California's $20 Fast Food Minimum Wage Law Is Already Having Disastrous Unintended Consequences
Many have seen their hours reduced—or have lost their jobs entirely.

California now leads the nation in imposing dumb wage laws.
The state just raised the hourly minimum wage for fast food workers to $20.
Gov. Gavin Newsom said, "We saw the inequities….We had a responsibility to do more."
Unions pushed for the higher minimum, and in Democrat-run states, unions usually get what they want.
CNN announced, "Half a million California fast food workers will now earn $20 per hour."
Gullible leftists at the Center for American Progress claim, "A higher minimum wage would boost millions of families out of poverty and further stimulate the economy."
Yippee! It's a happy cycle! Win-win.
But wait, if it's win-win, why just make the minimum $20? Why not $30? Or $100?
Because government requiring higher wages is not a win-win.
Interfering with market prices always creates nasty unintended consequences.
Frederic Bastiat, in his work "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen," points out that there are always seen and unseen consequences when government force impacts economic decisions. "Almost always," he wrote, "the immediate consequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are fatal."
In this case, the immediate consequence is that existing workers get a raise. Great. That's the seen. That's what the media, unions, and Center for American Progress see. But the unseen effect is bigger, and worse:
No. 1: Thousands of Californians have already lost jobs because some restaurants closed. Others lost income because their employer cut worker hours. The chain El Pollo Loco cut employees' hours by 10 percent.
Pizza Hut announced that they will lay off more than a thousand delivery drivers. One such driver, Michael Ojeda, understandably asked, "What's the point of a raise if you don't have a job?"
No. 2: Workers who still have jobs will lose them because now their employers have more incentive to automate. Chipotle just created a robot that makes burrito bowls. Even CNN acknowledged, "Some restaurants are replacing [fast food workers] with kiosks."
No. 3: Prices go up.
The day Newsom signed the bill, he was asked, "Can Californians expect the prices of their McDonald's and Starbucks to go up?"
Newsom deceitfully replied, "I've heard that rhetoric before. And it didn't happen!"
Nonsense. It did happen. It always happens when government forces wage increases. In this case, Starbucks prices have increased as much as 15 percent. Customers will pay about $200 per year more for their coffee. A chicken burrito at Chipotle will cost up to 8 percent more.
No. 4: Perhaps the worst unseen harm from minimum wage laws is that young and unskilled people won't even be hired. They won't gain valuable experience from a first job at a fast food restaurant.
In 2014, when Seattle politicians raised the minimum wage to $15, I asked some teenagers what a higher minimum wage could do for them.
"Minimum wage actually hurts my chances of getting employed," said one, Rigel Noble-Koza. "If I cost more, why would a company take a risk on hiring me? They'll hire the worker with more experience instead."
Another, Dillon Hodes, talked about his friend who had fast work but got her hours cut because "she was young and inexperienced."
Of course, these students were unusual. They were finalists in a Stossel in the Classroom contest. They are not economically ignorant. They knew to look for the unseen.
If only politicians were that smart.
Government price fixing like minimum wage laws hurt the young and the poor, the very people these laws are supposed to help.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Looks like early retirement for sarc.
I hope he sticks around long enough for the AI sammich making robot to show him what a Cuban is.
Sarc is incapable of truly knowing The Cuban.
Twat we need is guaranteed-minimum-votes laws so as to get Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer His Lost Erections back!!! AND His Spermy Daniels back ass well!!! Minimum porn-star-actress-access laws are needed NOW!!! There's a deprived and depraved, needy politician in YOUR area RIGHT NOW!
The way things are right now…. SHIT’S SNOT FAIR!!!!!
Seriously? The first thing that comes to your mind in response to this article is an attack on trump?
Face it, he lives in your head rent free.
Seriously? The first thing that comes to your mind in responce to this article is an attack on Sarcasmic?
Face it, he lives in your head rent free.
He's best on mute.
LOL@ your mute
I don't mute people all that much.
The first two things that came to your mind was pointless drivel.
The first thing that comes to your mind in responce to this article is an attack on Sarcasmic?
For a lot of the people in the comments "attack sarcasmic" the very first thing that pops into their head when they wake up in the morning.
Awe, poor sarc.
Jeff needs to up his game.
It’s fair since sarcasmic posts the same strawman/gibberish in every Stossel article – “Stossel, dont bother! Everyone here hates you because trump!”
Expressing concern for his employment prospects is not an attack.
1 JUNE, 2024 UPDATE: Without warning, Rubio’s has announced the closure of 48 of its California restaurants. 37 are in Southern CA.
The company cites California’s business climate as the primary factor for these closures.
Rubio’s ran into financial problems with COVID, closing some outlets. But this latest cutback is attributed to the anti-business, anti-customer CA state (and perhaps local) policies.
https://www.ocregister.com/2024/06/03/rubios-closes-48-restaurants-in-california-citing-business-climate/
CA already has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. A spring wave of CA eateries closing will further solidify CA as the unemployment capital of the nation.
So, naturally, many Democrats are looking to Governor Newsom as their Presidential candidate.
Failing upwards.
UPDATE: California has solidified its position as the nation's WORST unemployment state. It's worse in April, 2024 than the previous month -- BEFORE the $20 minimum CA food service wage mandate went into effect.
The CA unemployment rate is now 61% higher than the median state.
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
“Unintended”
Cite?
It's not so much that the consequences are unforeseeable or even unintended. It's that the workers are considered inconsequential, so it doesn't matter to the ruling class, despite everything they may say.
Gavin Newsom is not often dining at El Pollo Loco, and on the rare occasion that he does, for a photo-op or event, the added expense and reduced service isn't really even a bother to him, if he even does his own ordering.
The phrase "unintended consequences" is commonly used in these situations. Has been for a long time.
No shit Sherlock.
Yes, but the consequences listed by Stossel are so obvious, well known, and predictable, that "unintended consequences" is an inappropriate phrase in this context.
You're that guy who over analyzes every turn of phrase and thinks it's funny. Sometimes a turn of phrase is used so we don't have to use an entire paragraph to explain things.
The thing is, because laws like this were passed by government officials so many times, you'd think they'd know better by now. Yet they still continue to pursue this. Is it really unintended by this point?
Government interference in the economy is pure fascism.
Shush now, you’ll hurt sarc’s feelings.
Can you name one country on the planet that has a purely capitalist economy? Most countries have blends of capitalism and socialism. The percentage of each in the economy defines the country's economy.
Right, and our country is increasing the amount of fascist policies at an alarming rate, and assholes like you support it “for the greater good”.
Which is why if I ever get my hands on a time machine, I'm sailing right back past Mao, Milk, Stalin, Hitler, and Sanger - and I'm going to kick FDR's dad in the nuts so hard it'll sterilize him.
If you ever find that time machine, you're probably going to have to stand in line regarding FDR parents.
"Can you name one country on the planet that has a purely capitalist economy?"
Steaming piles of lefty shit believe it to be an argument that most all other countries are screwed, so why not join them.
Perhaps my estimate of IQ=80 was entirely too generous.
The minimum wage for Democratic Party campaign volunteers is $0.00 per hour.
Compensation should be whatever the two parties, employer and employee, agree to. The government should not get involved unless one party does not satisfy their obligation of the contract.
The Libertarian candidate for president disagrees with us.
https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/chase-oliver/policies/economic/minimum-wage
The fudge lord is not libertarian.
That isn't what your link says.
Here's an actual statement from him regarding minimum wage:
https://x.com/ChaseForLiberty/status/1420181478747553794
Shows you the people who voted chase are standard Dems on the issue.
Weird he doesn't answer that specific question though.
That is what people who voted for him said, not his position. I don't think he was a good pick, but it's probably better to criticize him for positions he actually takes.
Don't forget that every dollar increase in minimum wages is 15 cents into FICA coffers right off the top. Plus California gets its various state and local head taxes. Something like 19% of the $20 hourly pay is going directly to governments. Some of that will ultimately get back to the worker via income tax refunds and EITC if they qualify.
Too bad their hours got cut.
I’m not sure if it’s still the case, haven’t looked into it in awhile, but many union contracts are tied to minimum wage, such as “minimum wage plus X”, which is why unions always support minimum wage increases.
Yes, when the minimum is raised, every classification above it has to be bumped up to preserve pay differentials. If the assistant manager makes the same as a newly hired burger flipper, then no one has incentive to accept the extra responsibility that comes with a promotion.
Plus, sales taxes go up if the restaurant raises food prices to cover the higher wages.
Where CA cashes in on a min-wage increase is the reduction in what they’re paying those people in public assistance.
For every $1 of increased gross income for a fast food worker, if they’re not a teenager living with parents they’re probably losing between $0.85-$1.10 in public assistance benefits (everything from SNAP/EBT, rent subsidy, subsidized utilities, government-paid internet and phone service, EITC, child-care subsidy, transit pass discounts, and god knows what else) plus paying at least $0.08-0.11 in taxes.
Someone should also let the “Center for American Progress” know that in the one-party land of “Progressive” governance, it’ll take at least 100 hours of work per week (more than three “part time” jobs if the employers are keeping their min-wage staff under the 30 hour per week limit that Obama instituted as the new threshold at which they’re required to provide health insurance) at $20/hour to get a household to the “poverty line” for one person in any of California’s major cities, and that’s before the cost of living increases resulting from this inflationary policy set in.
Any family that’s “lifted out of poverty” by this increase in fast food wages alone will have to be busting their collective asses.
None of those results were unintended.
Since we can't read minds to know what was actually intended in the passing of these idiotic laws the phrase "unintended consequences"" is the polite wording used. Much like the word "aledged" when dealing with people who have yet to be convicted. Even if you have the murder on video we still call the defendant an "aledged murderer" because we can't read the mind of the defendant.
“we still call the defendant an “aledged murderer” because we can’t read the mind of the defendant.”
Huh? Where the fuck did you pick up this barracks lawyer knowledge?
Pulled it out of his ass.
Oh look at that. You're operating in good faith. How cute. And quaint.
It’s always hard to predict how sarc is going to react to skepticism of government.
HAHAHA, just kidding! It’s super easy to tell how sarc’s going to react: Who’s involved.
Always has praise for his socks.
Mike, is this your new name?
Let's make this real to our governmental leaders. Ask them--what would you do if we raised all government employees' wages to $20/40/60/80 or 100/hour? Every single one.
What would happen to the budget that you make? Would your expenses increase at all? How would you find the money to accommodate that increased wage? Would you cut things in the budget, or would you raise taxes--or create a deficit?
It's obvious that these people are fools just trying to buy votes.
"create a deficit"
That's it. There's no limit to how much money they can create.
Yep, AOC, "you just print the money."
Well, until the currency becomes devalued and worthless and your economy crashes.
While $20/hour may seem high many of the fast-food restaurants in my city, Madison, are advertising more than $15/ hour, so it is not that much more. I also don't see a lot of young people working at the fast-food places, more likely immigrants. I suspect that some people will initially be laid off but will be rehired as workers are needed. Prices will also rise but what does it say about the business model if a company needs workers at sub-poverty wages to be able to stay in business. I don't like to see the government involved, but if the government is providing assistance to low wage workers, then it is involved anyway.
so it is not that much more.
I can see you never ran a business, and never could.
I don’t think it ties its own shoelaces.
…best of intentions. These jobs traditionally were mostly staffed by youth that didn’t have much of a skillset to work at a more demanding and compensatory job while introducing them to things like customer service, work ethic, showing up on time, workplace culture, receiving a paycheck, etc. It is best to keep government out of it. Customers and employers find more affordable alternatives to government meddling.
"...Prices will also rise but what does it say about the business model if a company needs workers at sub-poverty wages to be able to stay in business..."
^ This is what a sub-80 IQ gets you.
What does it say about a community that it has persons willing to work at sub-poverty wages? ?
What does it say about your gullibility that you give any credibility to the bullshit notion of “sub poverty wages”?
You can’t raise a family on McD’s wages? The horror! Lol.
What does it say about the business?
There’s an adage that you get to pick two of the following: Fast, Cheap, and Good.
The fast food industry has always been Fast and Cheap. When the government starts pulling levers like this to change the pricing, it means “Cheap” is threatened—the entire business model is threatened.
"will be rehired as workers are needed."
They will NOT be needed if sales drop because some customers can't or won't pay the higher prices.
Most of the fast-food places I see are looking for workers not laying them off.
Enjoy your $100 fast-food lunch idiot.
Don't come crying for MORE 'armed-theft' when it drains your account.
Will cry about "corporate greed" even though the business is making a smaller profit margin than ever before.
They will not be rehired because they will have been replaced with automation. Burger-flipping robots, burrito-making robots. The store will have one person in it to keep an eye on the robots.
Wrong on all counts. The people initially laid off stay laid off because the companies either go out of business, automate or shift more work onto the remaining workers. There is no rehiring because the workers are not needed at that price point.
Those wages are not “sub-poverty” because they are not and were never intended to be the sole full-time wages sufficient to support a family. Entry level wages are what you earn when you bring essentially no skills to the transaction. In other words, new workers who are still living with their parents or family members wanting some incremental income. Your understanding of “business model” is laughably deficient.
But feel free to prove us wrong. Start up your own business and pay your workers whatever you think is a "fair" wage. Come back and tell us how it worked out.
"workers at sub-poverty wages"
2024 Poverty Guidelines: 48 Contiguous States (all states except Alaska and Hawaii)
Family Size: 1
$ 15,060.00
For 40hr work week working 50 weeks in the year, the poverty wage is $7.53.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/7240229f28375f54435c5b83a3764cd1/detailed-guidelines-2024.pdf
Ignoring, of course, the fact that these sorts of jobs have always been relegated to teenagers wanting gas money, retirees who need a little extra, and a few losers who still live in their mom's basement. Democrats pretend that these are supposed to be lifestyle-elevating careers instead of part-tie jobs that are held for a year or two before moving up in the world, leveraging the positive experience gains.
The real "poverty line" in CA is a hell of a lot higher than $15k/year.
Average rent on a studio apartment (if you can find one) in L.A. comes out to almost $20k/year. There are people living in cars or vans in L.A. who probably make $40-50k; those people could be homeowners in States like Indiana and Kentucky if they were willing to get a "fixer" in a rural area.
I'm guessing that the cost of living in Madison isn't so high that the local "poverty line" for a single person requires a wage of more than $50/hr working 40 hour weeks with no unpaid time off to stay on the "happy side" of it. That's the case in L.A. and SF metro areas, probably San Diego as well; half the population of the state lives in the L.A. area, and probably another 15-20% in the Bay Area.
To put it another way, grossing $800/week in an area where the median studio apartment costs $1600/month (which means a "move in" cost of $4-5k) isn't getting anyone out of a hole, and if the company isn't looking to spring for health insurance for high-turnover workers, they're not grossing more than $600/week thanks to Obamacare rules (unless those rules got repealed and it didn't make the news).
There's a reason that the main reason businesses aren't fleeing CA at a high rate is that the ones who could move already did so 20+ years ago. Service sector work in L.A. can't be done from Vegas or Phoenix the same way that so many other kinds of work can be.
"...One, Michael Ojeda—a delivery driver who was laid off by the company—understandably asked, "What's the point of a raise if you don't have a job?"..."
In response: Who did you vote for?
I was going to ask Mikey the same thing.
What is "minimum wage" anyways?
It's *demanded* by government.
Governments only asset is 'Gun-Force' (only separating it from any other entity).
So "minimum wage" broken down into its details is literally a massive gang of gun-packing employee's walking into all businesses demanding MORE $.
No. The employer cannot just fire all these criminal gangsters because the employer cannot fire the government. He is literally gunned into submission by the State.
This is criminal submission (i.e. woke ?justice?).
That day the government started working for criminals.
Anyone with the assets and cash to get into a fast food franchise in CA could easily leave the State and open some kind of business (maybe even another FF franchise) in another State with a less punitive business climate (Nevada and Arizona are popular choices for the thousands of such employers who have fled the state in the last several decades).
They can't fire all government, but the can "fire" the CA State Government, at least if their general work force is low-skilled and can be replaced by almost any new person with minimal training.
I've worked at more than one employer who has tried to get out of CA, but can't (or won't) incentivize enough of their critical high-skilled/high-knowledge employees to leave the area; one of those attempts might have contributed significantly to the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia.
In Silicon Valley, fast food jobs were already paying 22 bucks an hour, with a signing bonus and 401k, just to get employees.
Sounds sustainable
In Silicon Valley, someone making $22/hr would have to find a roommate to afford a sublet on a refrigerator box.
Stossel still thinks these results were unintentional.
Keep losing with dignity!
Note that Cal's $20 min-wage is targeted at "national" chains. This is clearly an attempt to favor California businesses (such as the infamously exempt Panera chain) over businesses HQ'd outside Cal.
I think there's probably an interstate commerce case here.
And yes, that means most of the adverse consequences were quite intentional.
SCOTUS needs to rule that Fed/National grants to CA (or any other state) is UN-Constitutional; because it is.
CA would’ve eaten itself a long time ago if the Socialists didn’t take everything National/Federal. ‘Gun’ consumption is completely UN-sustainable and it’s also the reason socialists push so hard to take their ‘armed-theft’ National. More to consume till their zero-sum resources well runs dry.
Then, as demonstrated by history, the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] (who kid themselves into thinking ‘Guns’ make sh*t) start conquering other nations for resources or they start committing genocide to preserve as much as they can at the end of their zero-sum criminal game.
There really is a direct link between a ‘socialist’ and a ‘armed-robbing’ criminal.
Both selfish/greedily pursue their 'Demands' without any acknowledgement of the 'Supply'.
Literally 'hating' that 'Supply' in the USA to justify their 'armed-theft'.
The threshold was set at number of locations within the state. It's as binding on In-N-Out as it is on Burger King. In-N-Out was probably already paying $20/hr or more at most of their locations in the state anyway.
Also, Newsom ended up having to shitcan the Panera (whose HQ is in St Louis, and original location is in Kirkwood, MO) exemption when the news decided to cover the fact that more than half of the CA franchises of that chain are owned by a major donor who's been a close personal friend of his going back to High School.
The bigger problem that it's likely to cause over time is that even with the law only being applicable to the "big chains", it sets (or maybe more accurately, distorts) the market for that kind of work, and will eventually force the smaller and family-run restaurants in most areas to match that wage to get employees who aren't related to the proprietors.
There is a further distortion as a result of this: Many SEIU wages are linked to M/W, so various services at that hotel may become not as prompt.
What CA did doesn’t really raise or change the statutory “minimum wage” for any industry, although that is the net effect of it.
What CA actually did was to create the “Fast Food Council” as an arm of the government, and declared that group to function as something like a labor union for workers in a particular “sector” (in this case, “limited service” restaurants with more than 60 locations nationwide (there’s an exemption for businesses which “bake and sell bread on their premises” but that was initially claimed to not include donut/bagel shops and was later claimed to also not cover Panera Bread so nobody really knows if there’s anyone who actually qualifies for that). The difference between the “council” and a union is that there’s no negotiation taking place, they probably can’t call a strike or collect dues, and the employers are just required to accept whatever the council decides.
It's hard to say whether SEIU could leverage this against hotels and other service-sector employers since if the State were to take over the function of the Union then the union might have to stop collecting dues, or maybe not since those dues are used to fund huge donations to the same politicians who created and enacted the "fast food council"
"California's $20 Fast Food Minimum Wage Law Is Already Having Disastrous Unintended Consequences."
What do you mean by "unintended consequences?"
The progressive vermin in Sacramento knew exactly what they were doing when they raised these wages.
The left wants everyone unemployed, desperate and dependent on The State and will do anything to make sure it happens.
This is a good example.
No. 3: Prices go up.
The day Newsom signed the bill, he was asked, “Can Californians expect the prices of their McDonald’s and Starbucks to go up?”
Newsom deceitfully replied, “I’ve heard that rhetoric before. And it didn’t happen!”
No one thought to ask (or was allowed to ask) the obvious follow-up question. “Where is the money for the 25% wage increase coming from?”
"By reducing the evil corporate profits just a little bit."
You don't know that's the Newsome answer?
Nothing causes poverty better than 'hating' the hands that feed us.
Oh; but they identify as 'corporate' so according to the leftard-religion handbook it's okay to hate and use 'gov-guns' to steal from them.
“I’ve heard that rhetoric before. And it didn’t happen!”
Coming from Tent-City capitol. lol...
Usually the "it didn't happen crowd" are treating the late 1990s as if they were typical times.
Unemployment was so low nationally (and with a much higher participation rate than we've seen in decades) that even fast food jobs in rural areas were having to offer wages that were 3-4x the existing federal minimum wage. In that environment, Bill Clinton (at least he claimed credit for it as if he'd done it single-handedly) raised the federal minimum from $4.35 to I think $7.25, which at the time was still below the State minimum wage levels in places where about 40% of the national population lived.
That increase had literally no effect on almost half the country (whose State-defined minimum was $8+ and still higher than the Federal minimum), and in most of the remaining parts still didn't raise the statutory minimum to the one set by the local labor market dynamics. Since the change in the law didn't actually increase real-time costs for pretty much any employer anywhere, there was no measurable decrease in jobs at the time or in the immediate aftermath of that particular increase.
I think the effects of this will vary widely by region. California is a big place. I live in the San Francisco Bay area, near San Jose, and I regularly saw ads for fast-food jobs offering $20 or more to start, before this law took effect. So I suppose it will have little to no effect in this area. Los Angeles and San Diego may well be in the same situation. However in the Central Valley, wages are lower. I suspect most fast-food restaurants there, other than the ones at Interstate highway exits, are in real trouble. But most of the political power in California comes from the big cities so the Legislature probably doesn't care much about them.
If the CA state legislature cared at all about the Central Valley, they'd have abandoned the HSR boondoggle more than a decade ago.
How many people do they think are going to want to pay 5x the cost of gas to ride from Bakersfield to Fresno at 75mph (with a dozen or so intermediate stops) when they can make the trip faster and cheaper by driving up Highway 99?
Most of the people in California live in the big cities. Democracy.
Shitbags like you can move.
Don't defend their dim-witted actions. They were wrong to do this.
[Obligatory noise text to get Reason's lame commenting software not throw away the 'blockquote' when it's the first thing in a comment]
This is a factor that I think gets far too little attention so I bring it up at every opportunity.
Being employed soon after the end of one’s continuous educational experience (be it someone who dropped out of high school or someone who got a degree from a mid-level university) can be critical – esp. for a lower IQ (say 85 – at the bottom of “normal”), low motivation, and low education individuals who may even have dropped out of high school.
An employer looking at an unskilled applicant fresh out of their continuous educational experience knows they have a chance of hiring a “diamond in the rough”. That same employer looking at a similar person who ended their formal schooling three years earlier and, in that time, has not managed to secure a job will likely believe it’s less likely that this second applicant is a “diamond in the rough” – after all, presumably, either tens of other potential employers have already rejected the applicant or the applicant is so devoid of motivation and work ethic that they haven’t even looked for a job. If minimum wage laws result in the first applicant becoming the second applicant, they may never get a job and will become increasingly dependent on others (such as the government) and come to accept that as a viable lifestyle.
other potential employers have already rejected the applicant or the applicant is so devoid of motivation and work ethic that they haven’t even looked for a job.
We already have millions of such people.
There is a solution for this currently being proposed by Mr SunaK in the United Kingdom - mandatory military service to go die within 3 hours of arrival in a pointless war.
Maybe we could try the opposite approach - implement a military draft but create an exemption for anybody whose 40 hour a week job is paying less than $10 an hour.
Fast food chains need to figure out a way to apply price discrimination based on employment. If the customer works for a government entity double the price.
You're probably kidding, but we're perilously close to that point already. Some of the big chains are experimenting with dynamic pricing where the price you're shown on the menu board depends on things like the time of day and day of week.
If you're ordering through the app, they know a lot of things about you like the ZIP code that you live in, how expensive your house is if you're getting delivery. Clearly these places need to be charging higher prices to white people to end the inequity in life.
You are not wrong. I went through a drive through that didn't even show prices. On a digital screen. If you have to ask the price you can't afford it.
The disastrous consequences are NOT unintended.
Let's hear your conspiracy theory then. Why did they pass this new law with the intention of causing mass unemployment in the fast food industry?
So the “planning” ‘Gods’ can ‘lead’ those helpless sheeple into their slaughter houses.
Nothing worse than trying to be a tyrant where nobody needs a tyrant.
Eating less fast food is disastrous?
Part of becoming a wealthy nation is its ability to produce 'fast'.
If production was 'slow' it wouldn't be wealthy (abundant).
Reading your drivel could cause mass stupidity.
Dear ChatGPT: How do I devalue currency?
I am reminded of two things I read several years ago.
The first concerned the Mexican economy. It was described at the time as a mixed economy. One part of the mix were the heavily unionized and regulated employers of the regular economy. The other part of the mix were underground employers, operating in violation of the law, paying lower wages and often paying bribes to the police to be allowed to operate. In a free economy the first part could put the second part out of business but all that union and government control makes those first part of the mix companies uncompetitive, and opens spaces for the underground economy to operate.
The second thing I read was an article from 1993 about the underground economy in the USA. I recall one woman who had come to Los Angeles from Mexico and worked a variety of underground jobs. Now she was operating an illegal food cart on the plaza in front of the City Government building. At that time she was making $4 thousand and something a year, living with her two still-young kids in one room of an apartment shared with several other people.
1 JUNE, 2024 UPDATE: Without warning, Rubio's has announced the closure of 48 of its California restaurants. 37 are in Southern CA.
The company cites California's business climate as the primary factor for these closures.
Rubio's ran into financial problems with COVID, closing some outlets. But this latest cutback is attributed to the anti-business, anti-customer CA state (and perhaps local) policies.
https://www.ocregister.com/2024/06/03/rubios-closes-48-restaurants-in-california-citing-business-climate/
CA already has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. A spring wave of CA eateries closing will further solidify CA as the unemployment capital of the nation.
So, naturally, many Democrats are looking to Governor Newsom as their Presidential candidate.
Failing upwards.
UPDATE: California has solidified its position as the nation’s WORST unemployment state. It’s worse in April, 2024 than the previous month — BEFORE the $20 minimum CA food service wage mandate went into effect.
The CA unemployment rate is now 61% higher than the median state.
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Compared to other states, California has:
* The highest individual income tax rates.
* The highest statewide sales tax.
* The highest capital gains tax.
* The 2nd highest electricity rates.
* The highest COL.
* The highest gas taxes -- and gas prices. It will rise again 1 July, and then it will rise another 50+ cents next year. yet only 5 states' highways are ranked lower than CA.
* The 8th highest median homeowner property tax bill (and going up dramatically after November). It's 21.6% higher than TX.
* By FAR the highest fees for building a home or apartment.
* The 2nd lowest % of home ownership.
* The highest % of homelessness.
* The 2nd highest per prisoner incarceration cost.
* The highest traffic ticket costs.
* K-12 CA teachers last year received the highest average salary -- $92,960. Yet CA students score 39th out of the 48 states that test their pupils.
And finally, CA has the highest % of residents fleeing to other states. Perhaps there's a connection . . . .