Business
Column: The latest info on California's $20 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
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.
“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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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?
Business
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Business
How our AI bots are ignoring their programming and giving hackers superpowers
Welcome to the age of AI hacking, in which the right prompts make amateurs into master hackers.
A group of cybercriminals recently used off-the-shelf artificial intelligence chatbots to steal data on nearly 200 million taxpayers. The bots provided the code and ready-to-execute plans to bypass firewalls.
Although they were explicitly programmed to refuse to help hackers, the bots were duped into abetting the cybercrime.
According to a recent report from Israeli cybersecurity firm Gambit Security, hackers last month used Claude, the chatbot from Anthropic, to steal 150 gigabytes of data from Mexican government agencies.
Claude initially refused to cooperate with the hacking attempts and even denied requests to cover the hackers’ digital tracks, the experts who discovered the breach said. The group pummelled the bot with more than 1,000 prompts to bypass the safeguards and convince Claude they were allowed to test the system for vulnerabilities.
AI companies have been trying to create unbreakable chains on their AI models to restrain them from helping do things such as generating child sexual content or aiding in sourcing and creating weapons. They hire entire teams to try to break their own chatbots before someone else does.
But in this case, hackers continuously prompted Claude in creative ways and were able to “jailbreak” the chatbot to assist them. When they encountered problems with Claude, the hackers used OpenAI’s ChatGPT for data analysis and to learn which credentials were required to move through the system undetected.
The group used AI to find and exploit vulnerabilities, bypass defences, create backdoors and analyze data along the way to gain control of the systems before they stole 195 million identities from nine Mexican government systems, including tax records, vehicle registration as well as birth and property details.
AI “doesn’t sleep,” Curtis Simpson, chief executive of Gambit Security, said in a blog post. “It collapses the cost of sophistication to near zero.”
“No amount of prevention investment would have made this attack impossible,” he said.
Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment. It told Bloomberg that it had banned the accounts involved and disrupted their activity after an investigation.
OpenAI said it is aware of the attack campaign carried out using Anthropic’s models against the Mexican government agencies.
“We also identified other attempts by the adversary to use our models for activities that violate our usage policies; our models refused to comply with these attempts,” an OpenAI spokesperson said in a statement. “We have banned the accounts used by this adversary and value the outreach from Gambit Security.”
Instances of generative AI-assisted hacking are on the rise, and the threat of cyberattacks from bots acting on their own is no longer science fiction. With AI doing their bidding, novices can cause damage in moments, while experienced hackers can launch many more sophisticated attacks with much less effort.
Earlier this year, Amazon discovered that a low-skilled hacker used commercially available AI to breach 600 firewalls. Another took control of thousands of DJI robot vacuums with help from Claude, and was able to access live video feed, audio and floor plans of strangers.
“The kinds of things we’re seeing today are only the early signs of the kinds of things that AIs will be able to do in a few years,” said Nikola Jurkovic, an expert working on reducing risks from advanced AI. “So we need to urgently prepare.”
Late last year, Anthropic warned that society has reached an “inflection point” in AI use in cybersecurity after disrupting what the company said was a Chinese state-sponsored espionage campaign that used Claude to infiltrate 30 global targets, including financial institutions and government agencies.
Generative AI also has been used to extort companies, create realistic online profiles by North Korean operatives to secure jobs in U.S. Fortune 500 companies, run romance scams and operate a network of Russian propaganda accounts.
Over the last few years, AI models have gone from being able to manage tasks lasting only a few seconds to today’s AI agents working autonomously for many hours. AI’s capability to complete long tasks is doubling every seven months.
“We just don’t actually know what is the upper limit of AI’s capability, because no one’s made benchmarks that are difficult enough so the AI can’t do them,” said Jurkovic, who works at METR, a nonprofit that measures AI system capabilities to cause catastrophic harm to society.
So far, the most common use of AI for hacking has been social engineering. Large language models are used to write convincing emails to dupe people out of their money, causing an eight-fold increase in complaints from older Americans as they lost $4.9 billion in online fraud in 2025.
“The messages used to elicit a click from the target can now be generated on a per-user basis more efficiently and with fewer tell-tale signs of phishing,” such as grammatical and spelling errors, said Cliff Neuman, an associate professor of computer science at USC.
AI companies have been responding using AI to detect attacks, audit code and patch vulnerabilities.
“Ultimately, the big imbalance stems from the need of the good-actors to be secure all the time, and of the bad-actors to be right only once,” Neuman said.
The stakes around AI are rising as it infiltrates every aspect of the economy. Many are concerned that there is insufficient understanding of how to ensure it cannot be misused by bad actors or nudged to go rogue.
Even those at the top of the industry have warned users about the potential misuse of AI.
Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has long advocated that the AI systems being built are unpredictable and difficult to control. These AIs have shown behaviors as varied as deception and blackmail, to scheming and cheating by hacking software.
Still, major AI companies — OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, and Google — signed contracts with the U.S. government to use their AIs in military operations.
This last week, the Pentagon directed federal agencies to phase out Claude after the company refused to back down on its demand that it wouldn’t allow its AI to be used for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.
“The AI systems of today are nowhere near reliable enough to make fully autonomous weapons,” Amodei told CBS News.
Business
iPic movie theater chain files for bankruptcy
The iPic dine-in movie theater chain has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and intends to pursue a sale of its assets, citing the difficult post-pandemic theatrical market.
The Boca Raton, Fla.-based company has 13 locations across the U.S., including in Pasadena and Westwood, according to a Feb. 25 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach division.
As part of the bankruptcy process, the Pasadena and Westwood theaters will be permanently closed, according to WARN Act notices filed with the state of California’s Employment Development Department.
The company came to its conclusion after “exploring a range of possible alternatives,” iPic Chief Executive Patrick Quinn said in a statement.
“We are committed to continuing our business operations with minimal impact throughout the process and will endeavor to serve our customers with the high standard of care they have come to expect from us,” he said.
The company will keep its current management to maintain day-to-day operations while it goes through the bankruptcy process, iPic said in the statement. The last day of employment for workers in its Pasadena and Westwood locations is April 28, according to a state WARN Act notice. The chain has 1,300 full- and part-time employees, with 193 workers in California.
The theatrical business, including the exhibition industry, still has not recovered from the pandemic’s effect on consumer behavior. Last year, overall box office revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.8 billion, up just 1.6% compared with 2024. Even more troubling is that industry revenue in 2025 was down 22.1% compared with pre-pandemic 2019’s totals.
IPic noted those trends in its bankruptcy filing, describing the changes in consumer behavior as “lasting” and blaming the rise of streaming for “fundamentally” altering the movie theater business.
“These industry shifts have directly reduced box office revenues and related ancillary revenues, including food and beverage sales,” the company stated in its bankruptcy filing.
IPic also attributed its decision to rising rents and labor costs.
The company estimated it owed about $141,000 in taxes and about $2.7 million in total unsecured claims. The company’s assets were valued at about $155.3 million, the majority of which coming from theater equipment and furniture. Its liabilities totaled $113.9 million.
The chain had previously filed for bankruptcy protection in 2019.
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Wisconsin4 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Maryland5 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Florida5 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Oregon7 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling