On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:48:42 -0000 (UTC), useapen
<yourdime@outlook.com> wrote:

>DENNIS WYATT
>Published: Dec 28, 2023, 1:10 AM
>The jig is up.
>
>That’s jig as in paid hourly job as opposed to piecemeal work.
>
>And you can thank the shortsightedness of the California Legislature.
>

The intent is sound. Often people want to make more money.

>Two Pizza Hut franchisee units are eliminating their delivery services.
>
>That’s 2,041 jobs that now pay a guaranteed $15.50 an hour and would have
>paid $16 an hour after the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1 when California
>minimum wage increases again.
>
>The reason the jobs are disappearing is because Gov. Gavin Newsom and the
>legislature put in place a new wage law that will increase most California
>fast food workers’ minimum wage to $20 an hour starting April 1, 2024.
>

Yeah. That's going to cause more unemployment.

>You can still get Pizza Hut delivery.
>
>But it will be via Door Dash, Uber Eats, and such.
>

This has become the norm in North Hollywood for most restaurants,
fast food or casual. When the kids get Pizza Hut, they get a text
letting them know PH has transferred the delivery to Door Dash. There
hasn't been a Pizza Hut driver seen 'round these parts in ages.
I've been told drivers still exist in NoHo, but, it seems, aren't
used too often.

>Those contracting with such concerns aren’t paid by the hour
>
>They do not have any benefits, even the minimum of workman’s compensation.
>
>They have to pay all of their Social Security taxes.
>
>Besides income tax, they can be subject to a self-employment tax.
>
>Yes, the laid off delivery workers could go to work for delivery concerns
>that pick up business from Pizza Hut’s move.
>
>But they likely won’t end up making the equivalent of $16 an hour, let
>alone $20 an hour.
>
>There are app-based delivery drivers doing quite well, thank you.
>
>It is, however, far from being universal.
>
>Do not let the politicians that took credit for $20 an hour fast food
>wages claim the elimination of jobs was an unintended consequence.
>
>It’s unadulterated horsepucky.
>

It's very probable the lack of jobs was not the intended outcome.
But I won't accept the PTB didn't anticipate the loss of job.

>You’d be hard-pressed to find an economist — whether they are
>conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat or got their degree from
>Stanford or Sacramento State — that did not indicate job loss would be
>guaranteed collateral damage.
>
>The real question has always been how bad will that collateral damage end
>up being.
>

For some, VERY bad.
Not only will people be unemployed, but prices will go up to
cover the increased wages. This will see the prices for other things
going up so that the higher cost of fast food can be afforded.
I don't expect wages to go up much, if at all.

>Do not misunderstand.
>
>A market-based economy is always transformative.
>
>Changing demands, wants, needs, and tech means all jobs are evolving to
>some degree.
>
>Blacksmiths are almost extinct as the demand for horseshoes is far from
>what it was right before Henry Ford and the Model T did to horses as a
>primary mode of transportation as Elon Musk hopes Tesla will do to the
>internal combustion engine.

Eventually, the internal combustion engine will go away. The
question is when? There is a finite amount of oil in the earth. It
will run out eventually. When that happens, the internal combustion
engine will be useless and abandoned.
Or we'll find a way to destroy ourselves so there will be no one
to use the engine.

>
>The bottom line of their government’s direct manipulation of the
>marketplace has always been four -fold:
>
>*How many people will have to lose jobs so others benefit?
>
>*Do those people have the skills available to secure replacement jobs?
>

Some will. Eons ago I worked for Pizza Hut as a cook. All but one
of the evening drivers we had were only working part time to
supplement the income they got from their full time jobs.
The one who was only working as a drive was also in college, so
her expenses weren't as great since most were part of her tuition and
already paid.
I never knew the case for the day time drivers.

>*Will there be jobs available that don’t require a major move?
>

Major move? Maybe not. Depending on where they live, there may be
other options available.

>*Will elevating one segment of the economy force wage increases in other
>sectors to the point industries that are already under cost pressure may
>be forced to rethink how they do things and eliminate jobs so they have
>the ability to stay competitive in the labor market and not bleed
>employees?
>

Yes. And I won't accept the people in the legislator didn't know
this. They had to know there would be job loss and price increases.

>It is not rocket science.
>
>And, to be honest, it is what some proponents of the $20 fast food minimum
>wage hoped would happen with one giant assumption attached.
>
>That assumption is the 25 percent jump in fast food pay will simply speed
>up the “natural progression” of the economy and job market to create a
>demand for more jobs that are often better paying than the jobs they
>replace.
>
>That’s fine in theory but history shows it doesn’t always work that way.
>

Has it ever worked that way? There is probably an example or two.
But they will be the exceptions.

>The real crime here is the fact the push to artificially jack up wages via
>state and local minimums at a significantly higher clip that has been done
>in the past is being done because of the ineptness of the state and
>federal government to create an economic environment that allows for
>upward mobility.
>
>Or, to borrow an argument from some that want the nation’s borders to be
>sieve-like, that the rate of migration — primarily that classified as
>illegal — has overwhelmed the economy.

But few are working at "check jobs." Most will be working in a
cash only structure. Less of a paper trail to follow.

>
>It is a paradox of sort given America needs migrants.
>

Yes. But it would be better if they came here legally.

>Our economic strength for 247 years has been our ability to build this
>nation on waves of immigrants.
>
>A clue that we may, to a significant but not overwhelming degree, have
>flooded the economic engine causing it to sputter and go dead-in-the-water
>in some segments is the fast food industry.
>

It doesn't look like fast food is hurting much, if at all, in the
current economy. Time will tell if this trend continues.

>Keep in mind the California Legislature was driven by the desire to help
>people attain livable wages.
>
>No one will debate that minimum wage fast food jobs meet the definition.
>

In the short term, yes. But as the cost over everything else goes
up, it will end up. more or less, as we see it now.

>Many point out fast food jobs were never perceived as anything but starter
>jobs or supplemental employment allowing a household’s aggregate income to
>be livable.
>
>You are seeing older workers in fast food places in Manteca, Turlock,
>Tracy, and elsewhere.
>
>That reflects, for the most part, that Social Security and what other
>retirement older people have may not exactly be cutting the proverbial
>mustard.
>

Social Security was, and is, a SUPPLEMENT to one's established
retirement plan. And a means to help ensure those who don't have one,
for whatever reason, has a minimum amount to live. Joe the 70 year old
who couldn't get a pension plan may be reduced to eating soup and mac
and cheese, but he will live.

>What you don’t see as much in this areas you do in major urban areas and
>generally throughout much of Southern California are people who are
>basically struggling to support families on fast food wages.
>

Having two 17 year olds who work in fast food, I can assure you,
no one can support a family. True, they both work only part time, but
even if expanded to full time pay, it wouldn't be enough. Maybe,
MAYBE, one person could live off it. Soup and mac and cheese would be
the standard diet. Maybe supplemented with some free food from work on
occasion.

>It is clear the concept of upward mobility we all like to talk about isn’t
>working.
>

Depending on the restaurant, advancement is possible. One starts
out as a regular, hourly employee, but gets into management. They
won't likely shop at Rodeo Dr., but they will see a better standard of
living.

>As a small example, diesel mechanic jobs for railroads that pay in the six
>figures go begging at the same time politicians feel obligated to
>essentially take the easy way and try to raise all boats artificially by
>priming wage levels in targeted areas of the economy.
>

Bar a yard offering apprenticeships, one would need to have gone
to school for diesel mechanic training. And that isn't free. Probably
a good investment in the future, but it's another cost.

>Jacking up the pay of fast food workers and not giving them the ability to
>access tools necessary for them to work on moving up the economic ladder
>is akin to throwing in the towel.
>

Not wholly inaccurate, but a bit glib. I expect the state
government to whine about how those greedy owners are the ones who are
REALLY behind the problems.

>Worse yet, it forces businesses to make a decision: Is raising prices to
>absorb a huge jolt in pay — and payroll expenses — a move that could end
>up being detrimental to their business or are they better off reducing the
>number of people they employ?
>

Most will do both, if they've not done so already.

>The real issue is politicians’ lack of fortitude and stomach to tackle the
>main event — upward mobility.
>
>It could have a lot to do with the fact they will likely have to drop
>preconceptions and work across the socio-economic spectrum to fashion
>solutions that work instead of just kowtowing to their base, whether it is
>political or ideological.
>
>Meanwhile, enjoy your $10 Blizzard.
>
>https://www.mantecabulletin.com/opinion/local-columns/californias-looming-
>20-hour-minimum-for-fast-food-workers-already-eliminating-jobs/

--

No sense being pessimistic.
It wouldn't work anyway.