I am strongly supportive of a minimum wage. There should be a minimum wage, as our economic system is too exploitative - I have no doubt that companies would proudly and openly pay workers $1 per hour for certain jobs if they could (of course people would have to agree to accept the job and thus the pay, but let’s assume for sake of argument that they would). The federal minimum wage is probably too low - it’s been $7.25 since 2009.
That said, while I believe that a minimum wage can be too low, I also believe a minimum wage can be too high. Throwing a number out, but $50 per hour seems like it would be too high. I don’t know whether $20 per hour is or is not “too high”, but it is undeniable that California is starting to see serious negative repercussions from its minimum wage policies. Job loss, for one. But the other relevant factor, as is mentioned in the article, is rising prices. That’s bad for workers, as it partially offsets the gain from the minimum wage hike, and bad for the economy as a whole, as it’s necessarily inflationary.
I don’t know where minimum wage goes from too low to just right to too high. If any state is going to find out, though, it will be California. There’s also not an objective answer as to what “too high” of a minimum wage is - there are tradeoffs when increasing the minimum wage, and some people may value/weight some tradeoffs more than others. I am sure that plenty of studies have been done - and are in the process of being done - I am going to seek those out as I am genuinely interested in having a more data informed opinion on the issue.
Look forward to being called a nazi or whatever because I dared to wonder if raising the minimum wage past a certain point could be a bad thing!
I don’t know that Pizza Hut switching to third-party delivery services is a significant negative. What else have you got?
Higher minimum wages may eliminate some jobs that don’t pay enough to live on. Is that a negative? Personally I don’t think anyone who’s working full-time should make so little that they qualify for food stamps etc. That’s effectively corporate welfare.
All ~1,200 of the Pizza Hut delivery drivers across these CA franchises will now be unemployed. Some may find other jobs quickly. Others may stay unemployed for the medium or long term. Is that not serious to you, over a thousand people being unemployed for an indeterminate amount of time?
Nobody who works full time (40 hours per week annualized across 52 weeks) in CA qualifies for food stamps anymore. The food stamp limit is $2,430 per month. If you’re working 40 hour weeks, 4.345 weeks per month, $16/hour = $2,780.80 per month. $20/hour = $3,476/month. You may think the food stamp limit should be higher but that’s a separate debate.
Higher minimum wages may eliminate some jobs that don’t pay enough to live on. Is that a negative? Personally I don’t think anyone who’s working full-time should make so little that they qualify for food stamps etc. That’s effectively corporate welfare.
Instead of 1,200 delivery drivers making $16/hour, you would rather x<1,200 make $20/hour and (1,200-x) be unemployed. (It’s not exactly $20/hour though as inflation/price increases caused by the minimum wage increase make it some amount less than that in today’s buying power). I think you’ve clearly elucidated the job loss component of minimum wage increases. Is there a point at which you would change your mind and think that the job loss to some outweighs the wage increases to the others? This is not a rhetorical or gotcha question, I am genuinely interested in your opinion.
I believe like most restaurant jobs few if any of those Pizza Hut delivery gigs are full-time. Would they be worse off working for DoorDash or the like? I don’t know.
I also don’t know if it makes sense to have a $20 minimum wage for restaurants with more than 60 locations and a $15.50 minimum wage for other restaurants.
Actually, to the extent that a higher minimum wage for chains makes it easier for independents to compete, I’m all for it, though I doubt that’s what the labor unions and politicians had in mind with this law.