New study reveals crippling impact of California's minimum wage hike
The research, published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), analyzed the impact of Assembly Bill 1228, which mandated a $20 hourly minimum wage for fast food workers at large chains starting April 1, 2024.
According to the economists behind the study, fast food employment in California dropped by 3.2 percent, while jobs in the same sector grew slightly across the rest of the U.S.
'Our median estimate translates into a loss of 18,000 jobs in California's fast–food sector relative to the counterfactual,' wrote researchers Jeffrey Clemens, Olivia Edwards, and Jonathan Meer.
Before the law took effect, California's fast food industry was tracking the same employment trend as the rest of the country, the study found.
But after AB 1228 was passed, the sector began to shrink.
'Following AB 1228's enactment, employment in the fast food sector in California fell substantially,' the paper states, citing declines 'even as employment in other sectors of the California economy tracked national trends'.
Critics say the figures confirm what many feared: that a massive one–size–fits–all pay hike would push jobs out of reach for the workers it was meant to help.
'When it comes to central planning, history keeps the receipts: Wage controls never work,' wrote Heritage Foundation economist Rachel Greszler in a column reacting to the findings. 'That's because policymakers can set wage laws, but they can't outlaw the consequences.'
She warned the law should serve as a wake–up call for other cities – especially Los Angeles, which recently voted to raise wages for hotel and airport workers to $30 an hour by 2028.
'The consequences of that wage hike on the fast–food industry should be a warning sign,' she said.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board echoed that message, slamming politicians for 'magical thinking' around wage hikes.
'The Democratic Party's socialist nominee for New York mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has called for increasing the city's minimum wage to $30. Andrew Cuomo, his supposedly more moderate competitor, wants a $20 minimum,' the board wrote. 'These guys will never learn because they don't want to see the world as it really is.'
But Governor Gavin Newsom's office has pushed back hard – questioning the integrity of the NBER paper and insisting California's wage law is working as intended.
Tara Gallegos, Newsom's deputy director of communications, dismissed the study as politically motivated, telling Fox News Digital that it was 'linked to the Hoover Institution,' which she claimed had previously published 'false or misleading information' about the state's wage policies.
She pointed to an October 2024 report in the San Francisco Chronicle, which said the early effects of AB 1228, 'defy a lot of the doom–and–gloom predictions' made when the bill was signed.
Gallegos also cited a February 2025 study by a UC Berkeley professor, which looked at fast food employment trends through December and found 'no negative effects.'
'Workers covered by the policy saw wage increases of 8 to 9 percent, with no negative wage or employment effects on non–covered workers,' she said. 'No negative effects on fast–food employment.'
She added: 'The number of fast–food establishments grew faster in California than in the rest of the U.S.'
As for prices, the Berkeley study claimed menu costs rose by only 1.5 percent - about six cents on a $4 hamburger.
The NBER paper also looked at whether the law had a knock-on effect in full-service restaurants, which weren't subject to the $20 mandate but compete for the same workers. The authors found smaller but still negative employment effects - a median drop of 2.12 percent.
And while critics were quick to blame the law for economic pain, the researchers warned against cherry-picking isolated data.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Democrat frames Epstein files as winning issue while Republican admits White House 'misstep'
The Trump Administration's refusal to release any more files about Jeffery Epstein has dominated the news cycle in recent weeks, and both the President's political allies and adversaries are growing weary. Progressive Democrat Ro Khanna appeared on Meet The Press Sunday, when he told host Kristen Welker that he considered the issue of the Epstein filed a winning one for his party. 'This is about trust in government. When John F. Kennedy was president, trust in government was 60%. Today it's in the teens. Speaker Johnson and I came to Congress together. He was on the reform side too. He wanted to make government work,' Khanna noted. 'This is a perfect opportunity for him to say, "Look, the past is the past." Okay, I didn't love that he shut down government. Maybe on your show today he'll commit that when we come back, let's have a vote. Remind him of what were like, the conversations we had in our freshman class. This is about being a reform agent of transparency,' Khanna continued, doing his best to put additional pressure on the Republican Speaker. Voters as well are not happy with Trump's handing of the files, with only 16% of respondents to a recent Emerson College poll saying that they approve 'of the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.' Emerson College Polling director Spencer Kimball noted Thursday that the Epstein files issue was the one Trump fared the worst on. Khanna and libertarian-minded Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky teamed up earlier this month to introduce the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which would compel Attorney General Pam Bondi to publicly release all unclassified materials relating to Jeffery Epstein. The duo's resolution is receiving the the backing of a diverse set of members, including New York socialist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michigan 'Squad' member Rashida Tlaib, as well as Boebert of Colorado, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, and Greene of Georgia. Khanna noted during a media appearance last week that his resolution had the backing of all 212 of his Democratic colleagues in the House. Even if only the 10 GOP co-sponsors of the resolution were to support it, it would easily pass the House as just a simple majority is need, which is 218 votes out of 435. Speaker Mike Johnson had choice words for the uncanny duo's push to release the files during his own Meet The Press appearance Sunday. 'The Massie and the Khanna discharge petition does not have adequate protections. For example, in the way that it was drafted, they cite that they don't want child abuse, sex abuse information uncovered, but they cite the wrong provision of the Federal Code, and so it makes it unworkable,' Johnson told Welker. 'It requires the DOJ to release grand jury testimony. They are prohibited by law from doing so. So it is not the right approach. There is another approach out there. The House Republicans on the Rules Committee have a resolution that is well drafted, that is thoughtfully drafted by lawyers, that would make this workable. That's the approach, we have to protect the innocent. We'll do it at all cost,' Johnson added. Yet, even members of the President's own political party are calling the Administration's handling of the files a 'political mistake' and 'misstep.' Portrait of American financier Jeffrey Epstein (left) and real estate developer Donald Trump as they pose together at the Mar-a-Lago estate, Palm Beach, Florida, 1997 Eric Burlison, a Missouri Republican, told CNN's Manu Raju Sunday that part of the issue is 'that there were false expectations that are created, and that's a political mistake.' 'I think that saying that you're going to be able to deliver when you haven't even looked at all of the files, what's available, was probably a misstep,' Burlison told Raju.
Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Tottenham captain Son Heung-min to join a Major Soccer League team this summer is 8/15 with Sky Bet
Tottenham legend Son Heung-min is attracting a wealth of interest from teams in Saudi Arabia and the USA this summer, having most recently emerged a shock target for Major Soccer League outfit Los Angeles FC. The South Korean, who has now entered the final year of his Spurs deal, is being linked with a move away from north London this summer following the arrival of new manager Thomas Frank from Brentford. As part of Sky Bet's transfer specials market, Son is now favoured to join an MLS club by September 2, which carries odds of 8/15. A move to the Saudi Pro League is deemed the next most likely destination with the bookies, garnering odds of 4/5. Meanwhile, a reunion with former Tottenham manager Jose Mourinho at Fenerbahce could be on the cards, with Sky Bet giving that scenario odds of 7/2. Bayer Leverkusen, Manchester United and Liverpool round out the top six, with odds of 7/2, 12/1 and 18/1 respectively. Sky Bet Special: Son Heung-min to sign for before September 2, 2025 Any MLS club - 8/15 Any Saudi Pro League club - 4/5 Fenerbahce - 7/2 Bayer Leverkusen - 7/2 Man United - 12/1 Liverpool - 18/1
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The key to understanding Trump? It's not what you think
Donald Trump embodies dealmaking as the essence of a particular form of entrepreneurship. Every deal begins with his needs and every deal feeds his wants. He thus appears to be like other super-rich people: seemingly bottomlessly greedy, chasing the next buck as if it is the last buck, even when they have met every criterion of satiation. But Trump is different, because his brand of greed harks back to an idea of leadership that is primarily about adversarial dealmaking, rather than about innovation or improved managerial techniques. Trump's entire career is built on deals, and his own narcissism is tied up with dealmaking. This is because of his early socialization into his father's real-estate dealings in and around New York. Real estate in the United States, unlike the money-making modes of super-rich individuals in other countries, relies on deals based on personal reputation, speculation on future asset values, and the ability to launder spotty career records. Profits and losses over time can be hard to identify and quantify precisely, as Trump's auditors and opponents have often confirmed, since profits, which depend on speculation and unknown future value, are by definition uncertain. Trump's incessant boasts about being an apex dealmaker cast light on almost every aspect of his approach to his presidential decision-making. Numerous observers have long cast doubt on Trump's image as a consummate dealmaker, pointing to his many failures in his long real-estate career, his abortive political and diplomatic deals, his backsliding and reversals, and his overblown claims about deals in progress. But these criticisms miss the point. Deals, whether in finance, real estate, or in any other part of the economy, are just one step in the process of reaching full-fledged, binding agreements subject to the force of law. They are a stage in the negotiation process that has no force until it is finalized as a contract. It is, at best, an agreement to agree, which can turn out to be premature, poorly conceived or unacceptable to one or other party. Put another way, it is an engagement, not a wedding. A deal allows a negotiator like Trump to claim victory and blame the other party or some other contextual variable if things do not work out. In fact, in the hands of someone like Trump, deals are ways to evade, postpone or subvert the efficient work of markets. Trump does not like markets, precisely because they are impersonal and invisible. Their results – for corporations, entrepreneurs, investors and shareholders – are subject to clear measures of success and failure. Because deals are personal, adversarial and incomplete, they are perfect grist for Trump's relentless publicity machine, and allow him to polish his brand, massage his ego and signal his prowess to opponents – without the regulations and measurable consequences of regular market risks. The downside risk for an aborted or interrupted deal is negligible, and the upside is guaranteed by the legal power of fully completed contracts. Trump has figured out to an exceptional degree that dealmaking does not need to be successful in order to massively increase his wealth. Whether or not true, his claims to successful deals are the key to his brand and profitmaking worldwide, either directly or through the business endeavors of his sons. These range from his latest Trump perfume and Trump mobile telephone services, his Maga accessories, Trump golf courses around the world, his real estate and resorts, and of course his highly profitable cryptocurrency holdings. In every case, his deals either lead to further deals, which service his branding machine, or they lead to direct increases in his personal and corporate wealth. Deals, successful or not, are Trump's magic means to amass money and feed his avarice. Avarice is a vice with a long history in Christian theology. It is widely defined as an excess of greed, an inordinate level of greed, an insatiable greed. It has been viewed by economic historians as a passion that must be curbed and replaced by calculated, moderated self-interest in order for the rationality of the modern market to function as a dominant economic principle. From this perspective, greed can have numerous objects – such as food, sex and power – whereas avarice is single-minded in its focus on money. Trump exemplifies this focus. Though he has to function in a world where avarice is meant to be regulated by the market mechanisms of price and competition, he has managed to successfully pursue his avarice with little obstacle. This driving desire defines Trump's 'egonomics' – the intimate connection between his narcissistic urges and his wish for increasing his stock of money. The governing principles of his economic policy have nothing to do with America getting its due, as his messaging about tariffs argues, or about restoring dignity to the working class, as he signals to his Maga base. Nor are they about power or prestige. The object of everything he does is money, and in the service of the boundlessness of money, which Trump has made the defining object of his desire. Other commodities are of interest to him only insofar as they serve his desire to acquire, hoard and increase his stock – of money. The first – and most soothing – theory is that Trump wants money to buy power – more of it, perhaps all of it. More power than China, than his generals, than Harvard. We all know power – via our parents, our teachers, our bosses, our police. It is a force we understand, a pull we recognize. If Trump only wants more of something that many people have, and even more want, he is legible, he is like us. But power for what? To do what? To get what? Perhaps he is chasing an unassailable place in history, both human and eternal. So then it is not just power he endlessly chases, but glory. For this we have some evidence in the clownish thesaurus of words that he uses to describe his achievements, his looks, his wit, his wisdom, his all-round superhumanity: best, most, only, incredible, ever, more. In this orgy of superlatives, he is always curled high up in the clouds, like a Maurice Sendak toddler. But since Trump, from his perspective, brooks no real competition in life, in politics, in real estate, or even in history, there can be no glory for him which is not tainted by the mediocrity of his competitors. And true glory usually requires some form of self-sacrifice, some sense of compassion, some ability to transcend oneself. Given his woeful deficits in these areas, the glory game cannot be the key to understanding Trump. And so we go to a more familiar space: the realm of prestige, status and stardom. This realm is wired into competitions, tournaments and casinos of every sort, where winning is well-defined, losing is for losers and there is usually only one survivor and one winner who takes all. The competition for status is as old as recorded human history and accompanies every human society that has had leaders and followers, more and less skilled competitors for food, shelter and sexual partners. It begins with simple rules for coming out on top and evolves over time into the most elaborate forms of status competition, often driven by males – including wartime exploits, trophy wives, palatial homes and bottomless conspicuous consumption. These tournaments of value can be observed in settings as disparate as auctions, horse races, philanthropic gifts and corporate mergers and acquisitions. There is widespread consensus among thinkers from many eras and regions that status is a limited good, which has its own economics of supply and demand, distinct from those of pecuniary gain. This insight looks, at first, like the key to Trump. But attractive as this argument may seem, it too is a red herring. Among Trump's own tactics, the one he loves to use most is tariffs. Trump's obstinate insistence on tariffs as the key to restoring American manufacturing, swelling the US treasury and reducing American consumer prices has flummoxed most mainstream economists. Tariffs are for Trump the ideal way to combine dealmaking, status-grabbing and his penchant for money as its own bottomless value. It is evident that Trump's understanding of the trade-offs of globalization is rudimentary and often internally contradictory. Indeed, he shows signs of believing that making deals of any sort requires only outsize confidence, charismatic force and bottomless access to financial backing. In fact, Trump's view of himself as an incomparable dealmaker (a claim at odds with his many entrepreneurial disasters) conceals his deep distaste of real markets – in which a large apparatus of binding promises, the tendency to stable price equilibria, and the connection of supply and demand through pricing – can frustrate his brand of deal-making, which is always oriented to maximizing his personal prestige. Trump's deep-seated desire to be the winner who takes all in the global prestige economy sheds some light on his weaponization of tariffs. We can catch a glimpse of this logic in a most unlikely context. It was captured in detail by one of the fathers of British social anthropology, Bronisław Malinowski, in his 1922 book on a unique trading system that he found in the Trobriand Islands of Oceania, on several trips there in the years between 1915 and 1917. This anthropological classic, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, casts new light on Trump's tariff mania. What Malinowski described is a system of trading across about 18 coral islands within a 175 sq mile (453 sq km) area, between 'big men', leaders of lineages who exchanged highly specific valuables (such as decorated shell necklaces and bracelets) and their counterparts in this network of islands. Called the kula system, it had a highly codified set of rules to hedge voyagers against oceanic weather dangers and hostile groups in other islands, some of whom were cannibals. The goods appropriate to kula exchange could never be hoarded, marketed or bartered like normal utilitarian goods. This was a strictly ceremonial system geared to enhancing the prestige of male elites, of moving these well-known objects in a circuit which could last for years. The diplomatic rituals of these exchanges were ensconced in an atmosphere of pretend hostility between the parties, often because other groups in these islands were real enemies, always poised for real warfare. Hanging on the knife-edge between trade and war, these exchange circuits were strictly distinguished from barter or money transactions (what we would today call market transactions). The kula system was a way of organizing exchange, averting war, signaling prestige and making allies through a tightly regulated flow of valuables outside market exchange circuits. Trump does not care about Malinowski, the Trobriand Islands, non-capitalist exchange systems or 'big man' politics in kinship-based polities. But his operating system belongs in this type of diplomatic world, one that requires nothing except a non-negotiable interest in winning deals. Trump's onslaught of tariffs, falling on everyone like nuclear ash, is meant to make him the king of the global prestige market, no matter the cost to diplomatic traditions, financial markets, customer capacities or fair balances of trade. Trump appears to be undistracted by any other economic priority outside the aim to be the apex dealmaker. The kula system is grounded in a non-monetary system of honor, prestige and reciprocity, which helps us understand Trump's tariff strategy but does not fit his narcissist drive to crush all his fellow players. Even the kula system is about relationships. Trump is strictly about winning deals. So we must beware of seeing the urge to dominate all prestige markets as Trump's bottom line. Trump's bottom line is money. Being an avaricious man, Trump worships money – both its power and its pomp – and he seeks it through his extensive networks of children, clients, tax lawyers and cronies, all devoted to the increase of his wealth. This pecuniary drive has a transcendent, epic and unquenchable force which cannot be explained by reference to the other things that money can buy. Even his quest for prestige through arm-twisting tariff deals is primarily about positioning himself to secure future deals in his individual capacity. His is a special brand of avarice. There is no better way to explore the ways in which Trump's various egonomic strategies come together than in the recent invention and propagation of cryptocurrency, which has spawned a shadow world of speculators, fraudsters, legal hucksters, elected and unelected lobbyists. Their usual victims are vulnerable citizens, low-level grifters, pensioners, badly informed investors and other natural prey. The entire industry lives in a gray economy, attached to mainstream markets, assets and regulators like the tiny remora fish that feast off sharks. It survives in a legal twilight zone, where its currency is accepted only by some businesses as legal tender, and where smart players use pump-and-dump tactics to make fast profits with short-lived 'coins' of various kinds. Whatever the utility of cryptocurrency in the real world of goods and services, it is mainly a tool for amassing wealth by gambling on its future convertibility to real money in specialized currency exchanges. Cryptocurrency puts Trump in the position of being a player and the owner of a casino-like system at the same time, so that he always wins, if not in one role, then in the other. The outrageous self-enrichment schemes of Trump and his family in the crypto industry, which have been carefully exposed in several media outlets recently, establish new frontiers for Trump's shameless violation of even the simplest norms about conflict of interest. The best example of these ventures is his memecoin, $Trump, which has made him and his close associates a fortune by selling access to Trump through a barely regulated crypto mechanism. By some estimates, Trump has gained several billions of dollars in his net worth through his crypto ventures, which combine nepotism, influence-peddling and dealmaking in a unique package. Through cryptocurrency, Trump has found the ultimate way to attach his core impulse – avarice – to the larger machinery of the markets. There is some truth to the argument that Trump wants more of everything he can get, including power, glory and prestige. But what he wants more than anything else is money, which is just a temporary token of more money, and more money for ever more. The unique instinct behind Trump's avarice, which sets him apart from other billionaires who continue to chase wealth, is that he has found a way to build his fortune through deals – whether deals that make him money by inflating the value of his brand, which can then make him more money through more deals, or through the enforceability of completed contracts. Through his dealmaking, Trump has managed to triumph over the market, making it work for him to amass greater and greater sums of money, whether his deals are seen through to fruition or not. We can summarize Trump's approach to markets by adapting a famous sentence, spoken by him, about how he grabs women: Trump grabs markets by the deal. Illustrations by Joao Fazenda
