California's Fast Food Minimum Wage Hike Cost the State 18,000 Jobs. That Shouldn't Surprise Anyone.
Lawmakers made an exception for smaller restaurant chains, implicitly acknowledging that the law would come with costs.
In 2023, California passed a law requiring a $20 per hour minimum wage for all fast-food restaurants with more than 60 locations nationwide. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom portrayed the union-supported law as pro-worker, saying it moved the state "one step closer to fairer wages."
Other California politicians supporting the law claimed it would provide a path to economic security for lower-income workers, enabling them to more assuredly put food on the table.
"Sacrifice, dedication, and the power of a government who serves its people is what got us to this moment," said then-Assemblymember Chris Holden (D–Pasadena).
But the carve-out for smaller chains was an implicit acknowledgment that the law would come with costs—costs that smaller businesses with slimmer margins presumably could not afford. New research suggests that the mandate has also resulted in fewer jobs for struggling entry-level workers.
The law went into effect in April 2024 and increased the hourly pay of an estimated half a million workers across the state. But without the law in place, thousands more workers would likely have been employed.
That's the conclusion of "Did California's Fast Food Minimum Wage Reduce Employment?" a working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research by labor economists Jeffrey Clemens, Olivia Edwards, and Jonathan Meer.
The trio looked at fast-food employment in California and found a decline of 2.64 percent between September 2023 and September 2024—six months before and after the law went into effect. During that same time period, fast-food employment in the rest of the United States slightly increased.
Those different outcomes make it likely that the law caused fast-food businesses to hire fewer people, with a probable effect of lowering such employment 2.3 percent to 3.9 percent. At the middle of the range, that means about 18,000 fewer jobs in California.
For decades, Democratic politicians have touted minimum wage hikes while dismissing warnings of lost jobs. They were emboldened by studies purporting to show essentially no employment effect after fast-food wage hikes in the early 1990s.
But those studies looked at relatively small hikes in state-mandated wages, from $4.25 to $5.05, comparing just a handful of restaurants in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The research was innovative. But blue state politicians used it to insist that minimum wage hikes could never meaningfully reduce employment, which is part of how California ended up with a $20 wage floor.
The real world results are now in, and the costs cannot be ignored. This is, to paraphrase Holden, the power of government. But it's not to serve the people. It's to hold them back.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "California's Minimum Wage Law Cost 18,000 Jobs."
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
The minimum wage should be zero. And for political campaigns, it is where volunteering is allowed.
The minimum wage IS zero. All the law really does is make low-skill people unemployable.
Some low-skill people should be unemployable, but businesses continue to hire them where I live.
For some people, the best contribution they can make to the economy is to just stay out of the way.
And then what? Before social programs those people would simply starve to death. These days they go on the taxpayer teat. I assume that like most people in these comments you're not a fan of the welfare state. So what do you want these people to do? Go on welfare? Die? Are you an eugenicists who wants undesirables to drop out of the gene pool? Want to bring back phrenology while you're a it?
-cite seriously... did they actually starve to death before social programs or did charities take care of them? What was the number of deaths. I dont have the time right now to do the deep dive (plus i'm inherently a bit lazy) so since you are making the claim, where are you getting your info from?
It used to be a social stigma to be unemployed (underemployed) with peer pressure against people choosing to be bums. Now it is celebrated getting EBT, SNAP, other forms of welfare so much so that sarc’s beloved team D imported millions to participate in getting on the dole.
"Choosing to be bums" is not the only way people end up chronically unemployed. Some people really are so worthless that no one will hire them, and they shouldn't.
In which case there is "charity"; those involved are more than competent to separate the slackers from those needing help. Gov't paid workers, paid by the head-count, aren't.
^ So much this.
Charities took care of some, but people did indeed starve to death. Especially old people. I'm not going to do a google search for your benefit. If you don't believe me, do your own. I like to learn about history and economics from various sources. On this they all agree. They differ in recommended solutions, but history is history.
You will be free to share the fruits of your labor with these and allow others to ignore your appeal to emotion. What won’t be ignored is your demand for a welfare state. Also liked the, “What I said is in references. You go find them for me.”
So? If someone is fully capable of working but doesn't, or fails to develop marketable job skills and/or work ethic such that they are unemployable they deserve the consequences of their choices.
The appeal to emotion observation/complaint that some people fail to provide for themselves and, thus, starve to death is not an argument. Social programs to keep people from starving to death just enables parasites to exist off the labor of others who often have no say in the plundering of the fruits of their labor.
Automation is gonna fix this soon. Shit jobs like that shouldnt have to be done by humans anyways, only by right-wingers who want and deserve them.
Took my kid to McDonalds the other day. First time there is a while. They don't even have people at the counter anymore. You have to order from a kiosk or your phone.
I hope your assumption from 1 - 2 years ago will hold up and scarcity will generate enough different kinds of new jobs that can still be worked by the average person. I had and have doubts about that, but no confidence in anything i would predict. If it doesnt hold up, well the reason would only be reduced scarcity. In such a scenario, some forms of ubi may need to be considered. (And im really not a commie, never been, but i think automation is about to go next level)
Automation is always catching up, and it can't do everything. That and humans are never satisfied. Soon as a want is filled, a new one is dreamed up. So there will always be new jobs being created to fill those wants. By the time those jobs get automated, new ones have been created. So I'm not worried that there simply won't be any more jobs other than maintaining the machines. However I am concerned about young people getting their first job when minimum wage keeps going up. No job no experience, no experience no job. If there must be a minimum wage, it should be low enough to allow people to get their foot in the door and move up.
0.00 prefers starvation, but that's typical of lefty shits who deserve to starve.
Fuck off and die, asswipe.
Right wingers prefer slave labor, but thats typical of right wingers.
Right wingers can't imagine technological progress, but thats typical of right wingers.
Democrat, the party of slavery, is not on the right wing.
Sorry you failed, don't bother trying again.
Great point. Today's Democrats are guilty of the sins of people long dead. You'd be right at home in North Korea where children and grandchildren are punished for the sins of their forbearers. That's right up your alley. After all, you defend authoritarianism every day.
They are still pushing the same ideals retard. Just like you do with your ignorance of comparative advantage and globalist wef economics.
You're right they are not guilty of the sins of the long dead, They are guilty of shrieking " who is going to pick our food" every time ICE shows up.
New boss same as the old boss.
Sadly, and you know this is true, the democrats have not changed who they are and with Biden tried a revival of all that, that is known to be bad for America.
Sorry you lost, don't bother trying gain
"Right wingers prefer slave labor, but thats typical of right wingers."
Slimy piles of steaming lefty shit make unsupported assertions which can be ignored, slimy pile of steaming lefty shit.
Sevo, you did not follow my recent advice to substitute hand flapping for repetition of the same insults when you feel the need for stimming or self-soothing.
"Sevo, you did not follow my recent advice...
I see you haven't followed my advice to fuck off and die.
Translation: Sevo flaps his hands wildly while making high-pitched "Uhh! Uhh!" noises.
Translation:
Assholes caught spreading assholery are upset.
Solution:
Fuck off and die, asswipe
The automation tax will fix that.
This is typical of every politician when it comes to the economy. They find some fringe/methodologically suspect/poorly constructed study that says what they want and extrapolate it to every conceivable situation they can.
Low- and unskilled jobs will never earn a living wage because the workers are easily replaced. Artificially forcing businesses to pay a premium price for a bargain product doesn’t help anyone except the small (and shrinking, because math is a thing) number of people who win the golden ticket of keeping their artificially-inflated wage.
As a society we all lose as we get worse service due to the necessity of having fewer employees for higher prices.
Do I feel for people who can’t make a living wage because they don’t have any skills? Absolutely. Do I think that the solution is to concentrate the labor costs of 10 people into the pay of 8 people and screw over the ones who get left out? Absolutely not.
While you attempt to create a both sides argument and failed, I am surprised you concluded that socialism is a failure, it never works and eventually runs out of other people's money.
There used to be good low-skill jobs in delivering groceries, washing windows, and sweeping sidewalks. There were beginner jobs, never meant to be life-long. If bums did them sometimes for a few bucks instead of begging, it was good enough.
It's the statists who invented minimum wages, because they thought it demeaning to demand people pay their own way, and their solution was to eliminate those low pay jobs to prevent bums from having to demean themselves with work.
The federal minimum wage law was explicitly racist, as you can find in Congressional speeches, intended to prevent Southern states taking textile and other manufacturing away from New England and Rust Belt states with cheap black labor. Notably it was the Democrats pushing it, backed by FDR as part of his misguided plan to keep prices high during the Depression. How either of those was supposed to help the poor, only Democrats pretended to know.
When the minimum wage was originally created, the politicians who did it actually knew a thing or two about economics. The purpose of the minimum wage at the time was to starve people. That's right. Blacks and other undesirables were competing with white union workers for jobs, and were getting hired because they were willing to work for lower wages. White union men and the politicians who represented them didn't like that very much. So they created a wage floor that just happened to be the same as base pay for union members. Lacking a competitive advantage, the undesirables were unable to find work. Consequently many of them starved to death in poverty, because that's what happened to people before social programs.
Now politicians sell it as giving poor people a raise. They're as economically illiterate as Trump and his defenders are on tariffs.
If anyone knows anything about living on minimum wage it's Sarcasmic.
Sarc prefers to work under the table. Says the tips are better that way.
Unless someone tries to give him the shaft.
There's clinics that can help folks like you end the delusions. Seek help.
It's called history. One of the many things that you Trump defenders are willfully ignorant of. Besides history there's economics, math, logic, critical thinking, and a host of other things you Trump defenders refuse to learn. So when someone with actual knowledge of those things says something, it appears to be a delusion to your willfully ignorant mind. Not my fault you feel that ignorance is strength, and I certainly don't need a clinic. You however could benefit from not sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "La la la la I can't hear you!" whenever anyone tries to instill you with actual knowledge instead of Trumpian retardation.
Youre repeating the false history of leftists like Howard Zinn lol. Youre literally a captured retard mo different than a millennial 1619 project moron.
Everything you say is repetition of a liberal narrative. You have zero interest in reality.
Luckily the Democrats don’t have any plans to make the rest of the country just like California.
I have no idea whether a CA min wage hike cost jobs. Neither does the NBER even though they want to pretend that they do. But what is certain is that anyone on min wage (and esp those also working part-time which is how employers structure min wage jobs) can't remotely earn a wage high enough to get housing in CA. Which means that either:
1. a lot of 20-somethings living in their parents basement now have more free time or
2)a lot of homeless people in CA now can't save up for rent in future
As an aside - min wage doesn't make economic sense in a state as large as CA. In a smaller state - and certainly at a city level - min wage can make a lot of sense. Because at smaller scale, labor markets can easily be tilted and unfree. If that sort of market is structurally tilted to employers, then it is the employers - not the employees - who incur the cost of those higher wages.
I have no idea whether a CA min wage hike cost jobs. Neither does the NBER even though they want to pretend that they do.
You're one of the more economically literate people here. You should know how price floors work. Minimum wage is a price floor on labor. It means it's a crime to pay someone less than that amount. You've also got more common sense than most people here. Well, put the two together. If someone has no skills or experience, and the price floor for labor is above what they can earn for the business, are they going to get hired? C'mon. Think about it. That's how minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses likely won't fire existing low skilled workers, but they certainly won't hire more. So the lost jobs are unseen. They're people who never get hired. Use your head. You're not stupid.
But what is certain is that anyone on min wage (and esp those also working part-time which is how employers structure min wage jobs) can't remotely earn a wage high enough to get housing in CA.
Whether or not a wage is enough to pay for housing is a completely and totally separate issue. We're simply talking about the effect minimum wage has on employment.
One thing is for certain, you can't force employers to hire people at a loss. They're not going to do it. You know that. So if employers are forced to pay everyone a "living wage", that just means that people who can't produce enough value to justify the wage will simply not get hired at all. How does that help them?
He is a leftist moron like you.
This thread is amazing in your delusions.
JesseAz, was Milton Friedman a "leftist moron"? https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/milton-friedman-in-a-1966-newsweek-op-ed-the-minimum-wage-law-is-a-monument-to-the-power-of-superficial-thinking/
Jesse feels that anyone who criticizes Trump is a leftist moron. That’s why he dismisses the entire field of economics as leftism. His entire identity is wrapped around Trump. I would feel sorry for him if he wasn’t a mendacious piece of walking garbage.
The question is who pays that increment. It is entirely possible that a labor market is tilted so that increases in wages are paid via lower returns to the employer. IOW - jobs/hours aren't lost by the employee.
The historical example is a company town where they are the only employer. They need X amount of labor to do what delivers revenue. They can drive wages down simply because they have the power but that doesn't increase the amount of labor they demand.
I agree that CA is big enough to have competitive labor markets and is not a company town
If that sort of market is structurally tilted to employers, then it is the employers - not the employees - who incur the cost of those higher wages.
They're not going to "incur the cost of those higher wages." If they operate at a loss then they won't be in business very long. They're not stupid. They're just not going to hire people without skills or experience. Jobs that were once staffed by teenagers will be filled by adults. Swing by a fast food restaurant sometime if you don't believe me.
The more relevant question is -where are those now-unemployed workers?
Were they deported and thus no longer part of the labor market? Because if so, the wage paid would have risen anyway.
This is going to be a big issue going forward. The labor market is shrinking. Hiring is slowing. And if those deportees dominated the low end of the wage scale, then wages at the low end may well be rising and lower employment is NOT a sign of a weaker job market.
The more relevant question is why is that of interest to any other than the 'workers'? Get a job.
Oh and:
"The labor market is shrinking."
Here, I was told there was a lack of farm-workers.
Fuck off and die, asswipe.
Dropping out of the workforce.
"...I have no idea whether a CA min wage hike cost jobs..."
1) JFucked is a lying pile of lefty shit.
2) JFucked is really this stupid.
3) Both.
Minimum wage laws never make sense. You may as well say that 2+2=5 makes sense for low values of 5.
As a famous economist says, governments are really good (if inefficient) at restricting supply and subsidizing demand.
JFree 3 hours ago
I have no idea ….
That’s correct
2)a lot of homeless people in CA now can't save up for rent in future
Look how dejected this guy is his 401k isn't keeping up with California inflation!
The vast majority of minimum wage workers are not trying to "live off" their minimum wage jobs. That is a myth.
An incredibly small percentage of the laborers earn minimum wage. They are primarily new/younger, inexperienced workers, and/or non-breadwinner spouses or retirees earning extra money.
You're problem appears to be that you believe that every job should provide enough income to live off. That is simply a fallacy. Low-skill and minimum wage jobs are starter or filler jobs, not "breadwinner" jobs.
That fallacy is driven primarily by unions. Follow the money. The primary advocates for increasing minimum wages are unions or union-backed/funded. Unions have a direct, perverse incentive to drive up minimum wages because many union contracts tie their union wages directly to the minimum wage. When the minimum wage is raised, those union workers get a pay raise by fiat rather than by contract (re)negotiation.
3. And it's a good thing.
It is basic common sense that when a business that relies on cheap labour for unskilled jobs has minimum wage enforced the product that business is selling is going to inflate to cover the costs of the employees wages.
And of course it is students and folks getting their first jobs that typically work for these businesses to gain work experience so they can move up the ladder or get a better paying job in the future.
There is only a short period of time where people working for minimum wage get "ahead" when minimum wage is raised before inflation catches up and they're in the same struggling monetary position as before but everyone is now paying more for goods.
The government makes more from taxes and the businesses income grows with the inflated prices but that is about the only benefit if it can be called that.
Unemployment also increases as small businesses go under and the big chains take more control forming their monopolies. The more expensive labour costs the more enticing automation becomes. The more automation the less jobs for students and people starting out which pushes people toward government for assistance.
You need to hire an editor or stop day drinking.
You need to get up off the bathroom floor. It's yourself not me you see in the mirror.
Pure projection.
Pour sarc
Now you know why it's more critical than ever to get immigrants to do these jobs for the pay American's aren't legally allowed to take!
Don't worry, folks.
Newsom gave his cronies $43 million in CA's "much needed projects," while the LA fire victims has little or no money for burned out houses.
Isn't cronyism wonderful?
it moved the state "one step closer to fairer wages."
What the heck even is a "fair wage" anyway? Nobody can ever seem to define that.
Except capitalists.
A fair wage is what an employee is willing to pay you without any government involvement. For some that could be thousands of dollars an hour; for others, perhaps just one.
I said except capitalists, Captain ASCII.
Also, did no one pick up on the hilarity of the Cyrillic on the cup as we discuss the subject of communist/socialist ideas destroying the societies that try them?
This is unfair. Panera was exempt from the new law. The ceo being a diner to Gavin Newsom probably had nothing to do with it
One of the smaller businesses Newscum knew the policy would destroy so he protected them.
More of the democrats picking and choosing winners and losers through their fascist policies.
As soon as this shut down ends regulations should be the focus for removal which can align with widespread layoffs and removals of jobs shrinking the size of gov and reducing the amount of democrat fascist policies.
So what's the downside here? Californians will have to pay more for food and fewer people will be able to earn a living. Oh, wait! Thousands of people are moving HERE from California every year, and spreading the socialism contagion as they go! Can we build the Iron Curtain around California NOW please?
Think the founders called that curtain the Supreme Law of the Land.
If only more people cared to elect a supreme-lawful legislative system.
CA is well on its way to being Case-Example Detroit #2.
Political 'Gun' GREED is not an asset because 'Guns' don't make sh*t.
I call bullshit. This is corporate propaganda. If Capitialism did the right thing we wouldn't need a lot of the laws we have.