never actually happened, and, as mentioned before, the evidence is that it doesn’t.
So, what’s the magnitude of the negative consequences? No article has (or at this point, can) determine that. That just leaves conservatives with the rhetorical strategy of hyperbole, often emphasizing particularly damaging instances that aren’t representative of the norm. All y’all got is hot air.
Denialism.
Simplistic thinking
Ah yes, an economic expert, a 30 year old who manages a burger shop. I feel like we’re not getting the whole story from the owner. Why would he prefer to close his restaurants entirely over a small increase in costs?
I’ve lived in much smaller areas that have minimum wages of $15 and $18, which is about proportional given the cost of living in CA. Sorry to disrupt the Fox-driven panic but restaurants do still exist and thrive in those cities. The previous minimum wage was $16, also, so while the article wants to make it seem drastic, the increase is really not, especially since many cities already had higher minimums than 16.
Why would he prefer to close his restaurants entirely over a small increase in costs?
The risk is greater than the reward. He didn’t feel he can sustain the business.
Lefties think all business owners are rich. They are not. As such the risk wasn’t worth the reward and he shutdown. A McDonald’s franchisee is closing several McDonald’s because they wouldn’t be profitable.
In the end it’ll mean more people without jobs and the poor will be priced out the labor market.
Your statements have no grounding in logic, history or reality. Check back in 10 years and let me know whether every fast food restaurant in California has closed.
Who says everyone will close? Such a weird argument.
You said paying people enough to afford to live was going to devastate California fast food restaurants. Why will some be able to stay open despite the crushing government regulation that says they have to increase labor expense by 7%? Labor costs are typically about 1/3 of restaurants expenses. Wages are a fraction of that, and as noted, this only applies to businesses that have over 60 establishments nationwide.
