California workers put on notice hour cuts are coming with $20 minimum wage going into effect

[SugarDaddy1]

California fast-food workers are getting a pay boost on April 1 that is coming with some unintended consequences.

After the state legislature approved a law hiking the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $20 an hour, some companies have warned their employees that they will be scheduled for fewer hours as a result of the wage increase. The bill, which increases wages for fast-food companies with more than 60 locations nationwide, has put some managers of these chains in a tricky position.

“I am used to being a champion of labor, and I’m in this odd position,” Michaela Mendelsohn, who manages six El Pollo Loco restaurants and oversees more than 170 employees, told NPR. “We’re having to get more efficient. So really, what’s left is … to reduce labor hours. And I hate saying that.”

Many employees will receive a 25% wage increase as a result of the new law. California is one of the most expensive states in the country to live in. And more than half of its employees work in the fast-food industry.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ers-hour-cuts-minimum-wage-going-into-effect/

 

[colddiesel]

Look at the benefits. Less junk eaten - less fat blobs. Presumably the $20 rate is for adults so the Fast food outlets will moan incessantly and employ as many teenagers as possible. Minimum wage in Oz is slightly variable between A$ 21.38 and A$ 23.23 which is equivalent to about US$ 15.00/hour. Seems to work ok and is reviewed annually. Tips will get stingier. The employers will whine, but everyone will work with it.

In Oz employers also have to pay a superannuation contribution of 11% but they do not pay for any health insurance.

 

[SugarDaddy1]

Restaurant workers at a Foster’s Freeze location in California arrived at work this week to find they had lost their jobs because it had closed, thanks to a $20 minimum wage signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) that took effect April 1.

California’s unemployment rate is officially the nation’s highest, at 5.3% as of February.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...closed-thanks-to-newsoms-20-minimum-wage/amp/

 

[SugarDaddy1]

California‘s increased minimum wage for fast-food workers at companies with more than 60 locations is causing various downstream concerns, one of which is labor competition with schools.

The new $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers went into effect on Monday and raises the floor for wages up $4 per hour from the regular $16 minimum wage for other industries in the state. The Associated Press reported that the boost in wages for fast-food workers is another problem for school districts, which are having a difficult time hiring cafeteria workers.

While wages for fast-food workers have been raised via state law, many employees have seen their hours cut at their workplaces, meaning for some, overall pay is either similar to or lower than it was prior to the law being enacted.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-wage-hike-worries-schools-competing-workers/

 

[Rightguide]

California is in its death throes. Businesses are leaving or closing in droves. Now Chevron is moving its operations to Texas. One can only imagine what the higher costs of fuel production in the state will mean for the people living there if the second-largest oil refiner continues to cut production because of cost. California already has the highest gas prices in the lower 48.

https://fortune.com/2024/01/02/chev...fornia-regulations-democratic-led-government/

https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/20...lifornia-policy-would-deter-energy-production

 

[rainsol]

With Gordon Gekko running the state, the labor unions are destroying the once great state. What did they think would happen? Joining the unemployment lines was not part of the plan darn it.

 

[LLCox]

Revenge of the employer

 

[wizzard426]

Oh Teh Noes! Not another Sorosian union of color coded communism fail!

Buy stock in robotics!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

California is in its death throes. Businesses are leaving or closing in droves. Now Chevron is moving its operations to Texas. One can only imagine what the higher costs of fuel production in the state will mean for the people living there if the second-largest oil refiner continues to cut production because of cost. California already has the highest gas prices in the lower 48.

https://fortune.com/2024/01/02/chev...fornia-regulations-democratic-led-government/

https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/20...lifornia-policy-would-deter-energy-production

Once again the numbers on California's demise don't agree with what you claim....

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187834/gdp-of-the-us-federal-state-of-california-since-1997/

Damn Cali really must have beat the shit out of you; for you to be ragging on it so much and having had to run off to State where the GDP is only 94 Billion dollars....

 

[Rightguide]

Many of these small fast-food franchises will be forced to close and California will lose another chunk of its economy as it drives revenue producers out of the state.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Many of these small fast-food franchises will be forced to close and California will lose another chunk of its economy as it drives revenue producers out of the state.

The minimum wage has been raised many times, and every single time, people sing the song you're singing.

Again learn to source....

https://www.ibisworld.com/us/industry/california/fast-food-restaurants/14963/

 

[PaxNurgle]

While I generally support the idea of a minimum wage, I would agree that it can be a double edged sword. Wages go up, but so do the costs of doing buisness, and these costs are passed onto consumers. Which means that, in the long run, the increased minimum wage turns out to be...not so much of an increase after all. Not when their actual buying power actually stays the same or even decreases.

I think a larger question is, should the minimum wage be intended to be a living wage? Are most minimum wage workers actually living independently and trying to support themselves, or a family, on their paychecks, or are they still people for whom someone (parent, family member) can claim as a dependent?

When I was a kid, in California in the late 1980s, the minimum wage was $3.39 per hour, and that got bumped up to $4.25 an hour in 1988. For a kid, saving for their first car, or college spending money, or paying for the occasional concert ticket, music, food, or the occasional eighth of killer *(redacted to avoid self-incrimination) that was fine. Things cost less back then, but minimum wage is now 4.7058823529411764 times what it was in 1988. However, the average costs of goods and services is roughly only 2.5-3 times what it was since then, so the math doesn't add up. You couldn't make a living on $4.25 an hour, even back then, but the key was, it wasn't really intended to be a wage you could live on. It was a starter wage, intended for high school and college students who either had supplimental income or were still economic dependents.

So, In conclusion, while I support the idea of a minimum wage- I am not sure that raising it to $20 is a good idea. It's going to hurt both buisnesses and consumers, and indirectly even hurt the workers in the long run even if they benefit in the short run.

 

[Sean Renaud]

While I generally support the idea of a minimum wage, I would agree that it can be a double edged sword. Wages go up, but so do the costs of doing buisness, and these costs are passed onto consumers. Which means that, in the long run, the increased minimum wage turns out to be...not so much of an increase after all. Not when their actual buying power actually stays the same or even decreases.

I think a larger question is, should the minimum wage be intended to be a living wage? Are most minimum wage workers actually living independently and trying to support themselves, or a family, on their paychecks, or are they still people for whom someone (parent, family member) can claim as a dependent?

When I was a kid, in California in the late 1980s, the minimum wage was $3.39 per hour, and that got bumped up to $4.25 an hour in 1988. For a kid, saving for their first car, or college spending money, or paying for the occasional concert ticket, music, food, or the occasional eighth of killer *(redacted to avoid self-incrimination) that was fine. Things cost less back then, but minimum wage is now 4.7058823529411764 times what it was in 1988. However, the average costs of goods and services is roughly only 2.5-3 times what it was since then, so the math doesn't add up. You couldn't make a living on $4.25 an hour, even back then, but the key was, it wasn't really intended to be a wage you could live on. It was a starter wage, intended for high school and college students who either had supplimental income or were still economic dependents.

So, In conclusion, while I support the idea of a minimum wage- I am not sure that raising it to $20 is a good idea. It's going to hurt both buisnesses and consumers, and indirectly even hurt the workers in the long run even if they benefit in the short run.

Historically there is no truth to this. Inflation and wages show AT BEST a correlation and even that's pushing your luck pretty fucking hard. I know it makes sense in your head but the data just does not bear that shit out. I'm really, really sorry and I think all my links are on my other computer but I'll check.

Yes. The minimum wage was absolutely meant to be not just a living wage but one where you could raise a family. WE have spent decades and decades letting the rich and powerful convince us otherwise and we are easily duped. I blame the education system they actively sabotage for that. That however was EXACTLY the plan. People like you who treated it as a starter wage not a living wage is exactly what got us into this absolutely nightmare mess. Thanks Boomer ! Actually you're more early Gen X but still.

On an aside I almost hate Gen X way more than Boomers. Boomers actively fucked up. Gen X just went along cus they didn't know any better but today they refuse to pick a side. They are the ultimate in "Take it up with him kid!." I'm infinitely more forgiving of enemies than fence sitters.

The minimum wage is not and probably will not be raised to $20 and that's not even the fucking minimum wage you guys. This will not hurt businesses and there is no real reason to think it will hurt consumers. It certainly will not harm the workers. Don't buy into the fucking propaganda. We're FINALLY making some progress in this nation and actually the fucking world and already you guys are trying to fuck up.

 

[TrailerHitch]

The raise in wages plays a smaller part than the absolutely nauseating greed of CEOs, CFOs, COOs, and owners.

 

[wizzard426]

The raise in wages plays a smaller part than the absolutely nauseating greed of CEOs, CFOs, COOs, and owners.

You forgot to say bad stuff about the stockholders

We need your tears as well!

 

[YDB95]

You couldn't make a living on $4.25 an hour, even back then, but the key was, it wasn't really intended to be a wage you could live on. It was a starter wage, intended for high school and college students who either had supplimental income or were still economic dependents.

Not true. The minimum wage was introduced in the first place as a living wage. And the Rightguides of that generation whined about being put out of business then too.

 

[TrailerHitch]

You forgot to say bad stuff about the stockholders

We need your tears as well!

So you admit unrestrained greed is the true culprit here and douchebag stockholders are as guilty as those I listed. You'll get no tears but when the masses start marching with pitchforks I will join in. Been a Union man almost my entire working life and my heart is with the workers.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Not true. The minimum wage was introduced in the first place as a living wage. And the Rightguides of that generation whined about being put out of business then too.

This is 100% correct. Originally it was supposed to keep up with the rate of inflation. Sadly it never did.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes. The minimum wage was absolutely meant to be not just a living wage but one where you could raise a family.

It will kill hundreds of businesses and cost thousands of jobs in CA but economic ignorance is the hallmark of the Democrat Party.

 

[ll74]

It will kill hundreds of businesses and cost thousands of jobs in CA but economic ignorance is the hallmark of the Democrat Party.

*Democratic

 

[TrailerHitch]

It will kill hundreds of businesses and cost thousands of jobs in CA but economic ignorance is the hallmark of the Democrat Party.

The wage increase, while extreme, is less responsible than corporate greed. With record profits they continue to raise prices and underpay their workers. No matter how much you may wish it you simply cannot replace all workers with AI and robots.

 

[wizzard426]

So you admit unrestrained greed is the true culprit here and douchebag stockholders are as guilty as those I listed. You'll get no tears but when the masses start marching with pitchforks I will join in. Been a Union man almost my entire working life and my heart is with the workers.

"Greed" would be thinking that you can share in my reward without accepting the risks.

Bring on your pitchfork. Please.

Anytime, anywhere, sorosian

 

[TrailerHitch]

"Greed" would be thinking that you can share in my reward without accepting the risks.

Bring on your pitchfork. Please.

Anytime, anywhere, sorosian

You shared no risk other than workers walking out and leaving the company and you both broke and crying. You are a faceless ass hat profiting off mistreating workers. Businesses across the country are having trouble finding people to work because of crappy wages. No one has to stay at any job anymore because so many places are hiring. It has become common for businesses to either not open at all or with shortened hours because they have no one to work. Not because people don't want to work, but when everything in the cost of living has risen faster than wages it becomes useless to work for someone when you can't pay your bills.

 

[wizzard426]

You shared no risk other than workers walking out and leaving the company and you both broke and crying. You are a faceless ass hat profiting off mistreating workers. Businesses across the country are having trouble finding people to work because of crappy wages. No one has to stay at any job anymore because so many places are hiring. It has become common for businesses to either not open at all or with shortened hours because they have no one to work. Not because people don't want to work, but when everything in the cost of living has risen faster than wages it becomes useless to work for someone when you can't pay your bills.

Ahahahahahaha

I get it. You didn't take HS seriously, then shuffled through community college with a poli-sci major and now the best you can do is hotel maid and an SSEIU union card.

Ahahahaha! Perhaps you should have tried harder in school!

 

[Rightguide]

Not true. The minimum wage was introduced in the first place as a living wage. And the Rightguides of that generation whined about being put out of business then too.

You are an ignorant dunce. The Minimum Wage as "originally" introduced did more to keep black people out of the job market than anything else. I'm probably younger than you are, dipshit.

The Racist History of Minimum Wage Laws​

Lee esto en Español
Tags:Big Government,U.S. History
04/16/2017•Mises Wire•Chris Calton
Print this page


In 1966, Milton Friedman wrote an op-ed for Newsweek entitled "Minimum Wage Rates." In it, he argued "that the minimum-wage law is the most anti-Negro law on our statute books." He was, of course, referring to the then-present era, after the far more explicitly racist laws from the slavery and segregation eras of United States history had already been done away with. But his observation about the racist effects of minimum wage laws can be traced back to the nineteenth century, and they continue to have a disproportionately deleterious effect on African-Americans into the present day.

The earliest of such laws were regulations passed in regards to the railroad industry. At the end of the nineteenth century, as Dr. Walter Williams points out, "On some railroads — most notably in the South — blacks were 85–90 percent of the firemen, 27 percent of the brakemen, and 12 percent of the switchmen."1

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, unable to block railroad companies from hiring the non-unionized black workers, called for regulations preventing the employment of blacks. In 1909, a compromise was offered: a minimum wage, which was to be imposed equally on all races.
To the pro-minimum wage advocate, this may superficially seem like an anti-racist policy. During this time, with racism still rampant throughout the United States, blacks were only able to enjoy such high levels of employment by accepting lower wages than their white counterparts. These wage-gaps at the time genuinely were the product of racist sentiment.

Read the rest here: https://mises.org/mises-wire/racist-history-minimum-wage-laws

Read this as well:

Milton Friedman in a 1966 Newsweek Op-ed: The Minimum-wage Law Is a ‘monument to the Power of Superficial Thinking’​

By Mark J. Perry

AEIdeas

December 05, 2016

From Milton Friedman’s 1966 op-ed:

"Women, teenagers, Negroes and particularly Negro teenagers, will be especially hard hit. I am convinced that the minimum-wage law is the most anti-Negro law on our statute books—in its effect not its intent. It is a tragic but undoubted legacy of the past—and one we must try to correct—that on the average Negroes have lower skills than whites. Similarly, teenagers are less skilled than older workers. Both Negroes and teenagers are only made worse off by discouraging employers from hiring them. On the-job training—the main route whereby the unskilled have become skilled—is thus denied them.

The shockingly high rate of unemployment among teenage Negro boys is largely a result of the present Federal minimum-wage rate. And unemployment will be boosted still higher by the rise just enacted. Before 1956, unemployment among Negro boys aged 14 to 19 was around 8 to 11%, about the same as among white boys. Within two years after the legal minimum was raised from 75 cents to $1 an hour in 1956, unemployment among Negro boys shot up to 24% and among white boys to 14%. Both figures have remained roughly the same ever since. But I am convinced that, when it becomes effective, the $1.60 minimum wage will increase unemployment among Negro boys to 30% or more."

How accurate was Milton Friedman’s prediction in September of 1966 that the pending 28% minimum wage hike would have adverse employment effects on low-skilled, teenage workers? Pretty accurate, according to the data in the chart above, which shows the monthly “excess teenage unemployment rate” during the six-year period between January 1966 and December 1971 — calculated as the difference between the monthly teenage jobless rate and the overall monthly unemployment rate. At the time of Friedman’s op-ed, the $1.25 an hour minimum wage had been in effect for more than three years and the “excess teenage unemployment rate” had declined to about 9% in September of 1966 before falling below 8% in March 1967 for the first time since the late 1950s. Following the two-step increase in the minimum wage to $1.60 an hour, the excess teen jobless rate went from below 8% in early 1967 to above 10% by June 1968 and above 11% by June 1970 and nearly 12% by June of 1971.

Also, in January of 1972, the first month that BLS data are available for the black teenage jobless rates, the unemployment rate for black male teens was 34.5% and rose to 40.7% the next month. Since 1972, the jobless rate through November 2016 for black male teens has been above 30% in 468 out of 539 months, or 86.8% of the time. The average jobless rate for black male teens over the last 45 years is 36.7%, it’s exceeded 50% in 13 months, and was as high as 58.1% in June 1982.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/milt...onument-to-the-power-of-superficial-thinking/