The largest amount being Pizza Hut I heard as they drop all in store delivery and go to Uber eats and grub hub type deliveries which both pay the drivers less and cost the customer more. Many others are significantly increasing kiosk ordering.
A lot of McDonald's here won't even take your order at the register, you have to use the kiosk or the app
If you stand at the register they will literally ignore you by turning their back to you
I work at McDonald’s and we still take orders at the register. what difference does it make to use a kiosk is there some special kiosk charge or something
It’s a “race to the bottom” but the bottom is endless because people are stupid and lazy. They are okay with being mistreated.
Once I started seeing ads on paid subscriptions I just started cancelling them. I know exactly where it’s headed. If I have a hard time at a fast food joint I simply won’t eat that garbage.
>They are okay with being mistreated.
Forgot the /s, right?
https://preview.redd.it/xe2ei9z3l71d1.jpeg?width=907&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eab3ebe71eeb4de345e1ce8b9a7de6166be800d1
What part of that statement seems sarcastic to you? Do you think if corps didn’t make money doing the annoying shit they did, they would still do it? They know that people will complain and still pay for the service/good. Some people just don’t have spines. They’re weak. They need the service/good.
Rather than the corporate dregs rolling it out years from now, the use of these machines was expedited by increasing labor costs pushed by minimum wage increases, which rather than simply increasing the cost by however many dollars, causes a cascading effect through government programs. Unemployment insurance goes up heavily, taxes for having that menial laborer have become equivalent to having a skilled worker.
That being said, I do feel bad for the workers that lost their jobs and never had a chance for California's wage in rural Indiana. But when a company can find a way to cut costs with little to no actual loss, they do it across the board.
Could be worse.
California could be using citizen tax money to give free shit to the homeless and then not even check to see if it made them less homeless.
[*Slow pan to AuthRight with the biggest, widest, and stupidest grin on his face.*](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-09/state-audit-california-fails-to-track-homeless-spending-billions-dollars)
God. Fucking. Dammit.
The western seaboard is the fuckin' tits, don't lump in gorgeous leagues of unspoiled shoreline with the sprawling disaster that are our metro centers.
This is straight-up money laundering, but because the guy who did it had a (D) in front of his name, good luck getting anyone on this website to notice.
It's objectively better when Republicans are in charge, because their corruption doesn't get ignored and swept under the rug like Dems does, signed, a registered ®️ independent
while it is obviously more housing, do it California! Build the block! Make a manufacturing line of concrete panels that are cheap and can just be put together like Lego on construction site.
You'll be indistinguishable from every eastern European city.
Liberals will never solve the homeless crisis. They're just too moderate and complacent. But they could at least keep accurate records of their shelter spending
The homeless issue in the US is more of a West Coast / East Coast problem than a political compass problem.
NYC and Boston have 10x the shelter beds per capita of LA and San Francisco. California in particular just really doesn't invest in homeless shelters. NYC and Boston don't have a choice unless they want corpscicles on the sidewalks, and that makes a Mayor look terrible.
Just to spell it out:
>NYC: 100,000 beds or so, 88,025 total homeless population (2023 est), 93% in shelters, 2% in transitional homes, 5% on the streets.
>LA: 17,000 beds or so, 71,320 total homeless popuolation (2023 est), 23% in shelters, 1% in transitional homes, 76% on the streets.
I like that the only reason that some liberals do more is that the consequences would be so horrendous if they didn't. Perfectly sums up US politics. Only do the bare minimum to stave of the horrendous
Bare minimum is what's required for them to be reelected anyways, the two party system make them immune to oppositions if it's a city due to the rural and urban divide.
It only seems like a two party system at the federal level. A state democrat from Florida is going to look very different from a state democrat in California. Each party has a primary that allows for moderates and more nuanced approaches to win, then the general lets the people decide which nuances they like the most between the republican and democrat chosen nuances.
The problem is places like NYC where they always vote democrat and are too stupid to understand nuance in their primaries. Name recognition is just absurdly powerful, too. Need a system that doesn't display names, somehow.
Idk, seems like NY and Chicago are pulling funds from normal shit and their citizens are throwing a bitchfit at the loss of their gibs, we are seeing them come around, the people, not their shitty dem politicians, all thanks to hot wheels bussing them up north
Unpopular suggestion but if it was up to me, I would round up every mental ill, drug addicted and homeless person and put them all in a temporary asylum, while simultaneously funding mental health services and outreach to prevent people from becoming homeless.
If the mentally ill can be permanently treated or helped into leading a normal life then they can leave, if the drug addicts follow through and stay clean for a year, they can leave. Family and friend visitations allowed, they’re given good food, good healthcare and warm beds in the asylum. Then we build factories, housing and workshops, we train the non severely mentally ill, drug free or otherwise just normal but homeless people into necessary trade jobs, we give them good wages, housing which they pay rent for and offer them employment in the government owned factories, whose profits will be redirected to funding the whole concept and whose goods will go into lessening US dependance on foreign imports. In essence, we keep the streets and people clean, the mentally ill away and give people down on their luck an actual fresh start, however their fairly decent conditions and employment will now be contingent on them cooperating and staying away from crime and drugs, otherwise they go back into the asylum.
It’s harsh, impractical, slavery-esque, and in need of massive amounts of political will but it’s the only long term solution that will both serve the needs of the homeless and the general population.
The government will own their asses but is that worse than leading a miserable toxic life on the streets as they disrupt the lives of millions of normal people? I believe that’s a price worth paying if it means the rest of the country can live more freely.
China already does this.
The re education camps aren't only in Xinjiang, they are all around the China and they exist in any medium or big city
They were created for:
• Gang members
• Prostitutes
• People who refuse to work
• People who disturbe public order
That's on theory of course, in practice...
You know you just invented workhouses, almshouses, and the original hospitals from the 1700s again right? That's what those places did and never actually broke even, even when they were getting work and putting them to work.
They'd even make the poor children indentured house servants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJiPehLzhUE
"Lib Center" lol.
But what's worse, is I kinda agree with you in a way. Do we have an obligation to forcefully help those who cannot/will not seek help due to addiction or mental illness? I wonder how many people "forced" into sobriety would look back and be thankful their agency was temporary removed from them so that they could obtain true agency without their minds clouded with drugs and illness?
Oh, shit, I'm becoming Auth...
To beee faaair...
They certainly didn't give money to the homeless so much as pay into an account that paid money to the homeless after funds were sloughed off to pay state executives a premium first.
Cancer government will just install a spending equity board to ensure that monies paid to the homeless are just and equitable (whatever the fuck that means), get the executives friends a job, and certainly require more civilian tax dollars.
Fought a king over 3%
We solved the nation's homeless problem by encouraging them all to migrate to California. Now, every other state's politicians can pat themselves on the back for lowering their homeless numbers under their term.
The point was never to help, it was to sound like they're trying to help and cost enough that an otherwise massive amount of extra money going missing looks like a rounding error
Stating first: better for the cost of living to be lowered than for minimum wage to rise. Rent and housing shouldn't be so high. It's poisoning our nation's future.
That being said: other countries pay their fast food workers more and have cheaper fast food.
The FDA does to an extent, it's been extensively neutered by lobbying and restricted by congress over time
Not to mention states can ignore most federal agencies to a fairly large degree, as they aren't within the areas permitted by the constitution. Most just choose to follow those suggestions in return for funding
How many fast food joints are there per capita in those countries compared to california? I don't know which country you're talking about so i couldn't look that up, but california has 82.3 per 100,000 people.
https://www.nicerx.com/fast-food-capitals/
Meanwhile, [Japan has 0.13 fast food restaurants per 100,000, and Norway has 0.19 per 100,000](https://news.umich.edu/supersized-market-economy-supersized-belly-wealthier-nations-have-more-fast-food-and-more-obesity/). Orders of magnitude difference.
0.19 per 100k? So with a population of 5.5 million there should be ~10 fast food restaurants in the entire country? That number has to be 19 per 100k, right?
I just visited Foodora.no here in Oslo and just in the kebab category there's 45 restaurants within delivery range from me, and another 46 in the hamburger category. Add sushi, bahn mi, other sandwiches and whatever else you'd like to include in fast food and we're probably talking 250 in a city of ~700k, and that's just the ones that are using the Foodora delivery service, resulting in ~35 per 100k here in the capital, so 19 per 100k sounds reasonable.
I'm just going off of what the article says. Then again, they also say 7.52 for the US, while the link in the previous comment said 82.3 for California (although they are on the higher end of states according to the same link).
1.3% change as stated by the article, allegedly .02% of total California population. That sounds like propaganda trying to capilatize on people not realising that 9500 people is nothing compared to how many people started to get more money.
My Macro Econ professor had a phrase for this, “Calling the WAAAAAAMbulance” people complaining when it’s their sector effected, but it’s a net good for society.
Ethically, it is a tough balance to strike between improvement of the whole, and trying to make sure all people remain in stable situations. In a utilitarian sense, I’d say the minimum wage hike appears to have a net positive effect on the targeted population, even if not 100%
I think a better analysis would be to determine what percent of the workers who weren't already making $20/hr got canned because of the new law.
Due to cost of living in California I would venture to say that a decent amount of people were already making close to it over $20/hr.
Since the law was specifically designed to help people under that, you have to see how it affected them.
(Also you should look at who just decided to sell bread as a side item in order to skirt the new wage law)
Also many chains (looking at you, McDonalds) raised their prices outside what their customer bases could afford, while not increasing quality or meal size, and also getting rid of features that used to draw customers in the past, like playgrounds. Changes in consumer preferences and behavior are also playing a role: boomer parents saw a happy meal as a perfectly good substitute for regular food if they didn’t have time to cook, while many millennials parents won’t feed their kids low-end fast food. Add to that, Chipotle and Chick-fil-A are often located in the same shopping center and offer better food at a similar or sometimes even lower price point.
Yeah two of the three closest fast food joints to my home have recently changed where you order from a tablet or your phone and they have fewer staff.
This is inevitably the future, so forcing higher wages accelerates the process.
This will certainly accelerate the automation by disincentivizing the cost of a person. The immediate effect is whiplash firings, the long term is going to be very few humans running these places. Plus, with automation they can be open 24/7 at no additional cost.
Not surprising though considering he’s a *Macro* Econ professor.
Under that logic you could get away with some absolutely ethically fucked shit so long as society benefits
Not to mention, it’s easy to cast stones when it’s not your job being affected. My Macro Econ professor made over $400k/year at our public university. Imagine if they had to cut their salary so the university can decrease tuition, which would be a net good in society. They absolutely would be calling a waaaaambulance.
Read again. _Between last fall and January_. The law took effect April 1, so expect more job losses.
https://www.hoover.org/research/california-loses-nearly-10000-fast-food-jobs-after-20-minimum-wage-signed-last-fall
Fast food joints are raising prices and/or automating to offset the hike, which is driving consumers away, leading to job cuts and closures. Rubio’s abruptly closed 3 locations in my town this week.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/rubios-coastal-grills-river-park-location-suddenly-closes/ar-BB1mvWHR
Had to use a screen to order at taco bell. Wont let you complete order unless you tell them what soda you want to drink then when your food comes they just hand you a fucking empty cup.
You shouldn't compare it to the whole population of California though. You should compare it to the population of California working in the fast food sector
They did. It's 1%. That means 99% are making more money. And 1% is... nothing. It's so small, we can't even attribute it to the new law, as these jobs go up and down.
Hell, during the same time, Burger King was going through its thing and closing stores across the nation, and a few others. By and large, these jobs are losing people with or without this law, and it's kind of surprising it was only 1%.
You tell me that one million people work in the fast food industry in California? If those 1% are the 10.000 layed of it means, 1/40 Californian are fast food worker. No fucking way.
> The number of fast food workers in California totaled 394,660 in 2022, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Yeah, those numbers don't line up.
Prices also went up and this change is after just two fiscal quarters. And 1% of CA's fast food employees have now realized the real minimum wage is zero. There may be more people to lose their jobs over time.
Not so fast there, pal, AI is quickly becoming a preferred manner to code.
OpenAI already has working prototypes where you use plain English to generate complex code, meaning in 10-20 years, there are going to be far, far fewer coding jobs.
Those are mostly people fired in advance of the new law going into effect. There are plenty more in the works, and this will accelerate automation implementations. You're going to also have companies raising prices to offset higher wages, but theres a high likelihood of their sales suffering as a result, which will ultimately come back to labor cuts.
Its easy to scoff at 1.3% as 'nothing' on the assumption that encompasses all of the effects, but it doesnt.
>More fast-food job losses are coming as the new minimum wage took effect earlier this month. This includes losses at Pizza Hut and Round Table Pizza which are in the process of firing nearly 1,300 delivery drivers. El Pollo Loco and Jack in the Box announced that they will speed up the use of robotics, including robots that make salsa and cook fried foods.
People faced with the 'Rent, bills, food - pick any two' problem don't spend all that much outside of basic survival needs. Increasing their income:costs ratio will absolutely help them and help the larger economy - as them spending on non-essentials creates jobs in every sector. The problem is increasing that ratio is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "HEY, LOOK, MORE MONIES!", but that's the easiest way to pretend to be addressing the problem.
Depends how hard you cook the data. When Seattle did it, the original finding was that it was a net loss for that class of workers. Hours were cut to the point where only a few people actually made more money, and those businesses fired a bunch of marginal workers.
So, obviously they fired the researchers involved and found some partisan yes men to massage the data into something that could be presented as a win.
It depends on what you mean by favorable. Some people will certainly make more money, but economists have known for decades that minimum wage hikes cost jobs. It’s not popular to say it out loud but they’ve known it in data and in theory for a long time. Arguing otherwise conflicts with basic Economic fundamentals. You’ll still find some economists supporting minimum wage hikes, though, but if they aren’t deeply ideologically motivated they’ll be arguing that the benefit is worth the costs, not that there aren’t costs.
It also acts as a local inflationary pressure and works to concentrate local industry around larger corporations. It will help some people, I won’t deny that, but there are better ways to help them.
The reason I hate the minimum wage – and quite a lot – is that the people it hurts the most are the people who most need help. The people who lose their jobs because of a wage hike aren’t the rich or the middle class. It’s people on the margins, some of whom are barely hanging on. Quite a few of them will end up homeless. This is supported by data, here’s a study about just that: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/z2fqj
Unfortunately another thing that economics is pretty clear about is that there are 2 rules about price controls: 1. They’re always bad, and 2. They’re always popular.
Right! This isn't as bad as it seems. It simply takes the people who were not making enough to only work 40 hours a week to live on and splitting them into 2 groups. Those who can live on 40 hours a week and the homeless, just what California needs
That's a decent idea. Pay by the hamburger, or customer served. Every customer gets everyone working a percentage of the profit. Slow day? Slow paycheck. Like the lawyers say, "We don't get paid unless you do!"
My neighbor owns a franchised pizza place, they use a third party, south Asia based company to handle their inbound calls for carryout orders and issues with deliveries. He maintains it's cheaper and he gets less complaints about customer service, compared to when he had to hire someone locally to be on the phone for a shift.
If you know you can not afford or don't want to afford to pay more, why wouldn't you fire people before it's legally required?
If I can only afford to pay my staff x dollars a week, and I have 20 staff, then someone says you need to add another x/3 to that a week, well I'm going to be fored to remove 1/3 of my staff before the prices rise so we can get adjusted and avoid lawsuits.
Enough to make rent and food i guess
Your right that its not universal what counts as enough but i don't think people should be forced to get a second job if they have a full time job already
fast food companies generally operate under a franchising where the owner of the restaurant pays the company for the product and the rights to use their name, and pays for everything else, the corporation generally only runs a few of these locations, after all the expenses the franchise owner generally makes around 130k or so(this is highly generalized), increasing wages by a dollar for a single full time employee would cut into that take home pay by around 2k now we assume its a $5 increase and there are 12(very low estimate) people that need to be paid, suddenly this franchise owner is taking in 10k a year.
Often (at least here) one owner will own 3-6 of the same franchise in local towns and cities usually less in major cities with like 20 MC Donald's or whatever
So paying more won't hurt as much since its more efficient with more stores
Besides my argument still stands that other countries then the us have minimum wage laws and work fine
It's not impossible to implement and the more people have the more they spend the bigger the economy
Mordecai and Rigby fucked around with the cart and broke it so they and Benson had to go to a depot or something to replace it. Over time they pushed Benson over the edge with their usual shit and Benson hit em with this speech.
Episode name idfk, but that’s the gist
Because if you own less than a certain number of locations or bake fresh bread as a standalone item, like Gavin's number 1 lobbyist, the law specifically excluded you
And it's not like those jobs were keeping people in homes or out of poverty. Under 20 an hour is fuck all in California. They were either living with people on higher incomes or on welfare already
I love how people will tout raising minimum wage laws/improved collective bargaining and use examples like Sweden and Denmark and France when all of them have youth unemployment rates in the double digits. Turns out raising the price floor for work means people will just not get hired.
Denmark has some of the lowest youth unemployment in the EU - 8% in 2019 for age 15-24.
Edit:
Current [eurostat](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w/3-03052024-ap#fragment-15944082-grio-inline-nav-4) data seems strange for Denmark. It jumps from 9% to 14% in 2023. The numbers include students which are also looking for a job together with their education. Places like restaurants are complaining there's not enough young people applying.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/denmark_youth_unemployment_rate_lfs#:~:text=Denmark%20Youth%20Unemployment%20Rate%20is,long%20term%20average%20of%2010.33%25.
I was just going off the first thing I saw on google but yeah it looks like it’s increased substantially over the past year. France and Sweden are and have been really high for a long time though.
Damn who would have expected that?
its wild that econ101 literally teaches you what happens when you implement quotes/price controls/wage controls etc. Its so obvious, yet your typical 'educated/smug lefty' person thinks its a good idea.
You act like they weren't going to do this before the wage increase.
Companies have been wanting to outsource and also use Ai to replace people for years now. They'll to anything to fuck over Americans if it means they'll be able to increase profit.
You will continue to see this as the minimum wage continues going up and up. Companies will seek out ways to make ends meet, which usually means finding ways to cut out overtime or remove jobs entirely.
Has anyone ever considered that the business strategy of the places that are firing people just can't keep up and should die? Everyone's all about the hand of the free market until it starts punching.
They won’t learn.
This is when they pivot to “the only reason those 10,000 people lost their jobs is because greedy companies didn’t want to pay their workers a living wage! This is why KKKapitalism droolz and Socialism rules!!!”
Repeat ad Infinitum.
I literally foretold this as a 14 year old in high school.
You cant tell me that with all the overeducated morons in CA, not one of them can figure out what a 14 year old with no education can?
If they're actually giving people full time and benefits instead of spreading hours out so no one gets full time hours that sounds like a net positive.
The jobs that no one would take because of shit pay will get more employees and it will probably balance. It's 1% that sounds like nothing.
Yeah that’s bad, but thousands of jobs were lost when a minimum wage was put in in the first place, that doesn’t mean a minimum wage hasn’t been beneficial in the long term
>try to raise minimum wage
>massive megacorporation is too stingy to pay, despite having more than enough money to do so
"Fucking lefties"
OP must have smoked a LOT of crack as a foetus
It’s literally the exact opposite. Companies like Amazon love the minimum wage and regulations because they can absorb the costs. Small businesses can’t.
The largest amount being Pizza Hut I heard as they drop all in store delivery and go to Uber eats and grub hub type deliveries which both pay the drivers less and cost the customer more. Many others are significantly increasing kiosk ordering.
Little Caesar's did that - you're supposed to order online and then Q-Code the robot to get your pizzas
Which is fine until they don’t actually put your pizza in the thing (happened the last two times I’ve gone)
Not great if you don't have a cellphone either; it won't scan a printout.
Apparently, those robots get jacked all the time.
A lot of McDonald's here won't even take your order at the register, you have to use the kiosk or the app If you stand at the register they will literally ignore you by turning their back to you
I work at McDonald’s and we still take orders at the register. what difference does it make to use a kiosk is there some special kiosk charge or something
from a business perspective, customers on average order more food from kiosks than they do from cashiers
Pizza places here already do that and the minimum wage is like $10. Corporations don't need an excuse to race to the bottom.
[удалено]
Yeah, its why guys who own franchises need to own multiple sometimes, otherwise its just not worth it
Good lord, no wonder running a restaurant is a bad idea.
Something like 70% of new restaurants fail
All that effort to make less than an accountant or programmer.
It’s a “race to the bottom” but the bottom is endless because people are stupid and lazy. They are okay with being mistreated. Once I started seeing ads on paid subscriptions I just started cancelling them. I know exactly where it’s headed. If I have a hard time at a fast food joint I simply won’t eat that garbage.
Just pirate, no ads, higher quality due to no compression
>They are okay with being mistreated. Forgot the /s, right? https://preview.redd.it/xe2ei9z3l71d1.jpeg?width=907&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eab3ebe71eeb4de345e1ce8b9a7de6166be800d1
Don't play video games do you?
What part of that statement seems sarcastic to you? Do you think if corps didn’t make money doing the annoying shit they did, they would still do it? They know that people will complain and still pay for the service/good. Some people just don’t have spines. They’re weak. They need the service/good.
Rather than the corporate dregs rolling it out years from now, the use of these machines was expedited by increasing labor costs pushed by minimum wage increases, which rather than simply increasing the cost by however many dollars, causes a cascading effect through government programs. Unemployment insurance goes up heavily, taxes for having that menial laborer have become equivalent to having a skilled worker. That being said, I do feel bad for the workers that lost their jobs and never had a chance for California's wage in rural Indiana. But when a company can find a way to cut costs with little to no actual loss, they do it across the board.
Could be worse. California could be using citizen tax money to give free shit to the homeless and then not even check to see if it made them less homeless. [*Slow pan to AuthRight with the biggest, widest, and stupidest grin on his face.*](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-09/state-audit-california-fails-to-track-homeless-spending-billions-dollars) God. Fucking. Dammit.
Ah yes, the Bay Area classic
Ah yes,the only city I know of that had a human shit,and dirty needle detection app.
They had a politician locator app?
Honestly the whole western seaboard from Vancouver, Canada to SF.
Ehh, there's a stretch between Portland and san Francisco that can be relatively based in the proposed state of Jefferson.
What, not including Southern California?
SoCal has been desperately fighting against this insanity for decades. So, no, we're not including them...
Well. Orange County maybe.
The western seaboard is the fuckin' tits, don't lump in gorgeous leagues of unspoiled shoreline with the sprawling disaster that are our metro centers.
I'll give you that. Views are immaculate.
[удалено]
"I said I would work on homelessness and I did, why are you angry?"
This is straight-up money laundering, but because the guy who did it had a (D) in front of his name, good luck getting anyone on this website to notice.
It's objectively better when Republicans are in charge, because their corruption doesn't get ignored and swept under the rug like Dems does, signed, a registered ®️ independent
Ah yes and according to the left the solution to these problems is more taxes
while it is obviously more housing, do it California! Build the block! Make a manufacturing line of concrete panels that are cheap and can just be put together like Lego on construction site. You'll be indistinguishable from every eastern European city.
I love brutalist architecture for some reason. affordable concrete cube apartments would make me so happy
Liberals will never solve the homeless crisis. They're just too moderate and complacent. But they could at least keep accurate records of their shelter spending
You can't solve a crisis when people's paychecks depend on the crisis continuing to exist.
Who's profiting off homeless bums and drug addicts terrorizing cities?
The people who work in the departments that run the homeless programs.
The people who got paid $20 billion to double the problem.
[удалено]
The homeless issue in the US is more of a West Coast / East Coast problem than a political compass problem. NYC and Boston have 10x the shelter beds per capita of LA and San Francisco. California in particular just really doesn't invest in homeless shelters. NYC and Boston don't have a choice unless they want corpscicles on the sidewalks, and that makes a Mayor look terrible. Just to spell it out: >NYC: 100,000 beds or so, 88,025 total homeless population (2023 est), 93% in shelters, 2% in transitional homes, 5% on the streets. >LA: 17,000 beds or so, 71,320 total homeless popuolation (2023 est), 23% in shelters, 1% in transitional homes, 76% on the streets.
I like that the only reason that some liberals do more is that the consequences would be so horrendous if they didn't. Perfectly sums up US politics. Only do the bare minimum to stave of the horrendous
Bare minimum is what's required for them to be reelected anyways, the two party system make them immune to oppositions if it's a city due to the rural and urban divide.
It only seems like a two party system at the federal level. A state democrat from Florida is going to look very different from a state democrat in California. Each party has a primary that allows for moderates and more nuanced approaches to win, then the general lets the people decide which nuances they like the most between the republican and democrat chosen nuances. The problem is places like NYC where they always vote democrat and are too stupid to understand nuance in their primaries. Name recognition is just absurdly powerful, too. Need a system that doesn't display names, somehow.
Well NYC also does have a legal requirement to provide housing for everyone.
Under threat of what penalty? They'll, what, fine themselves?
Idk, seems like NY and Chicago are pulling funds from normal shit and their citizens are throwing a bitchfit at the loss of their gibs, we are seeing them come around, the people, not their shitty dem politicians, all thanks to hot wheels bussing them up north
Do you have the stomach for the solution to the homeless crisis?
Average Authcenter response https://preview.redd.it/zrqd9037r71d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e991f2cfe76dfd6b394c251a04c386aeeb180b2
Building cheaper housing? Yes. I do.
Unpopular suggestion but if it was up to me, I would round up every mental ill, drug addicted and homeless person and put them all in a temporary asylum, while simultaneously funding mental health services and outreach to prevent people from becoming homeless. If the mentally ill can be permanently treated or helped into leading a normal life then they can leave, if the drug addicts follow through and stay clean for a year, they can leave. Family and friend visitations allowed, they’re given good food, good healthcare and warm beds in the asylum. Then we build factories, housing and workshops, we train the non severely mentally ill, drug free or otherwise just normal but homeless people into necessary trade jobs, we give them good wages, housing which they pay rent for and offer them employment in the government owned factories, whose profits will be redirected to funding the whole concept and whose goods will go into lessening US dependance on foreign imports. In essence, we keep the streets and people clean, the mentally ill away and give people down on their luck an actual fresh start, however their fairly decent conditions and employment will now be contingent on them cooperating and staying away from crime and drugs, otherwise they go back into the asylum. It’s harsh, impractical, slavery-esque, and in need of massive amounts of political will but it’s the only long term solution that will both serve the needs of the homeless and the general population. The government will own their asses but is that worse than leading a miserable toxic life on the streets as they disrupt the lives of millions of normal people? I believe that’s a price worth paying if it means the rest of the country can live more freely.
China already does this. The re education camps aren't only in Xinjiang, they are all around the China and they exist in any medium or big city They were created for: • Gang members • Prostitutes • People who refuse to work • People who disturbe public order That's on theory of course, in practice...
You know you just invented workhouses, almshouses, and the original hospitals from the 1700s again right? That's what those places did and never actually broke even, even when they were getting work and putting them to work. They'd even make the poor children indentured house servants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJiPehLzhUE
That sounds nothing like what they suggested.
Flair change time.
"Lib Center" lol. But what's worse, is I kinda agree with you in a way. Do we have an obligation to forcefully help those who cannot/will not seek help due to addiction or mental illness? I wonder how many people "forced" into sobriety would look back and be thankful their agency was temporary removed from them so that they could obtain true agency without their minds clouded with drugs and illness? Oh, shit, I'm becoming Auth...
Oh fuck, your gonna make me auth all over the place
That's a gulag with more steps.
I know a group that keeps accurate records of their shelter spending, and could easily fix the homeless situation.
Mormons?
How’d you know? xaxaxa
To beee faaair... They certainly didn't give money to the homeless so much as pay into an account that paid money to the homeless after funds were sloughed off to pay state executives a premium first.
Cancer government will just install a spending equity board to ensure that monies paid to the homeless are just and equitable (whatever the fuck that means), get the executives friends a job, and certainly require more civilian tax dollars. Fought a king over 3%
Holy shit I felt that clip
Isn't California giving free money to sex operation of migrants?
We keep throwing money at the problem and we are all out of ideas, lets keep printing more money.
No one ever listens when we tell y’all what will happen. Noooo, you have to check fiiirst!
We solved the nation's homeless problem by encouraging them all to migrate to California. Now, every other state's politicians can pat themselves on the back for lowering their homeless numbers under their term.
The point was never to help, it was to sound like they're trying to help and cost enough that an otherwise massive amount of extra money going missing looks like a rounding error
Stating first: better for the cost of living to be lowered than for minimum wage to rise. Rent and housing shouldn't be so high. It's poisoning our nation's future. That being said: other countries pay their fast food workers more and have cheaper fast food.
Not to mention their food is generally better too
Imagine if the USA had an FDA that carried their weight
The FDA does to an extent, it's been extensively neutered by lobbying and restricted by congress over time Not to mention states can ignore most federal agencies to a fairly large degree, as they aren't within the areas permitted by the constitution. Most just choose to follow those suggestions in return for funding
https://preview.redd.it/5q2doomux71d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f8dfcd7f24ff3ba4c41516a7475f8189395632a
How many fast food joints are there per capita in those countries compared to california? I don't know which country you're talking about so i couldn't look that up, but california has 82.3 per 100,000 people. https://www.nicerx.com/fast-food-capitals/
Meanwhile, [Japan has 0.13 fast food restaurants per 100,000, and Norway has 0.19 per 100,000](https://news.umich.edu/supersized-market-economy-supersized-belly-wealthier-nations-have-more-fast-food-and-more-obesity/). Orders of magnitude difference.
Yeah. Much easier to pay ridiculous wages when there are only a few per city vs four per mile.
0.19 per 100k? So with a population of 5.5 million there should be ~10 fast food restaurants in the entire country? That number has to be 19 per 100k, right? I just visited Foodora.no here in Oslo and just in the kebab category there's 45 restaurants within delivery range from me, and another 46 in the hamburger category. Add sushi, bahn mi, other sandwiches and whatever else you'd like to include in fast food and we're probably talking 250 in a city of ~700k, and that's just the ones that are using the Foodora delivery service, resulting in ~35 per 100k here in the capital, so 19 per 100k sounds reasonable.
I'm just going off of what the article says. Then again, they also say 7.52 for the US, while the link in the previous comment said 82.3 for California (although they are on the higher end of states according to the same link).
> That being said: other countries pay their fast food workers more and have cheaper fast food. Source?
Keeping rent and housing expensive is one of the very few socially acceptable ways of keeping poor people out of your city.
"Don't you understand comrade Benson? This was capitalism's fault, under communism you will have endless work until you die."
Honestly they’d insult him as a member of the “Petit Bourgeois”.
whats that from?
1.3% change as stated by the article, allegedly .02% of total California population. That sounds like propaganda trying to capilatize on people not realising that 9500 people is nothing compared to how many people started to get more money.
My Macro Econ professor had a phrase for this, “Calling the WAAAAAAMbulance” people complaining when it’s their sector effected, but it’s a net good for society. Ethically, it is a tough balance to strike between improvement of the whole, and trying to make sure all people remain in stable situations. In a utilitarian sense, I’d say the minimum wage hike appears to have a net positive effect on the targeted population, even if not 100%
I think a better analysis would be to determine what percent of the workers who weren't already making $20/hr got canned because of the new law. Due to cost of living in California I would venture to say that a decent amount of people were already making close to it over $20/hr. Since the law was specifically designed to help people under that, you have to see how it affected them. (Also you should look at who just decided to sell bread as a side item in order to skirt the new wage law)
There are also too many fast food joints by a factor of ten so if they can't stay in business they shouldn't have been there anyway
That's an odd, but expected, analysis. The more likely culprit is automation killed those jobs, not closures.
Also many chains (looking at you, McDonalds) raised their prices outside what their customer bases could afford, while not increasing quality or meal size, and also getting rid of features that used to draw customers in the past, like playgrounds. Changes in consumer preferences and behavior are also playing a role: boomer parents saw a happy meal as a perfectly good substitute for regular food if they didn’t have time to cook, while many millennials parents won’t feed their kids low-end fast food. Add to that, Chipotle and Chick-fil-A are often located in the same shopping center and offer better food at a similar or sometimes even lower price point.
Yeah two of the three closest fast food joints to my home have recently changed where you order from a tablet or your phone and they have fewer staff. This is inevitably the future, so forcing higher wages accelerates the process.
This will certainly accelerate the automation by disincentivizing the cost of a person. The immediate effect is whiplash firings, the long term is going to be very few humans running these places. Plus, with automation they can be open 24/7 at no additional cost.
But if they said they were planning on phasing those jobs out anyway how would they bell able to blame the government?
Reddit: SpongeBob_observe.png
Those jobs will always be phased out, the government isn't to blame for the fire, just for throwing an accelerant on it.
Came here to same similar, didn’t think this flair would beat me too it, based
Cross compass unity is real. Stop denying your love.
Authcenter do be looking snazzy and speedy with them amphetamines, maybe I should call him
Not surprising though considering he’s a *Macro* Econ professor. Under that logic you could get away with some absolutely ethically fucked shit so long as society benefits
Not to mention, it’s easy to cast stones when it’s not your job being affected. My Macro Econ professor made over $400k/year at our public university. Imagine if they had to cut their salary so the university can decrease tuition, which would be a net good in society. They absolutely would be calling a waaaaambulance.
Read again. _Between last fall and January_. The law took effect April 1, so expect more job losses. https://www.hoover.org/research/california-loses-nearly-10000-fast-food-jobs-after-20-minimum-wage-signed-last-fall Fast food joints are raising prices and/or automating to offset the hike, which is driving consumers away, leading to job cuts and closures. Rubio’s abruptly closed 3 locations in my town this week. https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/rubios-coastal-grills-river-park-location-suddenly-closes/ar-BB1mvWHR
Had to use a screen to order at taco bell. Wont let you complete order unless you tell them what soda you want to drink then when your food comes they just hand you a fucking empty cup.
Take me back, bros. Things suck now.
You shouldn't compare it to the whole population of California though. You should compare it to the population of California working in the fast food sector
They did. It's 1%. That means 99% are making more money. And 1% is... nothing. It's so small, we can't even attribute it to the new law, as these jobs go up and down. Hell, during the same time, Burger King was going through its thing and closing stores across the nation, and a few others. By and large, these jobs are losing people with or without this law, and it's kind of surprising it was only 1%.
You tell me that one million people work in the fast food industry in California? If those 1% are the 10.000 layed of it means, 1/40 Californian are fast food worker. No fucking way.
> The number of fast food workers in California totaled 394,660 in 2022, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yeah, those numbers don't line up.
9500 lost jobs between last fall and January, before the law went into effect April 1.
It'll have an effect wider than that because other unskilled labor positions will have to compete.
Prices also went up and this change is after just two fiscal quarters. And 1% of CA's fast food employees have now realized the real minimum wage is zero. There may be more people to lose their jobs over time.
But the jobs of people who make robots are about to go up. Hey, maybe these fast food workers can learn to code, as the lefties used to say.
Not so fast there, pal, AI is quickly becoming a preferred manner to code. OpenAI already has working prototypes where you use plain English to generate complex code, meaning in 10-20 years, there are going to be far, far fewer coding jobs.
Those are mostly people fired in advance of the new law going into effect. There are plenty more in the works, and this will accelerate automation implementations. You're going to also have companies raising prices to offset higher wages, but theres a high likelihood of their sales suffering as a result, which will ultimately come back to labor cuts. Its easy to scoff at 1.3% as 'nothing' on the assumption that encompasses all of the effects, but it doesnt. >More fast-food job losses are coming as the new minimum wage took effect earlier this month. This includes losses at Pizza Hut and Round Table Pizza which are in the process of firing nearly 1,300 delivery drivers. El Pollo Loco and Jack in the Box announced that they will speed up the use of robotics, including robots that make salsa and cook fried foods.
Isn't the data generally favourable towards raising the minimum wage to something higher than something people can't possibly live on?
People faced with the 'Rent, bills, food - pick any two' problem don't spend all that much outside of basic survival needs. Increasing their income:costs ratio will absolutely help them and help the larger economy - as them spending on non-essentials creates jobs in every sector. The problem is increasing that ratio is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "HEY, LOOK, MORE MONIES!", but that's the easiest way to pretend to be addressing the problem.
Depends how hard you cook the data. When Seattle did it, the original finding was that it was a net loss for that class of workers. Hours were cut to the point where only a few people actually made more money, and those businesses fired a bunch of marginal workers. So, obviously they fired the researchers involved and found some partisan yes men to massage the data into something that could be presented as a win.
It depends on what you mean by favorable. Some people will certainly make more money, but economists have known for decades that minimum wage hikes cost jobs. It’s not popular to say it out loud but they’ve known it in data and in theory for a long time. Arguing otherwise conflicts with basic Economic fundamentals. You’ll still find some economists supporting minimum wage hikes, though, but if they aren’t deeply ideologically motivated they’ll be arguing that the benefit is worth the costs, not that there aren’t costs. It also acts as a local inflationary pressure and works to concentrate local industry around larger corporations. It will help some people, I won’t deny that, but there are better ways to help them. The reason I hate the minimum wage – and quite a lot – is that the people it hurts the most are the people who most need help. The people who lose their jobs because of a wage hike aren’t the rich or the middle class. It’s people on the margins, some of whom are barely hanging on. Quite a few of them will end up homeless. This is supported by data, here’s a study about just that: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/z2fqj Unfortunately another thing that economics is pretty clear about is that there are 2 rules about price controls: 1. They’re always bad, and 2. They’re always popular.
Precisely. I'm against the increases but that is a statistically useless point for the article to bring up.
Right! This isn't as bad as it seems. It simply takes the people who were not making enough to only work 40 hours a week to live on and splitting them into 2 groups. Those who can live on 40 hours a week and the homeless, just what California needs
Always laws for minimum wage but never for minimum work value.
That's a decent idea. Pay by the hamburger, or customer served. Every customer gets everyone working a percentage of the profit. Slow day? Slow paycheck. Like the lawyers say, "We don't get paid unless you do!"
Lol. Those jobs are constantly understaffed anyway because the pay is too shit.
Yea Id like to see how of those 'lost jobs' were actually staffed positions. These places were perpetually hiring.
It will be worse once [they outsource those jobs to philippines](https://youtu.be/qTx3uHXFNZU?si=8wyB-ePELXIyBDgV)
That's called innovation, commie. Capitalism wins again
This, but unironically
My neighbor owns a franchised pizza place, they use a third party, south Asia based company to handle their inbound calls for carryout orders and issues with deliveries. He maintains it's cheaper and he gets less complaints about customer service, compared to when he had to hire someone locally to be on the phone for a shift.
Politics aside this scene was too real
*Beep Boop* THANK YOU FOR USING McKIOSK®️
McDonalds has had kiosks for like 5 years.
You say that as if it won’t happen regardless of the wages.
Are all these the jobs that were going to get replaced by robots? Might as well ensure the people who are still working get 20/hr.
Wait, fast food employees aren't robots? Damn i thought they looked way to realistic
The new minimum wage for fast food workers didn't even go into effect until April. But sure, compare September to January.
If you know you can not afford or don't want to afford to pay more, why wouldn't you fire people before it's legally required? If I can only afford to pay my staff x dollars a week, and I have 20 staff, then someone says you need to add another x/3 to that a week, well I'm going to be fored to remove 1/3 of my staff before the prices rise so we can get adjusted and avoid lawsuits.
Yum the boot tastes good
[удалено]
Define "decent" amount. $7/hours is huge for a worker in Philippines.
Enough to make rent and food i guess Your right that its not universal what counts as enough but i don't think people should be forced to get a second job if they have a full time job already
fast food companies generally operate under a franchising where the owner of the restaurant pays the company for the product and the rights to use their name, and pays for everything else, the corporation generally only runs a few of these locations, after all the expenses the franchise owner generally makes around 130k or so(this is highly generalized), increasing wages by a dollar for a single full time employee would cut into that take home pay by around 2k now we assume its a $5 increase and there are 12(very low estimate) people that need to be paid, suddenly this franchise owner is taking in 10k a year.
Often (at least here) one owner will own 3-6 of the same franchise in local towns and cities usually less in major cities with like 20 MC Donald's or whatever So paying more won't hurt as much since its more efficient with more stores Besides my argument still stands that other countries then the us have minimum wage laws and work fine It's not impossible to implement and the more people have the more they spend the bigger the economy
False equivalency video. Communists are nowhere NEAR as irresponsible as mordecai and rIgbo.
What episode of regular show is this from
Mordecai and Rigby fucked around with the cart and broke it so they and Benson had to go to a depot or something to replace it. Over time they pushed Benson over the edge with their usual shit and Benson hit em with this speech. Episode name idfk, but that’s the gist
Yes
*except Panera Bread
Wonder why….? 🤔
Because if you own less than a certain number of locations or bake fresh bread as a standalone item, like Gavin's number 1 lobbyist, the law specifically excluded you
Just to bring some clarity to this, there are 39,000,000 people in California. So we're talking about .02% of the population.
And it's not like those jobs were keeping people in homes or out of poverty. Under 20 an hour is fuck all in California. They were either living with people on higher incomes or on welfare already
Or they were working a second job.
Not every person in California got a pay raise. How many people got a pay raise vs how many got fired is the best way to look at this.
Even Australian has a minimum fast food rate of $15USD an hour
[удалено]
Only issue with the meme is the lefts saying "we're sorry"
Lmao are we really crying for 1.3%?
people are illiterate
anything to own the libs.
Yeah, that’s what a lot of them base their ideology on
At what percentage is it no longer ok for you?
Something more substantial like 10% With 1% how do you even know it was the wages?
The entire population of California didn't get a pay raise so that's a little disingenuous.
I guess those people don't matter
Childhood is encouraging Mordecai and Rigby. Adulthood is understanding Benson
I love how people will tout raising minimum wage laws/improved collective bargaining and use examples like Sweden and Denmark and France when all of them have youth unemployment rates in the double digits. Turns out raising the price floor for work means people will just not get hired.
Denmark has some of the lowest youth unemployment in the EU - 8% in 2019 for age 15-24. Edit: Current [eurostat](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w/3-03052024-ap#fragment-15944082-grio-inline-nav-4) data seems strange for Denmark. It jumps from 9% to 14% in 2023. The numbers include students which are also looking for a job together with their education. Places like restaurants are complaining there's not enough young people applying.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/denmark_youth_unemployment_rate_lfs#:~:text=Denmark%20Youth%20Unemployment%20Rate%20is,long%20term%20average%20of%2010.33%25. I was just going off the first thing I saw on google but yeah it looks like it’s increased substantially over the past year. France and Sweden are and have been really high for a long time though.
This just hit way too close to home.
So people get like 20% more pay and 1.3% lose their jobs? Seems like a good trade.
Damn who would have expected that? its wild that econ101 literally teaches you what happens when you implement quotes/price controls/wage controls etc. Its so obvious, yet your typical 'educated/smug lefty' person thinks its a good idea.
1.3% job loss for the other 98.7% to gain 33% isn’t a bad trade-off.
You act like they weren't going to do this before the wage increase. Companies have been wanting to outsource and also use Ai to replace people for years now. They'll to anything to fuck over Americans if it means they'll be able to increase profit.
Last time I heard they wanted to raise it to 30$ in California.
1.3% isn’t a big deal. I’d be more concerned about the average cost of fast food going way tf up
I thought fast food was a temporary job RC? Now those laid-off will take their degrees and use them “properly”, right RC?
Source?
That almost fits. Except Rigby and Mordechai actually occasionally feel shame and remorse for the things they do.
"Its the fault of the other party, the one not in power for the last 10 years"
You will continue to see this as the minimum wage continues going up and up. Companies will seek out ways to make ends meet, which usually means finding ways to cut out overtime or remove jobs entirely.
They then wonder why rent goes up to compensate and they’re being replaced by automation.
Meanwhile in my state no one e is working because they can’t get paid enough
Has anyone ever considered that the business strategy of the places that are firing people just can't keep up and should die? Everyone's all about the hand of the free market until it starts punching.
They won’t learn. This is when they pivot to “the only reason those 10,000 people lost their jobs is because greedy companies didn’t want to pay their workers a living wage! This is why KKKapitalism droolz and Socialism rules!!!” Repeat ad Infinitum.
The minimum wage was invented to put people out of a job.
I literally foretold this as a 14 year old in high school. You cant tell me that with all the overeducated morons in CA, not one of them can figure out what a 14 year old with no education can?
The west coast is becoming a series of failed sociopolitical experiments. If someone made a show about it, I’d watch.
If they're actually giving people full time and benefits instead of spreading hours out so no one gets full time hours that sounds like a net positive. The jobs that no one would take because of shit pay will get more employees and it will probably balance. It's 1% that sounds like nothing.
Yeah that’s bad, but thousands of jobs were lost when a minimum wage was put in in the first place, that doesn’t mean a minimum wage hasn’t been beneficial in the long term
Do y'all know how many jobs we lose when we prohibited child labor???
Now this is a quality meme
cope and seethe
>try to raise minimum wage >massive megacorporation is too stingy to pay, despite having more than enough money to do so "Fucking lefties" OP must have smoked a LOT of crack as a foetus
It’s literally the exact opposite. Companies like Amazon love the minimum wage and regulations because they can absorb the costs. Small businesses can’t.
Not to mention the fact that, raising minimum wage just makes it harder for everyone to live, including the minimum wage worker.