Connect with us

California

Will $20 minimum wage crush fast food in California?

Published

on

Will  minimum wage crush fast food in California?


California is on the cusp of putting the fast-food industry into a curious economic experiment – mandating a custom minimum wage for larger restaurant chains.

Come April, fast food’s biggest players will be paying workers $20 hourly vs. 2024’s statewide $16 wage floor. The thinking behind the legislation is that the industry’s workers have long been underpaid, and a bold move was required to get these poorly compensated workers some hope of surviving California’s high cost of living.

Economic history tells me that this labor-intensive industry, despite all of its protests about the government’s hand in the cost of doing business, has managed to thrive.

Advertisement

Fast food lives in a consumer sweet spot: demand, convenience and relative affordability. And this pay hike – equal to minimum wage increases during the past five years – will create grand economic unknowns.

Will jobs be cut? Restaurants closed? Automation expanded? Will prices skyrocket? A mix of these? Or none of the above? Already we’ve seen Pizza Hut franchisees say they’ll cut 2,000 drivers statewide due to the wage hikes.

But you cannot ignore the other side of this equation.  As a workplace, fast food is a tough gig.

It’s typically part-time employment with challenging schedules and few, if any, benefits. This slice of food service workers is paid some of the state’s lowest wages. California food workers, by one federal calculation, earn $18 an hour on average vs. $35 for all workers statewide.

To understand this dichotomy, I filled my trusty spreadsheet with several employment and price stats for fast food – employment at limited-services restaurants; a California slice of the Consumer Price Index for dining out, and the minimum wage’s history.

Advertisement

What you see is that fast food is a significant, quick-growth industry. Limited-service restaurants employed 744,000 Californians in 2023 – that’s 4% of the state’s 18 million jobs.

And fast food’s addition of 431,000 workers since 1990 is nearly 8% of all California job growth. These worker additions are on par with the expansion of jobs in transportation and warehousing or local government.

Or look at it this way: Fast food’s 138% hiring spree since 1990 is triple the 44% job growth seen for all industries statewide.

That expansion happened as California’s minimum wage ballooned from $3.35 in 1990 to $15.50 last year. That’s a 363% jump in pay for the bottom-tier worker – nearly a fivefold pop. And it’s more than double the 167% jump in overall inflation.

And over the 33 years, dining-out costs for all kinds of eateries inflated only slightly more than the CPI – up 182%.

Advertisement

But look at fast food’s ebbs and flows over this third of a century, as I slice economic history into three chapters. Fast food’s quickest growth has come as wages and dining out costs jump the most.

1990-2000: $1 burger wars

This era featured big national chains battling for market share with a host of marketing ploys — from cheap food to big promotions for kids’ meals.

California fast food staffing grew by 107,000 or 34% growth, which doubled the statewide 16% hiring expansion. Fast food equaled 5% of the 2 million hires statewide.

This was a period where the minimum wage jumped 72% to $5.75 from $3.35. That was nearly double the 38% overall inflation rate.

But dining-out prices rose only 29% – likely due to the significant marketing battles of that era. Do you remember the $1 burgers and cheap taco promotions?

Advertisement

2001-2012: Double dips

Two recessions – one of legendary scope – cooled fast food and iced the rest of the California economy.

Still, the state’s fast food industry added only 79,000 jobs in this period or 19% growth. At the same time, however, all other bosses in total cut 37,500 California workers. Remember, the dot-com crash and the Great Recession throttled employers’ willingness to add staff in most industries.

In these economically uncertain times, the state’s minimum wage rose only 39% to $8 from $5.75. The bump was on par with the overall inflation rate.

Yet dining-out prices rose faster, a 43% increase, as busy consumers grew fonder of eating away from home.

2013-2023: The boom

Quick-serve eateries have flourished. Smaller chains brought new flavors and excitement to the industry as pandemic-era twists helped popularize take-out and delivery dining.

Advertisement

Fast food added 236,700 jobs or 47% growth – that’s 7% of all hires and double the statewide 22% hiring pace.

In this period, the minimum wage nearly doubled (to $15.50 from $8) vs. 39% overall inflation – most of that hike coming in the past two years.

Please note that dining-out prices jumped 53%, easily exceeding broader inflation.

Bottom line

Ponder fast food’s pricier competition, full-service dining.

From 1990 through 2015, staffing at these two styles of eating out moved essentially in tandem.

Advertisement

Eight years ago, when the state minimum wage was $9, full-service had 626,000 California workers – up 297,000 since 1990. Fast food staffing was 605,000 – up 292,000 in 25 years.

Fast-forward to 2023. Full-service added just 2,000 positions statewide in eight years. Fast food grew by 139,000.

This growth gap can be tied to everything from changing consumer demands to pandemic business restrictions to fast food’s price advantage.

But far costlier quick-serve meals seem to be a likely outcome of the coming higher minimum wage. Will that ultimately slow fast food’s growth, too?

Jonathan Lansner is business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

Advertisement



Source link

California

California just handed oil companies billions in free pollution permits

Published

on

California just handed oil companies billions in free pollution permits


By Alejandro Lazo, CalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California air regulators on Friday approved a contentious overhaul of the state’s carbon market, creating a program that could steer billions of dollars in free pollution permits to oil refineries and other major polluters over the objections of environmental groups, key lawmakers and three of the board’s own members.

Advertisement

Ten members of the California Air Resources Board voted to adopt the changes to its cap-and-invest program after two days of lengthy hearings, including a full day dedicated to hundreds of public comments.

The overhaul followed intensive lobbying by the oil industry as well as pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration to help keep refineries operating in the state amid rising gas prices.

The approval sets up a potential budget fight in Sacramento. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects that quarterly auction revenue for state climate programs will drop from roughly $4 billion a year to about $2 billion under the new overhaul.

Such a shortfall would effectively zero out programs lawmakers spent last year fighting to fund: affordable housing, public transit, drinking water in low-income communities and pollution monitoring in California’s most polluted neighborhoods.

The governor’s office praised the measure as a compromise that balanced economic uncertainty with the state’s climate goals. Refinery closures and the Iran-Israel war have driven average California gas prices above $6 a gallon. 

Advertisement

Newsom, in a statement, used the moment to draw a contrast with President Donald Trump.

“While Trump sows ongoing chaos and uncertainty, California is staying focused by protecting our economy, safeguarding public health, and doubling down on the clean energy future all Californians deserve,” he said. 

Environmentalists warned the changes to the program amount to a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry that weakens California’s only program setting a firm cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director for the Environmental Defense Fund, called the decision “deeply misguided” for prioritizing polluters over communities.

“Newsom’s air regulators are handing billions to oil executives at the expense of our climate, health, and affordability for working families in a rushed process that has shortchanged meaningful public participation,” said Bahram Fazeli, policy director at Communities for a Better Environment. 

Advertisement

How the program works — and what changes

California’s 13-year-old carbon market forces major polluters to buy permits while the state lowers the overall cap each year. Friday’s vote will reduce those permits – and creates a new subsidy program carved out of the market.

The program, which may still see changes, could make available a new pool of free pollution permits available to industry valued at as much as $4 billion. Companies that pledge to invest in clean energy and efficiency may qualify for the permits in exchange for investments in clean energy. 

The pool will be capped at 118.3 million permits — the same number the air board has said must come off the market for California to hit its 2030 climate target. Environmentalists say the proposal risks wiping out those reductions. 

Half are reserved for the fossil fuel sector. A recent Berkeley analysis, by the chair of an independent committee that oversees the carbon market, found refineries could end up with more free permits than they need to cover their emissions.

The air board has defended the design. Officials say the credits will go only to companies undertaking decarbonization projects, will be limited and temporary and can be clawed back if companies misuse them. The plan, they say, is meant to keep California refineries operating at a time of mounting closures and global market pressure. According to air regulators, the amended program will spur clean-energy investment as Trump cuts federal support.

Advertisement

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Man charged with murder, kidnapping their 5-year-old child before fleeing to Mexico

Published

on

Man charged with murder, kidnapping their 5-year-old child before fleeing to Mexico


A 40-year-old Los Angeles man was charged with murder after allegedly killing his girlfriend and kidnapping their young child before fleeing to Mexico, according to authorities.

Ruben Fregosojuarez has been charged one count of murder and one misdemeanor count of child abuse under circumstance or conditions other than great bodily injury or death, according to a Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office news release. Authorities first identified him as Ruben Fregoso but Los Angeles County prosecutors listed him as Ruben Fregosojuarez.

On Monday around 12:39 p.m., the Los Angeles Police Department conducted a welfare check in the 2600 block of South Alsace Avenue in West Adams, police said in a news release.

Officers found a woman dead inside the home “as a result of violence” and the woman’s daughter missing, police said. On Monday night, the California Highway Patrol issued an Amber Alert for the child, Daleza.

Advertisement

Photos obtained by NBC4 appear to show Fregosojuarez in a parking garage in San Ysidro with the girl on Sunday. The California Highway Patrol has listed her age as 4 years old but Los Angeles police say the girl is 5. She is also described as the suspect’s daughter.

The alert said that the girl was last seen with Fregosojuarez, who allegedly abducted her in a 2019 Land Rover Discovery, on Sunday at about 4 a.m.

The CHP posted in an update that the vehicle was found but that the child and man were still missing. The girl is described as 3 feet tall, 45 pounds, and having black hair and brown eyes.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

California

23andMe Sued by California Over Massive 2023 Data Breach

Published

on

23andMe Sued by California Over Massive 2023 Data Breach


California’s attorney general is suing the consumer genetics testing company formerly known as 23andMe, alleging the company failed to protect customers’ sensitive personal information in a massive 2023 data breach that exposed the ancestry and genetic data of nearly 7 million people.

Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the lawsuit on Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court against Chrome Holding Co., formerly known as 23andMe, accusing the company of failing to properly investigate or respond to numerous warnings that its systems had been compromised. The company’s mail-in self-testing kits became synonymous with DNA testing before it filed for bankruptcy in 2025.

In 2023, cybercriminals breached 23andMe’s systems by using a “credential-stuffing attack,” which involves bombarding online accounts with huge sets of user names and passwords stolen in previous unrelated attacks. Over a period of months, the intruders were able to make off with the personal data of more than 6.9 million people.

Advertisement

“23andMe’s security measures were so lax that the threat actor was able to operate undetected within 23andMe’s systems for over five months, and remarkably, 23andMe only began investigating after the threat actor offered the stolen user data for sale on the dark web and reached out to 23andMe to demand a ransom,” Bonta’s office said in the complaint. 

The San Francisco-based company, which allowed people to submit genetic materials and get a snapshot of their ancestry, revealed in October 2023 that hackers had accessed customer information in the prolonged data breach that targeted customers with Chinese or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. The stolen data of more than 1 million Asian-Pacific Islander and Ashkenazi Jewish users was later posted for sale on the dark web. 

“The sale of this data on the dark web took place amidst a period of mounting anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander and antisemitic hate and violence,” Bonta said in a press release. “This is disturbing and incredibly dangerous.”

 A January 2024 lawsuit accused the company of not doing enough to protect its customers and not notifying certain customers that their data had been targeted specifically. It later settled the lawsuit for $30 million.

23andMe representatives didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

At its peak, 23andMe became the best-known name in the emerging area of DNA self-testing, with users paying upwards of $99 for kits that gave them insights into their genetic makeup, potential relatives and ancestry. But the company’s momentum slowed down in recent years after its $3.5 billion public offering in 2021.

Last July, TTAM Research Institute, a nonprofit led by Anne Wojcicki, 23andMe’s cofounder and former CEO, acquired 23andMe’s assets for $305 million.    





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending