Business
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
Operating a restaurant in Southern California continues to be a difficult endeavor, with many establishments still struggling from pandemic losses.
Food and labor costs increased in 2024, remaining by far the largest expenses of running a restaurant, according to the Independent Restaurant Coalition. And the minimum wage is set to increase again in California starting in the new year — to $16.50 an hour.
Locally, several Los Angeles restaurateurs report that they have yet to recover from entertainment industry strikes last year, which severely affected the service industry. Paired with low patronage and pandemic-era loans and rent payments that came due, several acclaimed restaurants are struggling or have shuttered across the country, particularly in L.A.
Most recently, the well-regarded All Day Baby in Silver Lake closed on Dec. 15. Owner Lien Ta told The Times that the restaurant simply didn’t make enough money on a day-to-day basis to sustain operations.
All Day Baby in March 2020. The Silver Lake restaurant is now shuttered.
(Mariah Tauger / Los Angeles Times)
It’s unclear what 2025 has in store for restaurants, but the needs of restaurants and bars are complex and numerous. Here are the top seven challenges restaurants are likely to face in the coming year.
Labor costs
Labor has long been a top expense for restaurants. In California, a larger percentage of the bottom line is spent on labor compared to other states. This doesn’t just mean the dollars for paying staff but includes other costs, such as payroll tax and workers compensation insurance.
It used to be that a good goal for a restaurant was for labor costs to be about 30% of gross sales. But many restaurants are spending much more. At some establishments, labor can account for 50% to 60% of the bottom line.
Ross Pangilinan, chef-owner of Terrace by Mix Mix restaurant at South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa, said he spends the most on staff, which can account for up to 34% of his bottom line. The higher the labor, the more payroll tax and workers comp, he noted.
“Labor is going to be the No. 1 challenge” for 2025, said Pangilinan, who operates small, independent restaurants, including Populaire, also in South Coast Plaza.
Larger restaurants regularly poach his staff, he said.
“The restaurants can pay higher wages. They are paying their cooks over $20 an hour and smaller restaurants are trying to compete with that,” Pangilinan said. “We’re a tiny restaurant at Terrace — 70 seats or so. We’re not backed by a big corporation or big investors.”
To stay competitive he’s raised wages for his back-of-house staff, who also benefit from tip sharing, he said. “They deserve as much as the servers do. They are working more hours and they are working as hard and, sometimes harder, than the front of house.”
Food prices
Food prices are up 28% since 2019, according to the Consumer Price Index.
Higher production costs, labor and fuel costs are a few reasons that food is so much more expensive now than before the pandemic. Severe weather and disease have affected several essential crops and livestock. Also, global events such as the war in Ukraine have led to supply chain disruptions.
While the rate of growth has slowed, food costs are expected to still increase in the coming year.
Egg prices already are going up due to the accelerating spread of H5N1, a highly transmissible and fatal strain of avian influenza. The virus is to blame for below-normal levels of egg production that can’t keep up with consumer demand, which leads to higher prices.
Luis Perez, executive chef at Chapter One in Santa Ana, said he’s already paying about $114 for a case of 180 organic eggs. A few months ago, he was paying less than $100.
He’s bracing himself for what the cost will be in the coming weeks. “On any given week, we go through four to five cases of eggs,” Perez said.
In response, he’s had to pivot more often than in the past. For instance, instead of serving airline chicken, he’s dishing up less expensive chicken leg meat since a few months ago. Instead of filet mignon, he’s serving hanger steaks.
He stopped buying mixed greens months ago from local farmers markets because it was just too costly. Perez said he currently charges about $15 for a salad but would need to charge upward of $23 to justify the cost of farmers market greens.
Health insurance
Federal law requires employers with 50 or more full-time or equivalent employees to provide health insurance benefits with minimum essential coverage.
At the same time, the average cost of health insurance has increased for nearly every American. It’s no different for restaurant operators offering plans to employees. The average cost of single coverage health insurance was $8,951 in 2024, up 6% from the previous year, according to the National Restaurant Assn. For smaller outfits, the price was an average of $9,131.
Kerstin Kansteiner, owner of Alder & Sage in Long Beach, has a small staff and isn’t obligated to offer health insurance. Still, she decided to offer coverage to her six full-time employees. Three of them took her up on it. She also provides free dental insurance and a 401(k) plan.
“I promised myself, I can’t have health insurance myself and not offer it to my team,” she said. “We felt like we wanted to do the right thing.”
But that commitment comes at a price. Not long ago, Kansteiner said she got word from her health insurance provider that rates were increasing 17% to 19% in the coming year. She could switch to a lower-tier health insurance plan, but she said she doesn’t think it’s right.
“I ask my team to do the impossible every day,” she said.
She said she doesn’t quite know where she’ll find the money to pay her portion of the increase but doesn’t think she can pass it on to diners. Some already complain about prices on the menu, she said.
“I think we have to have a conversation with the public about what food really costs,” Kansteiner said.
Maricela Moreno, manager at El Tarasco in Marina del Rey, disinfects cash at the restaurant in May 2020. Dining with a credit card purchase became ubiquitous after the pandemic.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Credit card fees
As use of cash in everyday transactions fades, credit cards have become the de facto way to pay for meals, and that means card transaction fees have become a growing monthly expense for restaurant operators.
The fees are particularly a burden on smaller independent restaurants, which already operate on the slimmest of profit margins.
Delilah Snell, who operates Alta Baja Market, a restaurant and market in Santa Ana, said card swipe fees take at least 3% of her bottom line.
“Three percent means everything over the course of a year,” said Snell, who sells an assortment of products and prepared foods sourced from Mexico, California and the U.S. Southwest. “If a business makes $500,000 a year and it’s a 3% fee just for credit cards? That’s a lot.”
Visa and MasterCard dominate the credit card market, controlling around 80% of transactions in the U.S.
“With little competition in the industry, these companies set the terms, leaving independent businesses with few options to reduce their processing costs,” according to a statement from the Independent Restaurant Coalition. “The lack of competition stifles innovation and prevents smaller restaurants from negotiating better rates or leveraging alternative payment systems.”
Child care
Affordable child care continues to be a major challenge for restaurant workers. Nearly 3.5 million parents work in the restaurant industry and more than 1 million of those are single mothers, 40% of whom live in poverty, according to a 2016 report by the National Women’s Law Center and the Restaurant Opportunities Center.
The rising cost of child care and the lack of flexible options put both parents and businesses under pressure, said the Independent Restaurant Coalition. Dan Jacobs, a “Top Chef” star and chef-owner of Dan Dan restaurant in Milwaukee, said that as his team expands, more of his staff are starting families.
“The rising cost of child care across the country presents a tough dilemma: Parents are forced to choose between remaining in the workforce or staying home with their children,” he said in a statement. “It’s disheartening that in a country as advanced as ours, basic parental leave and childcare support remain out of reach for so many. It’s time for a change.”
Delivery app fees
Meal delivery apps became ubiquitous during the pandemic, and the demand for food delivery continues to expand. The delivery app market — dominated by DoorDash, UberEats and Grubhub — seems to be a blessing and a curse for restaurant operators.
The apps helped restaurants survive during the COVID-19 pandemic, when everyone was hunkered down at home. But that convenience comes at a cost to restaurants.
The commission rates can be as high as 30% per order, according to the Independent Restaurant Coalition.
“For small and mid-sized restaurants, the costs and constraints imposed by third-party apps are unsustainable,” the IRC said. “High commission fees, coupled with marketing expenses, drastically reduce profitability.”
Caroline Styne is director of the Lucques Group of restaurants and Hollywood Bowl Food & Wine.
(Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times)
Caroline Styne, a restaurateur who is co-owner and wine director of the Lucques Group of restaurants, said her restaurant relies on third-party delivery apps because she’d rather get a sale than not get one.
“It’s a little like you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t,” Styne said of delivery apps. “They have us in a stranglehold. And because of that they are able to continue and even increase their price as time goes on.”
Styne said she encourages diners who want food delivery to do so directly on the restaurant’s website, instead of going through a third party; that makes the fees slightly lower for restaurant operators.
Service charges and tipping
Service charges and junk fees came to the forefront this year after California prohibited “junk fees,” hidden online ticket sale fees and fees tacked onto hotels, restaurants, bars and delivery apps.
At the last minute in June, the state Senate passed an emergency bill to exempt restaurants from the service-fee ban.
Regardless of the 11th-hour reversal, the practice of service fees has been called into question and sparked lawsuits against restaurant operators over its use.
At the same time, the practice of adding service charges to restaurant checks has grown in Southern California and across the nation in recent years, giving rise to a debate about how the fees should be treated by customers and workers.
Several restaurant operators and industry advocates favor a service-charge model. Advocates say such a model can provide more equitable compensation to all staff so that pay is not reliant on factors such as customer satisfaction or implicit biases that may affect tipping behavior.
Mary Sue Milliken, chef and co-founder of Mundo Hospitality Group, whose restaurants include Socalo, Border Grill and Alice B, said she hopes the entire restaurant industry will one day turn to a service-charge model and get away from tipping, which she said can lead to “bad behavior” and an inequitable system where front-of-house workers get paid exponentially better than back-of-house employees.
“There has to be some movement toward a better system” on the subject of tipping and service feeds, said Mary Sue Milliken, left, with Susan Feniger in the dining room of their restaurant Alice B. in Palm Springs.
(Anne Fishbein)
But, she said, doing away with tipping would have to be done universally. Milliken compared it to how Beverly Hills in 1987 became the first city in California to ban smoking in restaurants — and most public places — while nearby cities continued to allow it.
“Beverly Hills had no smoking and all their restaurants were dead,” she said. “It has to be all in the state of California or the county of L.A. All have to do it to make it fair. There has to be some movement toward a better system.”
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
Business
How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.
Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.
What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.
But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.
The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.
How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments
To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.
The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.
In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.
In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.
Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.
Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.
Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.
How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies
With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.
The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.
The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.
The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.
One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.
Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.
And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.
Methodology
Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Oklahoma1 week agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology6 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology6 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making