https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...ec67&ei=82

Here it comes. Here comes the night.


A 2021 Harvard Business Review study found that raising the minimum wage actually leads to lower compensation for employees.

(02-14-2024 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...ec67&ei=82

Here it comes. Here comes the night.

Because one random candidate suggests something outlandish does not mean that it's going to happen. I don't think you would find ANY support for this amongst the general voting public.

(02-14-2024 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...ec67&ei=82

Here it comes. Here comes the night.

Because one random candidate suggests something outlandish does not mean that it's going to happen. I don't think you would find ANY support for this amongst the general voting public.

Avalanches start with a single snowball. When I first heard of the $15 MW... Now it is unremarkable.

However, note that her opponents, save for the Republican, support MW hikes to $20-25. Cali has already passed hikes for fast food workers, despite the fact that affected business say that prices will have to rise.

"Everyone wants their employees to make more money, but it just costs. And someone's got to pay for it. And the restaurant operators don't have the margin for that. So prices are going to go up."

The way to get elected in California is to promise voters more money.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie...38f5&ei=13

(02-14-2024 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...ec67&ei=82

Here it comes. Here comes the night.

Because one random candidate suggests something outlandish does not mean that it's going to happen. I don't think you would find ANY support for this amongst the general voting public.

First, the report being cited isn't from some random candidate... but from Harvard Business Review. While I agree with you that it is not dispositive, the comment that it is merely a suggestion from a random candidate seems designed to dismiss the information without having to actually look at it.

As to the general voting public... that is to me an indictment of the intelligence/understanding of the general voting public.... as opposed to a true indicator of whether or not it is a good idea or the right thing.

I see two other issues with the specific proposal, having actually lived fairly recently in that area

1) the exceptions. All it seems McDonald's has to do to be exempt from this is to start baking their own buns. Another possibility would be for them to 'spin off' California McDonald's into a new company with only 59 outlets... let's call them 'MacDowells'.... and they will have 'the golden Arcs', without sesame seeds on their 'Big Mick'.... and of course, they can do a private placement... retaining whatever percentage of the company that the McDonald's board currently own, and sell the remainder off to the same investors (Blackrock etc) that already own McDonald's stock. Literally everything but the logo's stay the same. Now Cali might have to break this up into a dozen new iterations, but again, it all remains the same... OR they just bake their own buns.

2) the 104,000 'poverty level' is for a family of 4 as I recall. I paid Medical Assistants and Rad Techs 50-80k/yr IN SF.... and was competitive. $50/hr 40 hours 52 weeks is 104,000. So it is being suggested that we pay a minimum wage worker A LOT more than a Medical Assistant or Rad Tech? Of course that won't happen... so now EVERY wage below $50 will have to rise.

3) a different line, but related to the above... What often isn't talked about is the wage compression that will result. If you pay someone $50/hr to work at McDonald's... then more and more jobs will become 'minimum wage' jobs... and people will no longer have an incentive to 'better' themselves. Why go to school to become an MA or why hone customer service skills to get a 'better' job when being lazy and impersonal pays almost as much? And FIRING someone in SF, even with cause is so difficult.

Now suddenly being a Rad Tech will be a 'barely more than minimum wage job'.

and finally 4) SF is often used as an example of why we need a higher MW, but their cost parameters are grossly out of whack with the rest of the nation... even NYC. What will most likely happen is that places like McDonald's (and Walgreens and WalMart and other 'discount' stores) will leave and/or continue not to go to SF.... and the cost for things like healthcare will rise, while the expenses are usually capped. Hospitals generally aren't making gross profits... especially in SF... so they either leave, or they gouge patients in other areas to subsidize SF.


All we have to do is look at the price increases we experienced under COVID, which were primarily driven by 'interest' (not principal) costs and temporary supply chain (transportation) cost increases.... Now replace that with a general and permanent DOUBLING of labor costs...

(02-14-2024 12:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...ec67&ei=82

Here it comes. Here comes the night.

Because one random candidate suggests something outlandish does not mean that it's going to happen. I don't think you would find ANY support for this amongst the general voting public.

First, the report being cited isn't from some random candidate... but from Harvard Business Review. While I agree with you that it is not dispositive, the comment that it is merely a suggestion from a random candidate seems designed to dismiss the information without having to actually look at it.

As to the general voting public... that is to me an indictment of the intelligence/understanding of the general voting public.... as opposed to a true indicator of whether or not it is a good idea or the right thing.

I see two other issues with the specific proposal, having actually lived fairly recently in that area

1) the exceptions. All it seems McDonald's has to do to be exempt from this is to start baking their own buns. Another possibility would be for them to 'spin off' California McDonald's into a new company with only 59 outlets... let's call them 'MacDowells'.... and they will have 'the golden Arcs', without sesame seeds on their 'Big Mick'.... and of course, they can do a private placement... retaining whatever percentage of the company that the McDonald's board currently own, and sell the remainder off to the same investors (Blackrock etc) that already own McDonald's stock. Literally everything but the logo's stay the same. Now Cali might have to break this up into a dozen new iterations, but again, it all remains the same... OR they just bake their own buns.

The exemption applies to those who have an operating bakery as of October 23, 2023, and continue to do so.

And the bill is written where the option of 'spin offs' etc. doesnt matter. The line being drawn doesnt pertain to financial structure.

Quote:2) the 104,000 'poverty level' is for a family of 4 as I recall. I paid Medical Assistants and Rad Techs 50-80k/yr IN SF.... and was competitive. $50/hr 40 hours 52 weeks is 104,000. So it is being suggested that we pay a minimum wage worker A LOT more than a Medical Assistant or Rad Tech? Of course that won't happen... so now EVERY wage below $50 will have to rise.

Agree on the inflation loop effect and wage compression effects. Dem politicians on this issue are oblivious to these effects.

I remember only a few years ago when the movement for a $15 MW was one lone voice in one city. To illustrate the effects of raising it, I used a $100 MW, and certain posters here scoffed at that. Well, halfway there. This escalator only goes up and is self-powered.

Maybe it is because the MW changed from being a MINIMUM wage to being a LIVING wage for a family of four.

(02-14-2024 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I remember only a few years ago when the movement for a $15 MW was one lone voice in one city. To illustrate the effects of raising it, I used a $100 MW, and certain posters here scoffed at that. Well, halfway there. This escalator only goes up and is self-powered.

Maybe it is because the MW changed from being a MINIMUM wage to being a LIVING wage for a family of four.

Certainly the MW will go up over the years as inflation continues.

That being said, I doubt there will EVER be any real enthusiasm for minimum wage workers to be paid as much as teachers, nurses, etc.

(02-14-2024 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...ec67&ei=82

Here it comes. Here comes the night.

Because one random candidate suggests something outlandish does not mean that it's going to happen. I don't think you would find ANY support for this amongst the general voting public.

Avalanches start with a single snowball. When I first heard of the $15 MW... Now it is unremarkable.

However, note that her opponents, save for the Republican, support MW hikes to $20-25. Cali has already passed hikes for fast food workers, despite the fact that affected business say that prices will have to rise.

"Everyone wants their employees to make more money, but it just costs. And someone's got to pay for it. And the restaurant operators don't have the margin for that. So prices are going to go up."

The way to get elected in California is to promise voters more money.

The way to get elected in ANY state is to promise voters more money.

(02-14-2024 01:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The exemption applies to those who have an operating bakery as of October 23, 2023, and continue to do so.

I didn't read that part so thanks... but I still don't understand why 'making your own bread' should exempt you from 'paying a minimum wage'. Does this suggest that a new burger place that doesn't yet exist would never be exempt, even if they baked their own bread? That too seems to be picking winners and losers and discourage new businesses. If not, then my concept still at least potentially holds. They might have to jump through a few more hoops, but they could still do it. Have to close the McDonald's at 1011 Market Street and build a new McDowell's at 1021 Market....

Quote:And the 'bill is written where the option of 'spin offs' etc. doesnt matter. The line being drawn doesnt pertain to financial structure.

You misunderstand my suggestion... I was trying to be brief.

McDonald's would divest itself of these properties... and the members of the board (or really anyone who currently owns McDonald's stock... especially the large institutional investors) would be given the opportunity to buy shares in 'newco' which is completely outside the financial structure of McDonald's.... with their proceeds essentially returning to them through cash paid to McDonald's. I said 'private placement' to make the connection more obvious... but the more likely structure would be an IPO, where large institutional investors (the guys who own most shares in EVERY company) would be given access to the majority of the shares.... retaining the general position in NewCo that they had in LegacyCo. I'm of course ignoring the 'franchise' model for simplicity.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything that would prohibit McDonald's from selling its California holdings to a new company... and that new company having fewer than the limit on stores... and thus being exempt from this mandate.

There are other ways as well... but that is the simplest way I can think of.... and I've personally been involved in it (for different purposes, but still evading the downside of a 'number of outlets' regulation.

The point is that the people who actually own and control this company.... the large institutional investors and a few others... would still own this company... Just now it would be in two buckets rather than one.

All we're doing is the inverse of what was done in the 90's of 'rolling up' lots of companies. For the ADVANTAGES that come from consolidation vs the advantages here that come from divestiture.

(02-14-2024 02:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 01:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The exemption applies to those who have an operating bakery as of October 23, 2023, and continue to do so.

I didn't read that part so thanks... but I still don't understand why 'making your own bread' should exempt you from 'paying a minimum wage'. Does this suggest that a new burger place that doesn't yet exist would never be exempt, even if they baked their own bread? That too seems to be picking winners and losers and discourage new businesses.

No disagreement from me that the bakery item seems very much to be a targeted 'help' to one or more otherwise covered groups.

Quote:If not, then my concept still at least potentially holds. They might have to jump through a few more hoops, but they could still do it. Have to close the McDonald's at 1011 Market Street and build a new McDowell's at 1021 Market....

The hoops they would have to jump through would effectively have to kill the commonalities you note above. I have explained further below. Traditionally your methodology might work -- in this bill the method would have to divorce each group of 59 from what makes a franchise play a good play. The lege seemingly already thought of your workaround when they drafted this.

Quote:

Quote:And the 'bill is written where the option of 'spin offs' etc. doesnt matter. The line being drawn doesnt pertain to financial structure.

You misunderstand my suggestion... I was trying to be brief.

McDonald's would divest itself of these properties... and the members of the board (or really anyone who currently owns McDonald's stock... especially the large institutional investors) would be given the opportunity to buy shares in 'newco' which is completely outside the financial structure of McDonald's.... with their proceeds essentially returning to them through cash paid to McDonald's. I said 'private placement' to make the connection more obvious... but the more likely structure would be an IPO, where large institutional investors (the guys who own most shares in EVERY company) would be given access to the majority of the shares.... retaining the general position in NewCo that they had in LegacyCo. I'm of course ignoring the 'franchise' model for simplicity.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything that would prohibit McDonald's from selling its California holdings to a new company... and that new company having fewer than the limit on stores... and thus being exempt from this mandate.

There are other ways as well... but that is the simplest way I can think of.... and I've personally been involved in it (for different purposes, but still evading the downside of a 'number of outlets' regulation.

The point is that the people who actually own and control this company.... the large institutional investors and a few others... would still own this company... Just now it would be in two buckets rather than one.

All we're doing is the inverse of what was done in the 90's of 'rolling up' lots of companies. For the ADVANTAGES that come from consolidation vs the advantages here that come from divestiture.

I didnt misunderstand the issue, nor your solution. The bill is worded as to be untied to 'ownership' principles as to 'number of outlets'.

In short, the issue isnt ownership of a number of outlets -- it is how many outlets share the same or similar 'franchise' characteristics that are part and parcel of the value of a franchise play, or a national brand play.

If your proposal is to reverse roll down and *share* logos and marketing items (or substantially the same) (which, bluntly, is the value in a franchise scheme), your proposal wouldnt be effective.

To be effective, the changes to the units would have to be absolutely drastic between every set of 59. While doable on paper, to be effective one would also destroy the value of what makes a franchise scheme, or national basis food service that is corporate owned, valuable -- that is the commonality or very similar aspects.

That is -- the value of McDonalds is the strong national benefit of common or standardized decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services. Or even the very similar (as opposed to strict standardization) that you note above.

When you introduce a certain above a certain amount of deviation -- you destroy the overall benefit of a national in scope market, or a market for the franchise as a whole in the case of a 'franchise play' (instead of a national in scope corporate owned market like, say, Starbucks, noted as the first instance in this paragraph).

This bill is written specifically to make the 'ownership roll-down' play you mention above fundamentally a 'no-go'. Not based on 'numbers owned', but based on 'how similar' the 'marketing aspects' are.

I agree that if it were tied to numbers of owned outlets -- your idea is a good one. In this case the bill is very much written to counter your proposal of 'making them similar' yet somewhat different, or for that simply based on ownership numbers per pod. Again -- the CA lege thought about your solution prior to passing this.

(02-14-2024 02:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I remember only a few years ago when the movement for a $15 MW was one lone voice in one city. To illustrate the effects of raising it, I used a $100 MW, and certain posters here scoffed at that. Well, halfway there. This escalator only goes up and is self-powered.

Maybe it is because the MW changed from being a MINIMUM wage to being a LIVING wage for a family of four.

Certainly the MW will go up over the years as inflation continues.

That being said, I doubt there will EVER be any real enthusiasm for minimum wage workers to be paid as much as teachers, nurses, etc.

I think this misses the reality. As I suggested, the proposed minimum wage would be vastly more than the current wages for some highly skilled professionals. I only had a few RNs so I don't want to speak out of school on their wages, but it seems to me that a rate of around $50 was pretty close. I have no idea what teachers in SF make.

That said, of course they think that nurses should be paid more... but that only makes things worse... because as I suggested, it raises the cost of EVERY labor, not just those with minimal skills...

My point is that what you are most likely to see is a min wage worker getting a $35/hr or $72,800 annual wage hike... and a nurse currently making 125k (which is not a lot in SF) getting perhaps a $25k/yr, $10/hr wage hike.... so perhaps it's not worth the difference between 150k and 104k/yr to work at the McDonald's counter (a euphemism... maybe they make $130k... which isn't a lot more than min wage taking tickets at BART) vs the training and oversight and annual CME and 10-12 hour shifts of healthcare. The guy who owns the bodega would have to get a huge 'income' increase as well... otherwise he'd just take a job working for someone else making more money without the risk of ownership.

So while there may not be enthusiasm for it, unless you're going for mandated wages based on job classifications, that is the likely outcome.

(02-14-2024 03:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I didnt misunderstand the issue, nor your solution. The bill is worded as to be untied to 'ownership' principles as to 'number of outlets'.

Let's start with the idea that I used McDonald's because I used to stop by one most mornings on my way from Embarcadero to my office at North Beach for a fountain diet Coke... so I think about the idea that my $2 daily indulgence Diet Coke would probably now be more/cost prohibitive without a raise, which I probably wouldn't have gotten.... hence I ignored the 'franchise' model... because this isn't about McDonald's... but about a company that utilizes a lot of lower skill/wage employees. I am of course assuming that at the margin, these expenses would matter enough. Maybe a company that makes low skill, perishable widgets and thus had factories across the country would be a better example, but all THEY would do is move their factory slightly outside the 'zone', and then ship their products in. Maybe people in SF would pay $18 for McDonald's when 'Joe's Burger Shack' could open up next door and sell the identical food for $14 because they don't have to pay $50/hr.

The reason I suggested that you misunderstand my comment is that I am looking at 'ownership' in terms of stockholders and not in terms of the parent company.... so in my example, McDonald's would have NO stores in Cali, subject to the min wage law... and MacDowell's, which is a new company, not owned by McDonald's at all, even though it has many of the same shareholders.... would have 59... and not be subject to this min wage as a result.

Of course there are other implications and things we don't know... which may make 'McDonald's' not a good example based on some unique characteristics of their business model... but the concept still works.

I see nothing in here that suggests that if Blackrock, PIMCO et al own controlling interest in both McDonald's and MacDowell's, that MacDowell's can't avoid paying the $50 min wage by having only 59 outlets. It is only if McDonald's (the company, not the shareholders) owns MacDowell's that this might be the case.

If you have other information, I'd be happy to see it.

(02-14-2024 02:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I remember only a few years ago when the movement for a $15 MW was one lone voice in one city. To illustrate the effects of raising it, I used a $100 MW, and certain posters here scoffed at that. Well, halfway there. This escalator only goes up and is self-powered.

Maybe it is because the MW changed from being a MINIMUM wage to being a LIVING wage for a family of four.

Certainly the MW will go up over the years as inflation continues.

That being said, I doubt there will EVER be any real enthusiasm for minimum wage workers to be paid as much as teachers, nurses, etc.

Which is part of the problem with raising MW. Raising MW raises everybody's wages - and everybody's costs. There's your inflation.

Clearly, some lawmaker was getting big campaign donations from Panera. Thus the bakery exception. I don't think it will help Panera in the long run.

I'm old, but some of you here will live to see $50, $100, $200 MW, and maybe more, and the proportional increases in the salaries of teacher, plumbers, CPAs, whatever. The pyramid changes little but when you lift the base, you lift the whole pyramid.

(02-14-2024 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly, some lawmaker was getting big campaign donations from Panera. Thus the bakery exception. I don't think it will help Panera in the long run.

I'm old, but some of you here will live to see $50, $100, $200 MW, and maybe more, and the proportional increases in the salaries of teacher, plumbers, CPAs, whatever. The pyramid changes little but when you lift the base, you lift the whole pyramid.

Panera or CPK or some other niche...

The problem here isn't just the wages... but the impact that wages have on prices. Dems, including Janet Yellen seem perfectly happy with rising costs as long as they can somehow claim that eventually, wages outpace those costs... what they IGNORE though is the choices that people make that result in those wages outpacing costs.

Part of the reason why wages have minutely outpaced 'statistical' inflation giving politicians an opportunity to claim 'success' is that people move to lower quality items or

I mean, the min wage in 2024 isn't 20% higher than it was in 2020... neither is social security 20% higher than in 2020.... so these people have lost purchasing power. What else can they do except switch their purchasing mix... while the CPI 'fixed basket of goods' does not change.

You eat out less because the cost of eating out has gone WAY up... you drive less... you grow more at home... you take a second job... you upcycle... you engage in the 'gig' economy off the books... all sorts of ways that individuals can impact their purchasing power... that don't impact the fixed basket of goods that no longer represents the same 'average' family purchases in 2024 that it did in 2010.

Of course adjustments are made to CPI over time, but who decides what those are and when they are made? The same people who are trying to convince you that they're in control of this. I am convinced that the 'quality adjustments' for things like renewable energy, EVs and 'green' products would be over-stated... which would tend to drive CPI lower than it otherwise would be.

I don't know of many people who earn 20% more in 2024 than in 2020 for doing the same job... and yet CPI has been about that level over that period... and I believe that is under-stated. My grocery bill and restaurant prices are up that much and more. And yes, I have old receipts to compare precise prices of literal 'baskets of goods.'

(02-14-2024 05:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly, some lawmaker was getting big campaign donations from Panera. Thus the bakery exception. I don't think it will help Panera in the long run.

I'm old, but some of you here will live to see $50, $100, $200 MW, and maybe more, and the proportional increases in the salaries of teacher, plumbers, CPAs, whatever. The pyramid changes little but when you lift the base, you lift the whole pyramid.

Panera or CPK or some other niche...

The problem here isn't just the wages... but the impact that wages have on prices. Dems, including Janet Yellen seem perfectly happy with rising costs as long as they can somehow claim that eventually, wages outpace those costs... what they IGNORE though is the choices that people make that result in those wages outpacing costs.

Part of the reason why wages have minutely outpaced 'statistical' inflation giving politicians an opportunity to claim 'success' is that people move to lower quality items or

I mean, the min wage in 2024 isn't 20% higher than it was in 2020... neither is social security 20% higher than in 2020.... so these people have lost purchasing power. What else can they do except switch their purchasing mix... while the CPI 'fixed basket of goods' does not change.

You eat out less because the cost of eating out has gone WAY up... you drive less... you grow more at home... you take a second job... you upcycle... you engage in the 'gig' economy off the books... all sorts of ways that individuals can impact their purchasing power... that don't impact the fixed basket of goods that no longer represents the same 'average' family purchases in 2024 that it did in 2010.

Of course adjustments are made to CPI over time, but who decides what those are and when they are made? The same people who are trying to convince you that they're in control of this. I am convinced that the 'quality adjustments' for things like renewable energy, EVs and 'green' products would be over-stated... which would tend to drive CPI lower than it otherwise would be.

I don't know of many people who earn 20% more in 2024 than in 2020 for doing the same job... and yet CPI has been about that level over that period... and I believe that is under-stated. My grocery bill and restaurant prices are up that much and more. And yes, I have old receipts to compare precise prices of literal 'baskets of goods.'

It’s likely that many professionals you know make 20% more in 2024 than they did in 2020 despite doing the same job and working for the same company. That is a ~5% raise each year, which is not a stretch for white collar workers.

(02-14-2024 04:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 03:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I didnt misunderstand the issue, nor your solution. The bill is worded as to be untied to 'ownership' principles as to 'number of outlets'.

Let's start with the idea that I used McDonald's because I used to stop by one most mornings on my way from Embarcadero to my office at North Beach for a fountain diet Coke... so I think about the idea that my $2 daily indulgence Diet Coke would probably now be more/cost prohibitive without a raise, which I probably wouldn't have gotten.... hence I ignored the 'franchise' model... because this isn't about McDonald's... but about a company that utilizes a lot of lower skill/wage employees. I am of course assuming that at the margin, these expenses would matter enough. Maybe a company that makes low skill, perishable widgets and thus had factories across the country would be a better example, but all THEY would do is move their factory slightly outside the 'zone', and then ship their products in. Maybe people in SF would pay $18 for McDonald's when 'Joe's Burger Shack' could open up next door and sell the identical food for $14 because they don't have to pay $50/hr.

The law is specifically targeted at fast food outlets. On its face.

Quote:The reason I suggested that you misunderstand my comment is that I am looking at 'ownership' in terms of stockholders and not in terms of the parent company.... so in my example, McDonald's would have NO stores in Cali, subject to the min wage law... and MacDowell's, which is a new company, not owned by McDonald's at all, even though it has many of the same shareholders.... would have 59... and not be subject to this min wage as a result.

It doesnt matter how you slice that pie under the wording of the statute.

If there is *an* outlet in CA, and that outlet has 60 or more across the nation, and they share common or standardized decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services --- it kicks in.

Doesnt matter if any are commonly owned. Or all separately owned. Ownership is simply immaterial in the context of the bill.

And the language isnt limited to exact matches in decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services.

The *only* safe haven is to share similar 'locales' with no more than 59 others across the United States. No matter who owns the 'group of 60', no matter who owns any of the group of 60 -- as a whole or in part.

Literally the aspect that is covered can be noted in the following hypothetical ---

Assume a dude has 59 'Central Texas Chicken Pluckers' in Central Texas. He opens a single instance in Cali -- the Cali location is drawn in.

Assume that his deadbeat brother in law opens a single up in San Carlos, and without permission copies the name, menu, some of the color scheme, and has maybe some even more small similarities to the Texas ones -- the Cali location is drawn in. Without there even being a franchise agreement, nor any common ownership with the Texas ones. Nor any permission mind you.

Change it to all of the Texas ones being individually owned, but have a common operating agreement with respect to decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services. Same result for Cali.

The only issue in the issue of having to do the increased MW is in the common, similar, or standardized decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services, and there being at least 60 other places you share the above with, or have very similar to one another.

The only way that your scheme would work is that if each group of 60 (no matter who the owners are) is quite disparate from any of the other groups of 60 in terms decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services (that is, the thing that franchises, or large corporate fast foods have as an advantage --- a franchisee of a Mickey Ds, or a Chik-fil-A has a built in advantage of literally thousands of other little islands of CFA doing their marketing for them, as well as the main corporate entity (and the same advantages of large corporate owned fast food places).

Ownership simply isnt a factor in the Cali legislation. Interestingly enough the Cali legislation draws a line in the law to target places that primarily do not have wait-staff services, thus keeping a target off Chilis- style places....

Quote:Of course there are other implications and things we don't know... which may make 'McDonald's' not a good example based on some unique characteristics of their business model... but the concept still works.

No -- it doesnt.

Quote:If you have other information, I'd be happy to see it.

The bill itself is a starting point.

(02-14-2024 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 05:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly, some lawmaker was getting big campaign donations from Panera. Thus the bakery exception. I don't think it will help Panera in the long run.

I'm old, but some of you here will live to see $50, $100, $200 MW, and maybe more, and the proportional increases in the salaries of teacher, plumbers, CPAs, whatever. The pyramid changes little but when you lift the base, you lift the whole pyramid.

Panera or CPK or some other niche...

The problem here isn't just the wages... but the impact that wages have on prices. Dems, including Janet Yellen seem perfectly happy with rising costs as long as they can somehow claim that eventually, wages outpace those costs... what they IGNORE though is the choices that people make that result in those wages outpacing costs.

Part of the reason why wages have minutely outpaced 'statistical' inflation giving politicians an opportunity to claim 'success' is that people move to lower quality items or

I mean, the min wage in 2024 isn't 20% higher than it was in 2020... neither is social security 20% higher than in 2020.... so these people have lost purchasing power. What else can they do except switch their purchasing mix... while the CPI 'fixed basket of goods' does not change.

You eat out less because the cost of eating out has gone WAY up... you drive less... you grow more at home... you take a second job... you upcycle... you engage in the 'gig' economy off the books... all sorts of ways that individuals can impact their purchasing power... that don't impact the fixed basket of goods that no longer represents the same 'average' family purchases in 2024 that it did in 2010.

Of course adjustments are made to CPI over time, but who decides what those are and when they are made? The same people who are trying to convince you that they're in control of this. I am convinced that the 'quality adjustments' for things like renewable energy, EVs and 'green' products would be over-stated... which would tend to drive CPI lower than it otherwise would be.

I don't know of many people who earn 20% more in 2024 than in 2020 for doing the same job... and yet CPI has been about that level over that period... and I believe that is under-stated. My grocery bill and restaurant prices are up that much and more. And yes, I have old receipts to compare precise prices of literal 'baskets of goods.'

It’s likely that many professionals you know make 20% more in 2024 than they did in 2020 despite doing the same job and working for the same company. That is a ~5% raise each year, which is not a stretch for white collar workers.

White collar, blue collar, no collar, means nothing.

Any business that experiences a major increase in cost - any cost, but ultimately almost all cost traces back to labor - either has to increase prices or eventually go under.

And when they increase prices, they are increasing costs of anyone who uses their product.

(02-15-2024 12:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 05:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly, some lawmaker was getting big campaign donations from Panera. Thus the bakery exception. I don't think it will help Panera in the long run.

I'm old, but some of you here will live to see $50, $100, $200 MW, and maybe more, and the proportional increases in the salaries of teacher, plumbers, CPAs, whatever. The pyramid changes little but when you lift the base, you lift the whole pyramid.

Panera or CPK or some other niche...

The problem here isn't just the wages... but the impact that wages have on prices. Dems, including Janet Yellen seem perfectly happy with rising costs as long as they can somehow claim that eventually, wages outpace those costs... what they IGNORE though is the choices that people make that result in those wages outpacing costs.

Part of the reason why wages have minutely outpaced 'statistical' inflation giving politicians an opportunity to claim 'success' is that people move to lower quality items or

I mean, the min wage in 2024 isn't 20% higher than it was in 2020... neither is social security 20% higher than in 2020.... so these people have lost purchasing power. What else can they do except switch their purchasing mix... while the CPI 'fixed basket of goods' does not change.

You eat out less because the cost of eating out has gone WAY up... you drive less... you grow more at home... you take a second job... you upcycle... you engage in the 'gig' economy off the books... all sorts of ways that individuals can impact their purchasing power... that don't impact the fixed basket of goods that no longer represents the same 'average' family purchases in 2024 that it did in 2010.

Of course adjustments are made to CPI over time, but who decides what those are and when they are made? The same people who are trying to convince you that they're in control of this. I am convinced that the 'quality adjustments' for things like renewable energy, EVs and 'green' products would be over-stated... which would tend to drive CPI lower than it otherwise would be.

I don't know of many people who earn 20% more in 2024 than in 2020 for doing the same job... and yet CPI has been about that level over that period... and I believe that is under-stated. My grocery bill and restaurant prices are up that much and more. And yes, I have old receipts to compare precise prices of literal 'baskets of goods.'

It’s likely that many professionals you know make 20% more in 2024 than they did in 2020 despite doing the same job and working for the same company. That is a ~5% raise each year, which is not a stretch for white collar workers.

White collar, blue collar, no collar, means nothing.

Any business that experiences a major increase in cost - any cost, but ultimately almost all cost traces back to labor - either has to increase prices or eventually go under.

And when they increase prices, they are increasing costs of anyone who uses their product.

Ok?

(02-15-2024 06:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2024 12:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 05:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly, some lawmaker was getting big campaign donations from Panera. Thus the bakery exception. I don't think it will help Panera in the long run.

I'm old, but some of you here will live to see $50, $100, $200 MW, and maybe more, and the proportional increases in the salaries of teacher, plumbers, CPAs, whatever. The pyramid changes little but when you lift the base, you lift the whole pyramid.

Panera or CPK or some other niche...

The problem here isn't just the wages... but the impact that wages have on prices. Dems, including Janet Yellen seem perfectly happy with rising costs as long as they can somehow claim that eventually, wages outpace those costs... what they IGNORE though is the choices that people make that result in those wages outpacing costs.

Part of the reason why wages have minutely outpaced 'statistical' inflation giving politicians an opportunity to claim 'success' is that people move to lower quality items or

I mean, the min wage in 2024 isn't 20% higher than it was in 2020... neither is social security 20% higher than in 2020.... so these people have lost purchasing power. What else can they do except switch their purchasing mix... while the CPI 'fixed basket of goods' does not change.

You eat out less because the cost of eating out has gone WAY up... you drive less... you grow more at home... you take a second job... you upcycle... you engage in the 'gig' economy off the books... all sorts of ways that individuals can impact their purchasing power... that don't impact the fixed basket of goods that no longer represents the same 'average' family purchases in 2024 that it did in 2010.

Of course adjustments are made to CPI over time, but who decides what those are and when they are made? The same people who are trying to convince you that they're in control of this. I am convinced that the 'quality adjustments' for things like renewable energy, EVs and 'green' products would be over-stated... which would tend to drive CPI lower than it otherwise would be.

I don't know of many people who earn 20% more in 2024 than in 2020 for doing the same job... and yet CPI has been about that level over that period... and I believe that is under-stated. My grocery bill and restaurant prices are up that much and more. And yes, I have old receipts to compare precise prices of literal 'baskets of goods.'

It’s likely that many professionals you know make 20% more in 2024 than they did in 2020 despite doing the same job and working for the same company. That is a ~5% raise each year, which is not a stretch for white collar workers.

White collar, blue collar, no collar, means nothing.

Any business that experiences a major increase in cost - any cost, but ultimately almost all cost traces back to labor - either has to increase prices or eventually go under.

And when they increase prices, they are increasing costs of anyone who uses their product.

Ok?

It's ok if you're a progressive Democrat who can't see past the first domino.