Connect with us

Business

Column: The latest info on California's $20 minimum wage for fast food workers — higher pay, no job losses and minimal price hikes

Published

on

Column: The latest info on California's  minimum wage for fast food workers — higher pay, no job losses and minimal price hikes

Which of California’s economic initiatives droves conservatives batty the most? No question: It’s the state’s $20 minimum wage for fast food workers, which went into effect April 1.

For months before the wage increase, conservative pundits and economists filled the airwaves and newspaper columns with predictions that it would produce an employment bloodbath at fast food restaurants.

Some went further, purporting to find actual evidence of huge job losses. The Wall Street Journal claimed to have discovered losses of 10,000 jobs between September 2023 and January 2024, even before the new wage went into effect. The estimate was duly parroted by the conservative Hoover Institution.

What’s good for workers is good for business, and as California’s fast food industry continues booming every single month our workers are finally getting the pay they deserve.

— Gov. Gavin Newsom on the state’s $20 minimum wage for fast food workers

Advertisement

Two new analyses of the actual wage and price impacts of the $20-per-hour minimum have appeared this month. They employ slightly different statistics, but their conclusions are the same: There have been no job losses in fast food resulting from the increase. By some measures, employment has increased.

The first analysis to appear came from the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at UC Berkeley. It found no measurable job losses, significant wage gains (as one might expect from raising the minimum wage to $20 from an average of less than $17), and modest price increases at the cash register averaging about 3.7% — far lower than the fast food franchise lobby claimed were necessary.

The second comes from a joint project of the Harvard Kennedy School and UC San Francisco. Not only did that survey find no job losses, but it also debunked claims or conjectures from minimum-wage critics that the increase would show up as reductions in hours or fringe benefits.

Nothing of the kind has surfaced in the months just before or just after the new law, according to the Harvard-UCSF survey’s authors, Daniel Schneider of Harvard and Kristen Harknett of UCSF.

Advertisement

“In response to wage increases,” they wrote, “employers could have looked to cut costs by reducing fringe benefits such as health or dental insurance, paid sick time, or retirement benefits. We find no evidence of reductions.”

These results are important for several reasons. One is that the fast-food minimum wage increase is one of the sharpest ever, and the resulting wage the highest in the country (with a few minor exceptions).

It’s also one of the most tightly targeted, applying to California stores of fast food chains with more than 60 nationwide locations. The sector employs about 750,000 workers in the state, 90% of whom were paid less than $20 an hour — on average, slightly less than $17 — before the new wage went into effect.

“This is a big deal because of how many workers are getting raises,” UC’s veteran labor expert Michael Reich, the lead author of the Berkeley study, told me. The estimated average 18% raise for affected workers means that some will be able to afford a better apartment or a used car. Employers get benefits too: “The minimum wage kills a lot of vacancies and improves the supply of labor coming to those restaurants.” That means less worker turnover, which is a bothersome expense.

The fast food raise has been presented as a signature achievement by California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who depicts it as emblematic of the state’s progressive labor policies. “What’s good for workers is good for business, and as California’s fast food industry continues booming every single month our workers are finally getting the pay they deserve,” Newsom said in August.

Advertisement

Fast food employment in California rose after April’s minimum wage increase (solid red line), often faster than in the rest of the country.

(UC Berkeley)

California has been a leader in raising minimum wages. The overall state minimum wage this year is $16 an hour and is scheduled to rise to $16.50 on Jan. 1; that’s the highest state-level minimum and the highest except for the District of Columbia, where it’s $17.50. (Certain localities in some states have higher minimums.) The California minimum wage for certain healthcare workers will rise to between $18 and $23 on Wednesday.

The issue is also timely, for California voters will be asked on election day to vote on a minimum wage increase for employees at all but the smallest businesses to $17 immediately and $18 on Jan. 1.

Advertisement

All that has made the fast-food minimum a favorite target for employers, their lobbyists and some right-of-center economic commentators.

The minimum wage issue occupies a peculiar place in economic analysis. Many economists and commentators judge it by intuition — if you raise the price of something, such as the price of fast food labor, conventional economics say you’ll get less of it. Hence, higher minimum wage, fewer jobs.

But it’s also among the most heavily studied of all economic phenomena, with the overwhelming majority of studies finding little or no employment effect from a higher minimum. But none examined the effects of a minimum higher than $15.

That left the door open for critics of the California minimum to claim that this higher minimum was destined to wreak havoc on fast food employment. Some jumped the gun by finding job losses even before the law went into effect — ostensibly because employers were cutting jobs in anticipation of higher costs.

As I reported in June, the California Business and Industrial Alliance placed a full-page ad in USA Today, citing the Wall Street Journal’s figure of 10,000 fast-food jobs lost during the fall and early winter and describing 12 restaurants or chains as “victims of Newsom’s minimum wage.”

Advertisement

This was “baloney, sliced thick,” I wrote. Some of the chains listed were victims of other economic factors, such as competition, or financial manhandling by their private equity owners.

The figure of 10,000 job losses proved to be a statistical error: The Wall Street Journal used non-seasonally adjusted job figures, so it missed the fact that fast-food employment always falls in the September-January period, so the looming minimum wage played no role.

That was something of a curveball for UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian, who had cited the Journal’s figure in two columns published by the Hoover Institution, where he is a senior fellow, writing that the pace and timing of the employment decline made it “tempting to conclude that many of those lost fast-food jobs resulted from the higher labor costs employers would need to pay” when the new law kicked in.

Ohanian told me in June that he hadn’t realized that the figures weren’t seasonally adjusted, and that he would query the Journal about the issue in anticipation of writing about it again. He told me more recently that he did write to the Journal but didn’t receive a reply, and that he hasn’t revisited the issue thus far.

So what do we know now about the $20 fast food minimum?

Advertisement

Government labor statistics haven’t shown an employment decrease in the fast-food category leading up to the April 1 date or in most of the months since then. The Berkeley researchers, led by Reich, found that fast-food employment rose almost steady this year from January through August, when it exceeded 750,000 for the first time.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in the sector during that period has run ahead of last year’s monthly figures in every month except June. From April 2023 through August this year, the BLS says, California fast food employment rose by about 3,200 jobs on a seasonally adjusted basis.

Reich’s team questioned reports of sizable price increases by restaurants aiming to pass their labor cost increases onto customers. The Wall Street Journal, for example, quoted one restaurant owner saying he had raised menu prices by 10%, and a McDonald’s franchisee fretting about losing his customer base if he had to raise the price of a Happy Meal to $20. This was nothing but a flight of fancy: The price of a Happy Meal in California ranges from $4 to $8 today, depending on its content and size.

Based on their examination of menus from nearly 1,600 California restaurants, the Berkeley researchers calculated the average price increase to be about 3.7% — “or about 15 cents on a $4 hamburger.” That was less than the 4.8% average increase imposed on fast-food customers from April 2023 to April 2024. Their math suggests that fast food restaurants passed about 62% of their labor cost increase in April to customers; the rest was taken out of profits.

None of this is likely to be the last word on the minimum wage issue. Future increases for fast food workers will be in the hands of an advisory wage council and subject to legislative oversight. It’s still early in the post-$20 era; wage and price effects may take many more months, even a year, to emerge, though over time the hourly minimums for other employment sectors may move higher, making the fast food wage less of an outlier.

Advertisement

Employment figures, moreover, can be hard to validate. Several different statistical models are in use by states and the federal government. UCLA’s Ohanian reminded me that the quarterly census of employment and wages of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which covers about 95% of businesses, is current only through the end of March. The next release, covering the second quarter of 2024, won’t be published until December; it’s calibrated with the bureau’s other estimates only once a year.

Don’t expect anything published then to quash the debate over California’s fast food labor policy. The evil of the minimum wage is a favorite chew toy in conservative politics.

But the bottom line is that workers in the California fast-food industry are better off today than they were six months ago. Who has a problem with that?

Advertisement

Business

As gas prices rise, California gets punched harder at the pump than other states

Published

on

As gas prices rise, California gets punched harder at the pump than other states

Californians are feeling more pain at the pump than any other state as the conflict with Iran pushes up prices.

Spencer Shearer was filling up his Nissan Sentra on Friday morning at the Chevron station in Brentwood near San Vicente and Montana avenues and paying a rate higher than almost anywhere else in the country: $5.55 per gallon.

“It sucks,” Shearer said as he watched his bill on the pump click toward $50.

With the continued conflict in and around Iran, gas prices are rising. In the Los Angeles area and a few places around the San Francisco Bay Area, the cost of gas has cracked $5-per-gallon again and is even tipping toward $6 in a few places.

The spreading conflict in the Persian Gulf has had a predictable but unwelcome impact on California drivers. Californians usually pay far more for gas than people in other states.

Advertisement

Its pole position on prices is continuing with the latest surge.

The average cost of a gallon of regular gas in California is the most expensive in the country at $4.91, up 6% from a week ago and 11% from a month ago, according to AAA. The nationwide average is $3.32 per gallon.

The conflict with Iran has strangled movement through the Persian Gulf and catapulted the price of a barrel of oil.

The prices in California are higher than in other states because of higher taxes and stricter requirements for cleaner, more expensive gas that pollutes less. This has been a festering issue not only for the industry but also for consumers.

Fuel marketers, gas station owners and some voters have blamed Gov. Gavin Newsom’s policies.

Advertisement

Gas prices at a Shell station on Foothill Boulevard.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Newsom told regulators in 2021 to stop issuing fracking permits and phase out oil extraction by 2045. He also signed a bill allowing local governments to block the construction of oil and gas wells. He seemed to ease his stance last year and signed a bill allowing up to 2,000 new oil wells per year through 2036 in Kern County, which produces about three-fourths of the state’s crude oil.

As a result of the policies that seem aimed at punishing oil producers, California has seen a steady decline in crude oil production, making it more reliant on oil and gasoline supplies outside the state.

Advertisement

In 2024, only 23% of the crude oil refined in the state was pumped in California, with 13% from Alaska and 63% from elsewhere in the world, including about 30% from the Middle East, according to the Western States Petroleum Assn.

The primary reason gas prices in California are high is that refinery closures are reducing local supply while demand has remained high, said Zachary Leary, chief lobbyist at the Western States Petroleum Assn.

“Geopolitical events … show and highlight how fragile it is here in California,” he said.

California’s special gasoline blends are increasingly imported from overseas and can require more than a month to transport, he added.

Supply bottlenecks have been exacerbated by recent refinery closures, including the Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington in October and the idling and planned closure of the Valero refinery in Benicia, which reduced refining capacity in the state by close to 20%.

Advertisement

It is hard to predict how long this spike in prices will stay, said Severin Borenstein, faculty director of the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business.

“We don’t know whether the war will widen or end quickly,” said Borenstein. “Those things will drive the price of crude.”

At the Brentwood gas station, product manager Conner Uretsky, 30, waited as his partner refueled her Toyota Prius ahead of a trip to Palm Springs. Lately, he said, surging fuel costs have made him think twice about going on road trips.

Uretsky, who moved to Los Angeles from the East Coast about six years ago, said he was initially shocked by the region’s high cost of living.

“Gas prices are crazy,” he said.

Advertisement

Paula, a writer who declined to share her last name, said she was “furious” at President Trump’s decision to start a war with Iran, as well as his recent actions in Venezuela and threats against Greenland and Cuba.

“If you look at who’s paying for this war, we are,” she said, pointing to the fuel price flip sign as she waited for her Volvo hybrid SUV to refuel.

Shearer says he has to be more careful with his gas budget. The business analyst tries to find the least expensive gas near his home in Los Angeles. Still, he’s gotten used to California’s high prices.

“It feels almost normal to be paying this amount,” he said.

Times staff writer Laurence Darmiento contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Labubu maker Pop Mart is opening U.S. headquarters in Culver City

Published

on

Labubu maker Pop Mart is opening U.S. headquarters in Culver City

Pop Mart, the Chinese toymaker known for its collectible Labubu dolls, reportedly plans to open a new office building in Culver City as it seeks to expand its North American presence.

The 22,000-square-foot office will serve as Pop Mart’s new U.S. headquarters, according to real estate data provider CoStar, which earlier reported the deal.

Pop Mart, founded in 2010 in Beijing, is credited with fueling the frenzy over “blind boxes” — small, collectible toys sold in packaging that keeps the exact figure inside a surprise until it is unsealed.

The toymaker, which is publicly traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, has nearly 600 physical stores across 18 countries, according to its September 2025 half-year financial report.

Advertisement

Much of its recent growth has concentrated in the U.S. In the first half of last year, the company opened 40 new stores, including 19 in the Americas. In Southern California, it now has stores in Westfield Century City, Glendale Galleria, and Westfield UTC Mall in La Jolla.

The office building Pop Mart is moving into, named “Slash,” features leaning glass windows and a distinguishable jagged design. The 1999 building was designed by the Los Angeles architect Eric Owen Moss.

Pop Mart’s decision to root itself in L.A.’s Westside comes amid Culver City’s transformation from a sleepy suburb known for being the home to Sony Pictures Studios — to an urban hub, driven, in part, by the Expo Line station that opened in 2012.

Ikea recently announced plans to open a 40,000-square-foot store in Culver City’s historic Helms Bakery complex — its first in L.A.’s Westside — later this spring.

Big tech has played an important role in Culver City’s recent evolution. Recent additions include Apple, which has opened a studio and has been building a larger office campus; Amazon, which in 2022 unveiled a massive virtual production stage, and Tiktok, which in 2020 opened a five-floor office featuring a content creation studio. Pinterest has a new office in Culver City as of last month, according to the company’s LinkedIn account.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

After Warner Bros. merger, changes are coming to the historic Paramount lot. Here’s what to expect

Published

on

After Warner Bros. merger, changes are coming to the historic Paramount lot. Here’s what to expect

With Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. expected to saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, Paramount executives are looking to do away with redundant assets including real estate — and there is a lot of that.

Chief in the public’s imagination are their historic studios in Burbank and Hollywood, where legendary films and television show have been made for generations and continue to operate year-round.

“Both of these studios are in the core [30-mile zone,] the inner circle of where Hollywood talent wants to be,” entertainment property broker Nicole Mihalka of CBRE said. “It’s very prime real estate.”

When Sony and Apollo were bidding for Paramount in early 2024, their plan was to sell the Paramount property, but there is no indication that Paramount would part with its namesake lot.

For now, Paramount’s plan is to keep both studios operating with each studio releasing about 15 films a year, but the goal is to eventually consolidate most of the studio operations around the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank in order to to eliminate redundancies with the Paramount lot on Melrose Avenue, people close to Chief Executive David Ellison said.

Advertisement

A view of the Warner Bros. Studios water tower Feb. 23, 2026, in Burbank.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Paramount would not look to raze its celebrated studio lot — the oldest operating film studio in Los Angeles — because of various restrictions on historic buildings there. Paramount also has a relatively new post-production facility on site and will likely need to the studio space.

Instead, the plan would be to lease out space for film productions, including those from combined Paramount-HBO streaming operations. Ellison also is considering plans to develop other parts of the 65-acre site for possible retail use, as well as renting space for commercial offices.

Advertisement

The studios’ combined property holdings are vast, and real estate data provider CoStar estimates they have about 12 million square feet of overlapping uses, including their studio campuses, offices and long-term leases in such film centers as Burbank, Hollywood and New York.

Century-old Paramount Pictures Studios is awash in Hollywood history — think Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond desperately trying to enter its famous gate in “Sunset Boulevard,” and other classics such as “The Godfather,” “Titanic” and “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”

The lot, however, is a congested warren of stages, offices, trailers and support facilities such as woodworking mills that date to the early 20th century. The layout is byzantine in part because Paramount bought the former rival RKO studio lot from Desilu Productions to create the lot known today.

Warner Bros. occupies 11 million square feet and owns 14 properties totaling 9.5 million square feet, largely in the United States and United Kingdom, CoStar said. About 3 million square feet of that commercial property is in the Los Angeles area.

The firm’s portfolio also includes the sprawling Warner Bros. Studios Leavesden complex in the U.K. and Turner Broadcasting System headquarters in Atlanta.

Advertisement

Paramount Skydance occupies 8 million square feet and owns 14 properties totaling 2.1 million square feet, according to CoStar. In addition to its Hollywood campus, Paramount’s holdings include prominent buildings in New York such as the Ed Sullivan Theater and CBS Broadcast Center.

Warner Bros. operates a 3-million-square-foot lot in Burbank with more than 30 soundstages — along with space for building sets and backlot areas — where famous movies including “Casablanca” and television shows such as “Friends” were filmed. Paramount’s 1.2-million-square-foot Melrose campus anchors a broader network of owned and leased production space, CoStar said.

Paramount’s lot is already cleared for more development. More than a decade ago, Paramount secured city approval to add 1.4 million square feet to its headquarters and some adjacent properties owned by the company.

The redevelopment plan, valued at $700 million in 2016, underwent years of environmental review and public outreach with neighbors and local business owners.

The plan would allow for construction of up to 1.9 million square feet of new stage, production office, support, office, and retail uses, and the removal of up to 537,600 square feet of existing stage, production office, support, office, and retail uses, for a net increase of nearly 1.4 million square feet.

Advertisement

The proposal preserves elements of the past by focusing future development on specific portions of the lot along Melrose and limited areas in the production core, architecture firm Rios said.

The Warner Bros. and Paramount lots “are two of the most prime pieces of real estate in the country,” Mihalka said. “These are legacy assets with a lot of potential to be [tourist] attractions in addition to working studios.”

Hollywood is still reeling from previous mergers, in addition to a sharp pullback in film and television production locally as filmmakers chase tax credits offered overseas and in other states, including New York and New Jersey.

Last year, lawmakers boosted the annual amount allocated to the state’s film and TV tax credit program and expanded the criteria for eligible projects in an attempt to lure production back to California. So far, more than 100 film and TV projects have been awarded tax credits under the revamped program.

The benefits have been slow to materialize, but Mihalka predicts that the tax credits and desirability of working close to home will lead to more studio use in the Los Angeles area, including at Warner Bros. and Paramount.

Advertisement

“These are such prime locations that we’ll see show runners and talent push back on having shows located out of state and insist on being here,” she said. “I think you’re going to see more positive movement here.”

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending