Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
$20 isn’t great for places with less cost of living than California. What’s important to point out is that for hourly employees a large rate increase can easily be followed by reduction in hours so the net benefit is about zero.
Yeah, it’s a pessimistic take on good news, but companies are going to do anything to maximize the bottom line, every time.
While the net take home might be the same, those people are getting more hours to do other things. I didn’t do an exhaustive search but it seems like before this the minimum wage was $16 an hour. They could be seeing as much as a 25% increase in wage which means they get the same paycheck in 20% less time. That can enable people to spend less on child care, pick up other shifts, make better/less expensive meals, or just enjoy their free time. So pay might be the same but there is still a net benefit.
While it’s true that most corporations are going to optimize every dollar out of everything they can (no matter how scummy), it’s not like these places were operating with a surplus of staff.
Most of them had exactly as many crew working exactly as many hours as needed at any given time…hence the panic if anyone dares to call in sick or request time off.
If they don’t have enough staff, they can’t serve customers well enough to make all their money.
Now I imagine that’s part of the reason why they tend to love franchising out their businesses – pass losses along to the franchise operators and still keep their money coming in no matter what changes.
$20 isn’t great for places with less cost of living than California. What’s important to point out is that for hourly employees a large rate increase can easily be followed by reduction in hours so the net benefit is about zero.
Yeah, it’s a pessimistic take on good news, but companies are going to do anything to maximize the bottom line, every time.
While the net take home might be the same, those people are getting more hours to do other things. I didn’t do an exhaustive search but it seems like before this the minimum wage was $16 an hour. They could be seeing as much as a 25% increase in wage which means they get the same paycheck in 20% less time. That can enable people to spend less on child care, pick up other shifts, make better/less expensive meals, or just enjoy their free time. So pay might be the same but there is still a net benefit.
People always undervalue the cost of free time.
While it’s true that most corporations are going to optimize every dollar out of everything they can (no matter how scummy), it’s not like these places were operating with a surplus of staff.
Most of them had exactly as many crew working exactly as many hours as needed at any given time…hence the panic if anyone dares to call in sick or request time off.
If they don’t have enough staff, they can’t serve customers well enough to make all their money.
Now I imagine that’s part of the reason why they tend to love franchising out their businesses – pass losses along to the franchise operators and still keep their money coming in no matter what changes.
not to mention an increase in automation and self-selve kiosks and reduction in table service and cleaning…
You are CORRECT! And that’s why we’ve NEVER SEEN self serve kiosks yet despite this being the first Fast Food Wage Increase!