California Fast Food Restaurants have cut 10,000 jobs since $20 Minimum Wage

When this is coming from the Gov himself, might want to fact check him since they have reason to lie.

Gov. Newsom’s Office Continues to Fib About Fast Food Job Losses – Claims Job Gains – California Globe

“The BLS statistics show that there have been fast food job losses in 6 of 7 months,” Paxton said. “The net numbers show January through today, 3,000 fast food jobs lost in California.”

 

Your highly biased link shows that California added about 4000 fast food jobs between July 2023 and July 2024.

 

California keeps adding more fast food jobs | Governor of California

 

Pivot to "all chicom puppet socialist nazis give us are fast food jobs instead of 'real jobs'" in 3... 2... 1...

 

1 month. It's like you are being purposely obtuse in not posting that CA did in fact lose fast food jobs as shown below:

 

Yeah, that data is not accurate. The data is from BLS. California employment for limited service restaurants and other eating places:

January 2024: 724,900
July 2024: 750,500 (Preliminary)

Feel free to search it yourself.

One-Screen Data Search

 

No, I only pointed out that your link shows that CA added about 4000 fast food jobs between Jul 2023 and Jul 2024. You disagree with that? Look at your link.

 

Ah, cherry picking. Got it.

 

Using your numbers it appears that fast food employment is flat since the law went into effect April 1. Even using your timeframe of the entire year you’re talking about a decrease of 0.37% which is nothing. Obviously the law hasn’t drastically affected employment like was claimed.

 

1. there is not much of a way to make this claim. the notion that quantity demanded decreases as price increases is based on holding EVERYTHING else equal. it may have had a large effect

2. we know that elasticity of demand is much greater in the long run than in the short run

3. I suspect in some cities it didn't matter at all as $20 < than the mkt wage.

counter forces to inc in min wage leading to a decrease in employment.
1. a lot of people who eat fast food are low wage workers. When wages go up, they have more money which can lead to more demand - & of course that $20 min wage for FF workers would inc the wages of most non FF low wage earners

2. related to 1. We know the wage inc, inc prices. For many folks, FF is probably an inferior good. That means as their income goes up, demand for it goes down & vice versa. An increase in FF prices would shrink people's real incomes & could lead to them eating more FF. This is a strange case where FF could actually be a Giffen good....a good that has an upward sloping demand curve. [technical aside - this can only happen when the income effect > the substitution effect]. Back to all else equal; some economists found quinine water to be a Giffen good for rats. QW was a strongly inferior good for rats who much preferred Root Beer. being an inferior good is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for being a Giffen good. So, they kept bumping the price of quinine water to the pt where rats real income decreased so that they actually had to drink more of the inferior good despite it's inc in price.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006656

 

Well sure, if cherry picking is presenting data that shows the whole premise of this thread is incorrect, then it's cherry picking.

 

The contention was that it was going to cause mass fast food layoffs. We haven’t seen that before or subsequent to enacting the law. It’s remained quite stable. Could other areas have “absorbed” the effect? Sure, maybe the owner is taking a little less profit, or the menus prices have increased $0.10, etc. but loss of jobs has not manifested. This is unsurprising since other locations globally operate fast food restaurants with commensurate wages and lower menu prices than we see in the US.

I think what I find most amusing about this situation is that the same people that dismiss fast food jobs as inconsequential are now overly concerned with their loss.

 

the contention is bad econ. The contention should have been that there will be less FF employment with the inc in min wage (assuming it is even binding) then there would be without it. That would require 2 Californias not a before/after comparison.

It's like man made global warming. You could have global temps increasing & have MM GW & you could have temps decreasing & have MM global warming. This is 1 of many reasons I've never understood why this debate has placed so much weight on real world empirical evidence.

 

Simply compare the employment situation of FF workers in CA to another similar industry, or better yet an index of several similar industries. There are lots of ways to identify trends that do not require 2 states of California to exist.

 

I would think that it is way too early to draw conclusions one way or the other just yet.

There’s a lot of ways to cut costs along with modest increase in prices in the short term. Once more data is available on consumption and more kiosks are installed, we will get a much better idea of what the impact was.

I don’t expect a massive shift one way or the other.

 

Shake Shack to shut 6 California locations, including 5 in LA, after state’s $20 minimum wage hike

Shake Shack to shut 6 California locations after state's $20 minimum wage hike (nypost.com)

 

So the Author added line about wage increase not the Co?

Their statement on closing 9 read after reviewing portfolio, these were not likely to be profitable for the foreseeable future….

Could be related or could be LA

 

I remember the doom and gloom from a decade or so ago from the right when Seattle voted for a $15 minimum wage and turns out the apocalypse never came. There were several studies that followed the increase an its impacts. The righties are doing nothing bu

 

Given the source of the article I'm going to assume they didn't speak about the locations in other states with a lower minimum wage that are also closing

 

Holy shinola, man! This is huge news.