[HN Gopher] New California law raises minimum wage for fast food...
___________________________________________________________________
New California law raises minimum wage for fast food workers to $20
per hour
Author : grecy
Score : 52 points
Date : 2023-09-28 21:50 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| gruez wrote:
| Why fast food workers specifically? I suppose their jobs is worse
| than a desk job, or even a retail job, but there are arguably far
| worse jobs out there (eg. delivery workers, landscapers, or
| agricultural workers). The article's explanation of "most of the
| often overlooked workforce are the primary earners for their low-
| income households" isn't really convincing. Delivery drivers or
| agricultural workers are probably even easier to overlook than
| someone you have face to face interaction with, and I don't see
| any reason why primary earners would prefer fast food jobs over
| other jobs.
| neilv wrote:
| This later paragraph sounds relevant:
|
| > _It also settles -- for now, at least -- a fight between
| labor and business groups over how to regulate the industry. In
| exchange for higher pay, labor unions have dropped their
| attempt to make fast food corporations liable for the misdeeds
| of their independent franchise operators in California, an
| action that could have upended the business model on which the
| industry is based. The industry, meanwhile, has agreed to pull
| a referendum related to worker wages off the 2024 ballot._
| [deleted]
| mech765 wrote:
| If they raised the minimum wage for all workers, it would have
| a greater destabilizing effect, so they limited it to a smaller
| group so they could get their message across while minimizing
| the change they cause.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| It just so happens that that particular tribe of people has
| sufficient political power to push through an increase for
| themselves.
|
| See non English speaking farm workers that have their very
| own exclusions to minimum wage laws, even on the west coast.
| They just don't happen to have the political power, so they
| get shafted.
|
| Fracturing your opposition is a tried and true method to
| break consensus.
|
| Edit: I find it hilarious that even in this tribal
| delineation, somehow people who work at a business that bakes
| things got screwed.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _raised the minimum wage for all workers, it would have a
| greater destabilizing effect_
|
| Theory suggests this will happen at some point. Evidence
| shows we aren't close to it.
|
| Raising the minimum wage--across the board--to $25/hour in
| non-rural counties and something lower in rural (where COL is
| lower) would likely cause growth. Because while costs have
| gone up, there is a massive purchasing power unleashed.
| (Critically, this could only be done after zoning reform.
| Otherwise the surplus will just go to landowners.)
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Constantly raising and capturing profits has a far more
| destabilising effect.
|
| At some point this reality will become clear to US corporate
| culture. But it may well be rather late and very messy.
| akira2501 wrote:
| I'm guessing because Newsom would like his name on the
| presidential ticket next year and he's in the process of
| backroom political negotiations "necessary" to shore up that
| support. The specific mention of union negotiations bolsters
| this conclusion.
|
| This seems like a very shabby pitch to beleaguered American
| workers and encodes the sad expectation that people supporting
| a family of 4 should be doing so on a fast food job and now
| they can, temporarily, due to a wage hike in an election year.
|
| A boring dystopia, indeed.
| tnel77 wrote:
| Why is it that people working <less good jobs> shouldn't have
| families? Why does half the country have such a firm belief
| that the bottom tier of society has no place procreating?
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Probably because typically jobs such as in fast food are
| seen as being for those too young to have a family,
| teenagers, college students etc.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Is that the reality of the fast food labor force though?
| I don't think it is. I see less kids working at fast food
| in my city than adults.
| akira2501 wrote:
| I don't believe that at all. I just don't believe that
| minimum wage "hacks" like this are the correct tools to
| solve the problem. I think policy energy would be much
| better spent dealing with the over monopolization of our
| economy and in creating new industries for these people to
| own and to be employed by.
| gmadsen wrote:
| probably because there isn't much support for the
| collective subsidizing the very personal choice of
| procreating
| Retric wrote:
| Which looks really silly once significant negative
| population growth kicks in. With US well below
| replacement rate and net immigration rate down 58% since
| 1998 and continuing to trend down. So things may start
| getting interesting fairly soon.
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-
| states/popu...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Sounds better than an economic system that demands
| surplus labor to treat as disposable. Drive that total
| fertility rate down.
| Retric wrote:
| Ultimately population scales the demand just as it scales
| the workforce, so it's not inherently going to change
| anything outside of extreme situations. Significant
| negative population growth is however unpleasant because
| the infrastructure you build today ends up excessive in
| the future.
|
| As to surplus labor you need flexibility simply from
| people changing jobs. Average 1 month searching every 4
| years and that's a 2.1% unemployment rate. Yes, many
| people keep their jobs for very long periods but other
| people job hop regularly.
| adamisom wrote:
| "the collective subsidizing the very personal choice of
| procreating" I support massive subsidies because the sum
| of these personal choices is equivalent to the next
| generation's collective
| fdr wrote:
| Mechanism might be interesting. It's a rudimentary sectoral
| bargaining arrangement
|
| https://onlabor.org/california-fast-food-workers-secure-big-...
|
| > Undeterred, labor advocates worked with progressive lawmakers
| to gather enough votes to pass two more significant pieces of
| labor legislation. First, AB 102, which was signed into law in
| July, increased funding for California's Industrial Welfare
| Commission (IWC), a long-dormant century-old wage board with
| the power to set wages, hours, and working conditions by
| industry. Second, AB 1228, which would have made franchisors
| jointly liable for labor violations -- a long sought-after
| provision that was taken out of the final version of the FAST
| Act. According to reports, Governor Newsom led negotiations
| between industry groups and unions over the summer, and with AB
| 1228 set to pass this week -- the final week of California's
| legislative session -- industry groups finally caved, agreeing
| to withdraw the referendum in exchange for a rewritten AB 1228.
|
| > The new bill, which the legislature passed on Thursday,
| ditches joint franchisor liability entirely and officially
| repeals AB 257. (As part of the negotiations, legislators also
| agreed to defund the IWC.) But the bill largely keeps in place
| the Fast Food Council -- with some important changes. First,
| the government representatives on the Council are reduced to
| nonvoting members, and the bill adds an independent member of
| the public who will serve as chairperson, presumably carrying a
| tiebreaking vote. The Council's standards would apply to
| "limited-service" restaurants with over 60 establishments
| nationwide that share a common brand. But instead of
| promulgating standards with the force of law, the Council must
| now submit any standard to the Labor Commissioner, who, upon
| finding that it is consistent with the Council's mandate, will
| then engage in a rulemaking process in accordance with
| California's Administrative Procedure Act.
|
| > The bill would set the hourly wage for fast-food workers at
| $20 effective on April 1, 2024, and the Council may set wages
| annually thereafter beginning in 2025
| abtinf wrote:
| Why are they trying to get rid of fast food workers?
| yasp wrote:
| Why not $100 per hour?
| bhaney wrote:
| I can't help but think that this is just going to accelerate
| efforts to automate fast food workers. Then once the technology
| works well enough to replace expensive labor in California,
| there'll be very little stopping it from spreading everywhere
| else, regardless of the minimum wage in other places.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _can 't help but think that this is just going to accelerate
| efforts to automate fast food workers_
|
| Given projected demographic-driven labour shortages, this is
| good.
| paulpauper wrote:
| automation is expensive and hard to do at scale, and also prone
| to problems. It also does not replace humans. Self-checkout
| kiosks have been around for 15+ years but have not replaced
| cashiers. Many fast food places have self-ordering kiosks but
| this has not made employees obsolete.
| mathgeek wrote:
| The reality and likely future lies in the middle. Kiosks
| reduce cashiers per shift rather than replacing them
| completely. Many retailers only staff a single cashiered lane
| with many self checkouts, for example.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| It doesn't appear that Flippy has taken off. I spent a bit of
| time in a fast food kitchen around 20 years ago and it was
| already pretty automated, but it seems like human hands are
| quite hard to beat.
| imchillyb wrote:
| > https://www.indianarrative.com/culture-news/watch-
| mcdonalds-...
|
| December of 2022, McDonald's installed its first fully
| automated restaurant in Texas.
|
| This concept is only about 1-2 years away from burning across
| the US like a wildfire.
| bhaney wrote:
| Cooks seem harder to automate, but I'm seeing kiosks replace
| cashiers more and more lately.
| CTDOCodebases wrote:
| This was inevitable.
|
| As a human it's hard to compete with a screen when the
| person who needs to interact with you has used them for as
| long as they can remember.
| MrFoof wrote:
| My local McDonald's just renovated with what I assume is
| their newest layout concept. The front counter has exactly
| two registers/terminals, of which even at a busy time
| _(school out, so tons of teenagers packed into the place)_
| , only one was staffed. Very small ordering counter. On the
| other side of the area is a much larger pick up area with
| order status screens.
|
| There's only two electronic menu boards down from the
| previous four. Yet six total self-order kiosks (three
| double-sided), but the real expectation is people will just
| place the order with the phone via mobile ordering. After
| all, that's what most of the teenagers order did, in order
| to get their $0.50 Double Cheeseburger _(with no additional
| purchase)_.
|
| Moreover, you can't see into the kitchen anymore _at all_.
| It was a solid wood-decorated wall behind the counter,
| clearly a "hallway" or partition behind that, of which
| behind that is likely the actual kitchen. They increased
| the space of the dining area somewhat as a result.
| dmoy wrote:
| > in order to get their $0.50 Double Cheeseburger
|
| I haven't been to McDonald's (in the US at least) in like
| 20 years. Double cheeseburgers are only $0.50?? After
| inflation that feels like it costs 25% of what I used to
| pay.
| bhaney wrote:
| It's a special offer for using the app, not the normal
| price
| mathgeek wrote:
| It's a promotional offer to get folks using the app and
| hopefully turning on ads via notifications.
| MrFoof wrote:
| Absolutely not.
|
| As others have mentioned, in-app coupon. Haven't seen it
| recur since _(this was a few weeks ago)_.
|
| Normal price of a Double Cheeseburger at that location is
| $3.89 _($4.13 with sales tax)_.
| calmworm wrote:
| I much prefer a kiosk or ordering on my phone... and I also
| rarely do a drive thru order. There is less chance of a
| mistake when I enter the order myself.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Why would you bother, when the demand for hamburgers that cost
| 2x as much is going to evaporate sooner than the robots get
| invented?
|
| Anyway, the restaurant & food business is complicated. Can or
| will McDonald's serve hard alcohol in a drive-thru? Will
| immigrant (illegal) labor even afford transportation to cities?
| If the answer is yes to both questions, then a $20 minimum wage
| won't matter.
| georgeburdell wrote:
| If McDonalds is any indication, they're more interested in
| stuffing anti patterns and pop-up deals into the kiosk UI to
| make them meaningful replacements for cashiers
| nirav72 wrote:
| I think McDonald's already saw the writing on the wall in
| terms of lowering their labor cost. Where I live here in the
| South-eastern U.S, most McDonald's have moved to Kiosks or
| ordering via App. They started with 2 Kiosks shortly after
| the post-2020 labor shortage. Then they added 4 more kiosks
| to handle the morning and lunch time rush.
| toast0 wrote:
| McDonalds doesn't automate away a whole position at once,
| just a bit here and there and soon enough you might be able
| to handle a rush with one less person, or handle off peak
| with one less person, or if you can't drop one person, one
| person has more time to make sure the store is clean and
| supplies are well stocked etc.
|
| The push to self-ordering via kiosk and mobile ordering isn't
| likely to be 100%, but the registers might be empty at times.
| The automated soda dispensers don't do all the work, but they
| reduce labor here and there. The thing to put ketchup and
| mustard on at the same time saves a step.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I did a search, and 9% of Californias workforce are
| undocumented. So you're just likely to see a shift away from
| the de jure workforce to the de facto workforce, since the
| costs are lower.
| ejb999 wrote:
| Yep, $20/hr plus benefits means for a 168 hour per week worker,
| you (as an business owner) need to possibly pay as much as
| $285K per year to cover a single worker 24 hours per day - even
| if a robot cost a $1,000,000 it would pay for itself in less
| than 4 years...Elon Musk (and other robot manufacturers) thanks
| you for this law.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| That's good for society when those technologies are scaled,
| things become more anti-fragile.
| hellojesus wrote:
| It also means that anyone that can provide only $18/hour of
| economic value is now banned from working at a fast food
| restaurant.
| aaomidi wrote:
| So, how are you gauging if someone is offering $18 or $20?
| woodruffw wrote:
| That's not how wages work. Hourly wages aren't based on
| _actual_ economic value; they 're based on a complex of
| factors that make someone accept or leave a job (convenience,
| opportunity cost, bargaining power, prior experience, etc.).
|
| Fast food restaurants _clearly_ realize more than $20 /hr in
| economic value from their hourly employees in California,
| much like they do in Europe.
| hellojesus wrote:
| Of course there are multiple dimensions to the employees
| decision of how much they are willing to trade their time
| for, but they are always boiled down to a singular
| financial value. This value is what they are paid.
|
| I reject your assertion that an employee _clearly_ realizes
| more than $20 /hr in value to their employer. But even if
| they did: why should the employer be forced to pay them
| more, when the job itself is unskilled and therefore has a
| surplus of folks demanding the position, even at their
| current rates of pay?
| nwiswell wrote:
| > Fast food restaurants clearly realize more than $20/hr in
| economic value from their hourly employees in California,
| much like they do in Europe.
|
| This is certainly true on the whole, but it is not
| necessarily true _at the margin_. It 's quite likely that
| in response, fast food restaurants be motivated to slim
| down their staffing more than they would otherwise.
| nwah1 wrote:
| "Legal Minimum Wage positively increases the productivity of
| the nation's industry, by ensuring that the surplus of
| unemployed workmen shall be exclusively the least efficient
| workmen; or, to put it in another way, by ensuring that all
| the situations shall be filled by the most efficient
| operatives who are available...
|
| What would be the result of a Legal Minimum Wage on the
| employer's persistent desire to use boy labor, girl labor,
| married women's labor, the labor of old men, of the feeble-
| minded, of the decrepit and broken-down invalids and all the
| other alternatives to the engagement of competent male adult
| workers at a full Standard Rate? ... To put it shortly, all
| such labor is parasitic on other classes of the community,
| and is at present employed in this way only because it is
| parasitic...
|
| The unemployable, to put it bluntly, do not and cannot under
| any circumstances earn their keep. What we have to do with
| them is to see that as few as possible of them are produced."
|
| - Sidney Webb, "The Economic Theory of the Minimum Wage"
| leothecool wrote:
| It would only mean that if wages were based on economic
| value. Which, I guess could be true if hourly wage and
| economic value mean the same thing.
| hellojesus wrote:
| Basic economics can be reduced to: Operate while
| marginal_revenue >= marginal_cost (mr >= mc).
|
| In this example, marginal cost just increased by some
| delta, d, to get to $20. This means that anyone currently
| working in such fashion that d > (mr - mc) now provides
| negative value to their employer.
|
| Furthermore, in any future venture, people will only be
| hired if they can provide >= $20 in hourly revenue.
|
| Likely fast food restaurants will raise prices to cover the
| increased mc, so this ultimately gets passed on to the
| consumer.
|
| I don't understand why this is controversial.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Aside from that not being how labor economics work: no, it
| reduces the business model of profiting off public and NPO
| social assistance programs that enable corporations to employ
| people at starvation wages.
|
| If a business model relies upon paying people wages so low
| they can't afford to live without government assistance, then
| that business model is government subsidized.
|
| The best example of this would be Walmart, who rake in
| massive profits year after year while having employees whose
| sole duty is to help employees with finding and filing for
| public assistance programs, which the employees need because
| they're paid so little.
|
| No person in the US working a full-time job should be paid so
| little that they cannot afford at a minimum the essentials
| for living a healthy and happy life (ie, not just
| food/shelter but for things like enough to be able to do
| something in celebration of life's events, raise a child if
| they wish, put money away for when they are at retirement,
| etc.)
|
| Among other things, this would substantially free up money
| and administration resources to provide for those who are not
| working and need help getting their life back together enough
| to be employable again.
| hellojesus wrote:
| The government could easily solve this by not offering
| welfare or social assistance programs.
|
| In such cases, workers would simply be unwilling to work
| somewhere that cannot provide an income to meet their
| needs.
|
| You describe a problem generated through moral hazard.
| lefstathiou wrote:
| Of course it will. And don't think the politicians don't
| already know this. It's all part of the plan. Next on the
| ballot is universal basic income for all who lost their jobs.
| Voters for life.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Haven't automated CEOs away yet, so I'm sure these folks are
| safe for now. CEOs are much more expensive and provide much
| less value arguably. No CEO has ever served me a meal, for
| example.
| adrr wrote:
| Warehouse workers get paid around the same rates in California
| yet you don't see automated warehouses. You see things like
| some goods to person robots and automated sortation and with
| the big retailers like Amazon, they still throw labor at the
| issue.
|
| Industry has been trying to push automation with app based
| ordering(eg: starbucks) even before this change.
|
| https://www.indeed.com/q-amazon-warehouse-l-los-angeles,-ca-...
| johnnyworker wrote:
| That's just blackmail, like saying you have to legalize
| prostitution to reduce rape. No. You have to stop exploiting
| people or be eternally afraid of them, and eternally unable to
| look in the mirror. That's what _needs_ doing.
| pokstad wrote:
| So weird. So now a non-fast food entry level job needs to compete
| with a $20/hr fast food job? It'd be interesting to hear what
| economists think about how this arbitrary incentive will
| influence workers.
| edgyquant wrote:
| The biggest losers will be teenagers trying to get their first
| job. Why would anyone hire that person when there will be
| adults with job experience applying for the same pay. People
| get triggered when you say these are jobs for kids, but some
| jobs do need to be for them so they can earn money in high
| school/college and have _something_ on a resume to prove they
| showed up everyday.
| digging wrote:
| What? We really don't actually need high school kids working.
| Most don't.
| paulpauper wrote:
| agree. that seems like an outdated concept by 50 years. i
| would rather have employees with experience take those jobs
| than teens who do their job poorly
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| How are they supposed to become adults with experience,
| if they can't get jobs as teens?
|
| I worked a ton of jobs as a teenager, and started a few
| small businesses. I was highly motivated to prove myself
| against adults with the attitude you have, so I was
| working twice as hard and was making half the mistakes of
| my adult co-workers.
|
| I learned so much working as a teenager, and it was a
| really enjoyable experience to feel useful, and to have
| my own disposable income. Without it, my mental health
| would have been much worse.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| All of these comments saying that you worked a ton of
| jobs as a teenager and started small businesses: How many
| of you even realize how out of date your concept of being
| a teenager is like?
|
| If a teenager is working it's in order to support their
| parents nowadays. They're not building any sort of higher
| experience flipping burgers or stocking shelves, they're
| tanking their education in order to survive.
|
| It certainly as hell wasn't aligned with my teenage
| experience growing up poor. And more importantly think
| about how far a minimum wage part time job as a teenager
| is going to get you today vs 30 years ago relative to
| inflation.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| We don't? I started working when I was 15 so I could buy a
| car when I turned 16. With a car, all kinds of
| opportunities open up. Like taking girls on dates, which,
| what do you, costs money. Luckily for me I had a source of
| income. Lord knows my parents couldn't afford to just give
| me cash. I think about all the fun life experiences I would
| have missed out on along with the character building that
| comes along with doing a job well and earning a paycheck.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Given how much tuition has surged, the era of paying for
| college with a crappy summer job is long over. Teens can make
| more money anyway doing social media, video game reviews,
| livestreams, and such. There are many more opportunities
| today to make money that didn't exist 30 year ago.
| paulddraper wrote:
| lol you think the average twitch streamer makes a few
| hundreds bucks a week
| pawelmurias wrote:
| > have something on a resume to prove they showed up
| everyday.
|
| Society shouldn't promote teenagers doing shit jobs. They
| shouldn't be done by people with potential.
| jacamera wrote:
| This is the exact kind of sociopathic elitism that we
| should seek to minimize by promoting a diverse array of
| experiences for young developing adults, including working
| jobs that are "beneath" them.
| HEmanZ wrote:
| Why shouldn't they be done by people with potential?
|
| It seems to me the opposite. The world runs on a lot of
| shit jobs. Young people on some path to important
| leadership positions in society should with have real
| experience in these positions.
|
| E.g: I learned a lot about efficiency and working with
| diverse and problematic people when I worked fast food as a
| teenager. I learned a lot about automation and prison when
| I worked in a factory in college. Both shaped a lot of my
| mental model for the world, and I think both contributed a
| lot to long term leadership skills.
|
| The only shit high school job I don't think I learned
| anything from was fruit picking. Other than maybe just how
| miserable it is.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > Society shouldn't promote teenagers doing shit jobs.
|
| Beg to differ.
|
| There is an epidemic of delayed adulthood brought on by
| lack of actual responsibility.
| jacamera wrote:
| Not to sound too grandiose, but I think that the tradition of
| teenagers working in low-skilled retail and service jobs is
| also important for societal cohesion. Nothing is going to
| give you more empathy for the people working in those jobs
| than having done it yourself for at least a couple years. For
| teenagers in the middle class and above I'd say it's actually
| the most important reason to work those types of jobs.
| krapp wrote:
| >Nothing is going to give you more empathy for the people
| working in those jobs than having done it yourself for at
| least a couple years.
|
| Have you worked in a restaurant or retail? No one gets more
| abuse than those workers.
|
| The real reason we want teenagers in low-skilled jobs is to
| keep wages low. That's it. Not tradition, not social
| cohesion, not to teach anyone "responsibility" or "empathy"
| but simply to undercut the labor market, because if more
| adults worked those jobs, they would be paid more.
| pc_edwin wrote:
| One of my fantasies is becoming elected president and creating a
| constitutional amendment against minimum wage.
|
| It is truly one of the most egregious and inhuman concoctions of
| modern collectivism.
|
| No government or king should have that kind of power over its
| people. You are dictating by fiat that there not be any jobs
| below a certain price/threshold.
|
| You are de-facto sentencing all the people below a certain IQ,
| skill, competence, age, experience etc to be permanently
| subjugated to government handouts or destitution.
|
| You are eliminating the concept of teenage labor and
| apprenticeships (almost) entirely. Why would I hire an
| inexperienced guy for a job if I have to pay him the same as a
| normal guy.
|
| Same goes for kids, why would I hire kids? This is used to be a
| crucial pillar of society. Not because the evil capitalist bakery
| could exploit kids or because they kids need the money. Its a
| crucial integration point.
|
| The idea that you completely shield kids from society until after
| college is a crime against humanity.
|
| Do you have any idea how important it is to be given
| responsibility, work hard and enjoy the fruits of your own labour
| at a very young age. Even I can't fully grasp the consequences of
| depriving this from our kids.
|
| This is just the beginning what about low iq people? I mean
| people that have IQs so low that they can't even pass the
| military test. Something like 5% of the population falls in this
| category. Should the be deprived of what ever dignity they have
| left and live the remainder of the lives as a federal benefactor.
| Same goes for a huge chunk of disabled people..
|
| There are so many other examples I haven't even though of yet and
| thats exactly the problem with you collectivists. You guys think
| you have it all figured out and you can easily restructure the
| millennia old experiment of civilisation itself from the top
| down.
| hparadiz wrote:
| Everything you just wrote is wrong and I'm only commenting to
| make you aware of that. Enjoy your downvotes.
| timeon wrote:
| > Why would I hire an inexperienced guy for a job if I have to
| pay him the same as a normal guy.
|
| You hire people not because of skill but the fact that they can
| be exploited or not?
| baggy_trough wrote:
| Crazy times. Hope everyone loves inflation and higher
| unemployment.
| gdulli wrote:
| Good for them but inflation has already hit fast food hard enough
| that it no longer qualifies as cheap enough relative to other
| food options to be worth the lower quality.
| HEmanZ wrote:
| Can anyone point me to any broad research or economic analysis
| that shows that minimum wage laws do anything to help those with
| low skill in the labor market? The economic consensus and data
| evidence I find is that it basically does nothing in the medium
| term, because the market just inflated to adjust, and pushes
| people out of the workforce or into the black market at the
| margins.
|
| I'm liberal enough to be open to the idea, but it seems like the
| least likely of left wing economic policies to actually improve
| the quality of life of low skill workers.
| lacker wrote:
| What a funny set of rules. The law has "an exception for
| restaurants that make and sell their own bread, like Panera
| Bread". Time for McDonalds to start making their own bread!
|
| The other weird thing is that Taco Bell has to pay $20/hour, but
| a random taqueria only has to pay $15.50/hour.
| bhb916 wrote:
| These laws are not made to be coherent or actually help people.
| They are made to curry favor with a particular base. It creates
| all these super strange situations where it's impossible to
| know what the rules will be. These nonsensical laws meant to
| target specific people and/or companies will be the norm going
| forward.
| tylersmith wrote:
| I'm pretty sure McDonald's does already make the bread they
| sell wrapped around half their menu items.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Taco Bell vs taqueria does make sense, IMO. Smaller businesses
| have less economy of scale, and thus less ability to pay higher
| wages. Taco Bell, in contrast, has vastly larger scale, and
| thus the ability to pay workers more. Plus, it gives smaller,
| local businesses a potential leg up, fostering competition.
|
| The bread thing definitely reeks of corruption.
| paulddraper wrote:
| It's funny only if you don't understand the purpose of the
| rules.
| jacamera wrote:
| > The new minimum wage for fast food workers will apply to
| restaurants with at least 60 locations nationwide, with an
| exception for restaurants that make and sell their own bread,
| like Panera Bread.
|
| The exception for small restaurants makes sense, but does anyone
| have any idea what the bread exception is all about? How many
| loaves a day does a restaurant have to make in order to qualify
| for the exemption?
| staringback wrote:
| Big Bread corporate lobbying
| hellojesus wrote:
| I've said it in a response and so have others, but it's really
| important to point out that:
|
| This law now makes it illegal for anyone that can only provide
| $19/hour of economic revenue from working at a fast food
| restaurant.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| I don't think this is the gotchya or insight porn you think it
| is.
|
| For starters it's nonsensical.
|
| Don't get me started with the jargon. "Economic revenue?"
| "Illegal?"
|
| While I don't think you deserve to get downvoted for such
| nonsense, because maybe it is interesting for someone to
| explore the premise of what you're actually saying, even if you
| are saying it extremely poorly, I am at least trying to explain
| for you personally why a normal person will read this and
| think, "What is this guy talking about?"
| nrb wrote:
| Excuse me while I belly laugh at the notion that fast food
| workers deliver anywhere near that low of labor value in CA.
| timeon wrote:
| They can now provide $20/hour of economic revenue.
| hparadiz wrote:
| It's sort of amazing to me that you even wrote this. It's
| shocking.
|
| A typical fast food establishment. Say Chikfila will clear 15k
| of revenue on a typical slow night. On a good night easily 25k.
|
| An 8 hour shift at $20 an hour is $160. You need to have 5
| people in the kitchen and 6-7 out front bagging and taking
| orders. 12*160 = 1920
|
| Typically wages are your most expensive line item.
|
| So essentially everyone on HN is arguing over $500 a night from
| revenue that is already hitting 80% profit.
|
| If anything the minimum wage should be $30.
|
| It's almost like techies should stay in their lane and stop
| talking about economics they know nothing about.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-28 23:02 UTC)