California
Will $20 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.
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.
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%.
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?
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.
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.
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
California
California’s exodus isn’t just billionaires — it’s regular people renting U-Hauls, too
It isn’t just billionaires leaving California.
Anecdotal data suggest there is also an exodus of regular people who load their belongings into rental trucks and lug them to another state.
U-Haul’s survey of the more than 2.5 million one-way trips using its vehicles in the U.S. last year showed that the gap between the number of people leaving and the number arriving was higher in California than in any other state.
While the Golden State also attracts a large number of newcomers, it has had the biggest net outflow for six years in a row.
Generally, the defectors don’t go far. The top five destinations for the diaspora using U-Haul’s trucks, trailers and boxes last year were Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Texas.
California experienced a net outflow of U-Haul users with an in-migration of 49.4%, and those leaving of 50.6%. Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Illinois also rank among the bottom five on the index.
U-Haul didn’t speculate on the reasons California continues to top the ranking.
“We continue to find that life circumstances — marriage, children, a death in the family, college, jobs and other events — dictate the need for most moves,” John Taylor, U-Haul International president, said in a press statement.
While California’s exodus was greater than any other state, the silver lining was that the state lost fewer residents to out-of-state migration in 2025 than in 2024.
U-Haul said that broadly the hotly debated issue of blue-to-red state migration, which became more pronounced after the pandemic of 2020, continues to be a discernible trend.
Though U-Haul did not specify the reasons for the exodus, California demographers tracking the trend point to the cost of living and housing affordability as the top reasons for leaving.
“Over the last dozen years or so, on a net basis, the flow out of the state because of housing [affordability] far exceeds other reasons people cite [including] jobs or family,” said Hans Johnson, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California.
“This net out migration from California is a more than two-decade-long trend. And again, we’re a big state, so the net out numbers are big,” he said.
U-Haul data showed that there was a pretty even split between arrivals and departures. While the company declined to share absolute numbers, it said that 50.6% of its one-way customers in California were leaving, while 49.4% were arriving.
U-Haul’s network of 24,000 rental locations across the U.S. provides a near-real-time view of domestic migration dynamics, while official data on population movements often lags.
California’s population grew by a marginal 0.05% in the year ending July 2025, reaching 39.5 million people, according to the California Department of Finance.
After two consecutive years of population decline following the 2020 pandemic, California recorded its third year of population growth in 2025. While international migration has rebounded, the number of California residents moving out increased to 216,000, consistent with levels in 2018 and 2019.
Eric McGhee, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, who researches the challenges facing California, said there’s growing evidence of political leanings shaping the state’s migration patterns, with those moving out of state more likely to be Republican and those moving in likely to be Democratic.
“Partisanship probably is not the most significant of these considerations, but it may be just the last straw that broke the camel’s back, on top of the other things that are more traditional drivers of migration … cost of living and family and friends and jobs,” McGhee said.
Living in California costs 12.6% more than the national average, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. One of the biggest pain points in the state is housing, which is 57.8% more expensive than what the average American pays.
The U-Haul study across all 50 states found that 7 of the top 10 growth states where people moved to have Republican governors. Nine of the states with the biggest net outflows had Democrat governors.
Texas, Florida and North Carolina were the top three growth states for U-Haul customers, with Dallas, Houston and Austin bagging the top spots for growth in metro regions.
A notable exception in California was San Diego and San Francisco, which were the only California cities in the top 25 metros with a net inflow of one-way U-Haul customers.
California
California loses $160M for delaying revocation of 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses for immigrants
California will lose $160 million for delaying the revocations of 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses for immigrants, federal transportation officials announced Wednesday.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy already withheld $40 million in federal funding because he said California isn’t enforcing English proficiency requirements for truckers.
The state notified these drivers in the fall that they would lose their licenses after a federal audit found problems that included licenses for truckers and bus drivers that remained valid long after an immigrant’s visa expired. Some licenses were also given to citizens of Mexico and Canada who don’t qualify. More than one-quarter of the small sample of California licenses that investigators reviewed were unlawful.
But then last week California said it would delay those revocations until March after immigrant groups sued the state because of concerns that some groups were being unfairly targeted. Duffy said the state was supposed to revoke those licenses by Monday.
Duffy is pressuring California and other states to make sure immigrants who are in the country illegally aren’t granted the licenses.
“Our demands were simple: follow the rules, revoke the unlawfully-issued licenses to dangerous foreign drivers, and fix the system so this never happens again,” Duffy said in a written statement. “(Gov.) Gavin Newsom has failed to do so — putting the needs of illegal immigrants over the safety of the American people.”
Newsom’s office did not immediately respond after the action was announced Wednesday afternoon.
After Duffy objected to the delay in revocations, Newsom posted on X that the state believed federal officials were open to a delay after a meeting on Dec. 18. But in the official letter the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration sent Wednesday, federal officials said they never agreed to the delay and still expected the 17,000 licenses to be revoked by this week.
Enforcement ramped up after fatal crashes
The federal government began cracking down during the summer. The issue became prominent after a truck driver who was not authorized to be in the U.S. made an illegal U-turn and caused a crash in Florida that killed three people in August.
Duffy previously threatened to withhold millions of dollars in federal funding from California, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New York, Texas, South Dakota, Colorado, and Washington after audits found significant problems under the existing rules, including commercial licenses being valid long after an immigrant truck driver’s work permit expired. He had dropped the threat to withhold nearly $160 million from California after the state said it would revoke the licenses.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Administrator Derek Barrs said California failed to live up to the promise it made in November to revoke all the flawed licenses by Jan. 5. The agency said the state also unilaterally decide to delay until March the cancellations of roughly 4,700 additional unlawful licenses that were discovered after the initial ones were found.
“We will not accept a corrective plan that knowingly leaves thousands of drivers holding noncompliant licenses behind the wheel of 80,000-pound trucks in open defiance of federal safety regulations,” Barrs said.
Industry praises the enforcement
Trucking trade groups have praised the effort to get unqualified drivers who shouldn’t have licenses or can’t speak English off the road. They also applauded the Transportation Department’s moves to go after questionable commercial driver’s license schools.
“For too long, loopholes in this program have allowed unqualified drivers onto our highways, putting professional truckers and the motoring public at risk,” said Todd Spencer, president of the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association.
The spotlight has been on Sikh truckers because the driver in the Florida crash and the driver in another fatal crash in California in October are both Sikhs. So the Sikh Coalition, a national group defending the civil rights of Sikhs, and the San Francisco-based Asian Law Caucus filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the California drivers. They said immigrant truck drivers were being unfairly targeted.
Immigrants account for about 20% of all truck drivers, but these non-domiciled licenses immigrants can receive only represent about 5% of all commercial driver’s licenses or about 200,000 drivers. The Transportation Department also proposed new restrictions that would severely limit which noncitizens could get a license, but a court put the new rules on hold.
California
California officials facing backlash in aftermath of Palisades fire one year later | Fox News Video
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Dallas, TX3 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Technology2 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Health4 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska1 day agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Politics4 days agoDan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’
-
Entertainment1 day agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios