New study reveals crippling impact of California's minimum wage hike

[Oompa Loompa]

It looks like the "large chain fast food industry" needs a new business model.

Or new leadership in the state government.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

So, a few less people work there, but those can actually live from their work?

Sounds okay to me.

You are okay with increased unemployment. Noted.

 

[ozso]

And yet the presumption appears to be that anyone that gets fired from mcdonalds will forevermore be a liability to society.

I haven't come across that. What I'm hearing is wages being increased was supposed to help all of them, yet many of them lost their job instead. Do you think that was the intended result? If it wasn't, then it went wrong.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Among other things, but yes. Perhaps the franchising model doesn't work any more. Fast food franchising developed during my lifetime, so I don't see it as a tradition that needs to be preserved. I didn't have any trouble getting hamburgers before and if it fails I don't expect to have any troubles getting hamburgers afterwords. It's not a free market model in any case, so maybe good riddance.

Early on, there were some valid reasons for it...

Local Franchisees often produce better results and are more "in-tune" the the local market they're catering to than a corporate HQ employee 600 miles away who has no familiarity with the town. (although, the modern age has probably changed that dynamic just a bit)

What makes that model tricky for things like these min wage mandates is that people who aren't familiar with that model just assume "Oh, McDonald's, that's a mega corp, they can afford it, this is a great idea", when in reality, the person who actually owns their local McDonald's location is a person who's 200k in debt and only netting about 90-120k year for their first 5 years.


Fun story: Two of my buddies from college went in on a DQ franchise together some time ago (DQ is actually owned by Warren Buffet's company -- factoid), however, Berkshire Hathaway aren't the ones covering the costs of day to day operations. It was a lot of work and hassle (as one would expect when 75% of ones employees are high school kids), and when they finally got tired of it and sold it, all said and done after paying back the loans, I think they maybe did a tad better than breaking even on it? -- but it was by no means the "cash cow" they assumed it would be. They certainly weren't living high on the hog.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Burger flippers can now afford to eat the burgers they flip. The horror. The horror.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[d taylor]

-

​

Here is the real problem, this person has 7 children and trying to support them working at a fast food business. That is absolute crazy, first if your going to have seven children and only have minimum wage work skill. you had better have a husband that has a high paying job. But no lets just pop the babies out and take no responability for your situation, hoping the government will do something.


Anneisha Williams said she knows the impacts firsthand. She’s been supporting her seven children on this minimum wage.
Looking at California's $20 minimum wage impact 6 months laterl

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It still is. Do you believe that those employees at $20 an hour are all full timers?

No and that’s not my point. Just that the consternation over these lost jobs rings kinda hollow from the crowd that doesn’t think too highly of these jobs to begin with.

Thats 18,000 fewer jobs to be had for t he temporary workers, the teens and college students to have.

Sure, 18,000 fewer jobs but there are over half a million fast food workers now making something a bit closer to a living wage. I’d say that’s a good trade.

 

[Nithavela]

I haven't come across that. What I'm hearing is wages being increased was supposed to help all of them, yet many of them lost their job instead. Do you think that was the intended result? If it wasn't, then it went wrong.

If there was a promise that everyone would get a living wage with no changes, than that was overpromising.

 

[ozso]

If there was a promise that everyone would get a living wage with no changes, than that was overpromising.

I didn't ask about a promise, I asked about the intended outcome. Was a bunch of people losing their job over this the intended outcome?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

-

​

Here is the real problem, this person has 7 children and trying to support them working at a fast food business. That is absolute crazy, first if your going to have seven children and only have minimum wage work skill. you had better have a husband that has a high paying job. But no lets just pop the babies out and take no responability for your situation, hoping the government will do something.


Anneisha Williams said she knows the impacts firsthand. She’s been supporting her seven children on this minimum wage.
Looking at California's $20 minimum wage impact 6 months laterl

What do you propose as a solution to this issue if not the government stepping in to help provide for these children? Mandated abortion? Forced sterilization? Limiting the number of children a person can have based on income? Allowing the children to starve?

 

[Nithavela]

I didn't ask about a promise, I asked about the intended outcome. Was a bunch of people losing their job over this the intended outcome?

I have bolded the part of your post that I was responding to for your convenience:

I haven't come across that. What I'm hearing is wages being increased was supposed to help all of them, yet many of them lost their job instead. Do you think that was the intended result? If it wasn't, then it went wrong.

 

[BCP1928]

Early on, there were some valid reasons for it...

Local Franchisees often produce better results and are more "in-tune" the the local market they're catering to than a corporate HQ employee 600 miles away who has no familiarity with the town. (although, the modern age has probably changed that dynamic just a bit)

What makes that model tricky for things like these min wage mandates is that people who aren't familiar with that model just assume "Oh, McDonald's, that's a mega corp, they can afford it, this is a great idea", when in reality, the person who actually owns their local McDonald's location is a person who's 200k in debt and only netting about 90-120k year for their first 5 years.


Fun story: Two of my buddies from college went in on a DQ franchise together some time ago (DQ is actually owned by Warren Buffet's company -- factoid), however, Berkshire Hathaway aren't the ones covering the costs of day to day operations. It was a lot of work and hassle (as one would expect when 75% of ones employees are high school kids), and when they finally got tired of it and sold it, all said and done after paying back the loans, I think they maybe did a tad better than breaking even on it? -- but it was by no means the "cash cow" they assumed it would be. They certainly weren't living high on the hog.

The truth is, the notion that they were actually in business for themselves is an illusion. If you want to run a hot dog stand, then go and do it. Design your own business model. Shop for your own location and negotiate for the rent, or even buy it. Shop for your own suppliers and negotiate prices. Compete on the local labor market for employees. Set your own prices, manage your own advertising. That's one way. That's called free enterprise.
The other way is to buy a franchise. Pay a franchising fee to corporate headquarters and accept their business model, pay them an exorbitant rent for a special building, buy your supplies from them or designated suppliers at prices they set and sell your hot dogs for what they tell you. That's not free enterprise for the franchise "owner." That doesn't mean it's bad--there are many goods and services which are usefully delivered in that way and fast food is one of them (although not for the reasons put forth by our resident conservatives) In fact, as a business model it has been proven very successful.
Even so, suppressing the first way is gratuitous. Consider how many of the big franchise chains started out as one man stores or even street food. Is it harder now than it was in the past? You bet. Where my son lives in Oakland there is a thriving market in street food and one-man food trucks which allows a lot of people to make a living off of it and the food is amazing. It only survives because it is protected from the authorities by the Sureños.

 

[ozso]

I have bolded the part of your post that I was responding to for your convenience:

Yeah, but you still haven't answered the question.

 

[Nithavela]

Yeah, but you still haven't answered the question.

I don't know the intentions of the ones implementing those changes. If those were to give everyone a high-paying job with no drawbacks for anyone, they obviously aimed too high/promised too much. But I believe that these changes resulted in a net positive for employees, and that the choice between perfection and inaction is a false dichotomy.

 

[BCP1928]

I didn't ask about a promise, I asked about the intended outcome. Was a bunch of people losing their job over this the intended outcome?

It was always understood that some people would lose their jobs. Whether it was a good or a bad outcome depends on how many of these people were unable to find other employment, a number key to your argument which you seem unwilling to come up with.

 

[NxNW]

Probably not too many but that’s really not the argument. At least not as I read the article. I wonder how many of those jobs are permanently lost not to ever be filled.

The conservative position is that fast food jobs don't count as jobs, so they're not really a loss.

 

[Nithavela]

It was always understood that some people would lose their jobs. Whether it was a good or a bad outcome depends on how many of these people were unable to find other employment, a number key to your argument which you seem unwilling to come up with.

Another question is, how many people lost their job because of this wage increase, and didn't leave their employment for other reasons? Perhaps the reduction in numbers is mostly because of no new people getting hired, instead of people getting kicked out onto the street? Or they would have been let go regardless.

 

[Nithavela]

The conservative position is that fast food jobs don't count as jobs, so they're not really a loss.

Unless actions by democratic party politicians result in a single fast food job less. Then, for just a tiny instant, they become the most important jobs in the world.

 

[d taylor]

What do you propose as a solution to this issue if not the government stepping in to help provide for these children? Mandated abortion? Forced sterilization? Limiting the number of children a person can have based on income? Allowing the children to starve?

-

​

There is not a soultion, so when the country bottoms up you will know why.

 

[ozso]

I don't know the intentions of the ones implementing those changes. If those were to give everyone a high-paying job with no drawbacks for anyone, they obviously aimed too high/promised too much. But I believe that these changes resulted in a net positive for employees, and that the choice between perfection and inaction is a false dichotomy.

I didn't ask you what you know, I asked you what you think. I think a lot of people losing their jobs wasn't the goal, and turned out to be a big flaw in the plan. And I don't see employees having to do the work of others as a positive. In other words, if it's supposed to be a crew of 5 and now it's only a crew of 2 or 3, that means they have to work much harder.