One year in, California's fast food wage hike brings higher pay, debatable job numbers
Edgar Recinos no longer has to choose between paying rent and buying groceries.
As a cook at a Wingstop restaurant in Los Angeles, Recinos got a significant wage bump last year — one of half a million fast food workers taking part in a great labor experiment.
California passed the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery (FAST) Act in April of 2024 amid vocal support and fierce opposition. The first-of-its-kind policy increased the starting wage for California fast food workers to $20 per hour, which is higher than the overall state minimum wage. It also established a statewide council that sets wage and safety standards at fast food restaurants with more than 60 locations nationwide, like McDonald's, Jack in the Box, Burger King and Subway.
But one year later, the initial impact is a mixed bag. Economists are divided over the effect on employment. Workers do earn more, but many complain their hours have been cut. Fast food restaurant owners tell CNN they have been trimming employee hours and instituting hiring freezes to offset the cost of higher wages.
Recinos, like many, says his regular hours have been cut. When he doesn't get to fill in to make up the time, he finds himself 'in the same situation before the (wage) increase.'
As of March, employment at California's limited-service restaurants fell 3.1% from the year before, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve using seasonally adjusted data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's more than 22,600 jobs lost at fast food restaurants that both did and did not fall under the policy.
While that drop is in line with losses in the broader leisure and hospitably sector in the state, it's a more pronounced downswing than the national trend for fast food restaurants, BLS data shows.
Economists are clashing over whether the $20 wage is to blame.
Christopher Thornberg of Beacon Economics, who published a two-page commentary about the sector's losses in March, wrote the findings 'undercut much of the recent analysis released by pro-labor groups which have been claiming that the Fast Act has had little impact on (the) limited-service restaurant industry in California.'
While Thornberg told CNN it's premature to determine if the FAST Act is to blame for the job losses, he is seeing signs of negative cost.
'There is no such thing as a costless policy,' he said. 'Every part, every policy must, by definition, have some cost. And it's up to society to figure out if that trade-off is worth it, right?'
But Michael Reich, chair of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, told CNN there is no evidence the FAST Act is at the root of any job loss.
Reich did his own analysis of the data, comparing jobs at California's large fast food chains to those in states where the minimum wage did not change, as well as California's full-service restaurants and smaller fast food chains not subject to the policy. He says he found 'no significant negative employment effect.'
Instead, he points to California's population loss and slower economic growth compared to other states among the factors influencing job number fluctuations.
'If there are more people, there is going to be more demand for fast food. The different population growth is not because of minimum wage,' Reich said. 'So, if you don't control for that, you're looking at a correlation. That's not a causation.'
California fast food workers are now the highest paid in the nation.
Pay for impacted workers jumped 8% to 9% on average since April 2024, according to Reich. They also earn more than other Californians making minimum wage at $16.50 per hour.
That kind of money has been life-changing for Selvin Martinez, who works at a Weinerschnitzel in San Jose.
'Before the wage increase, I struggled to keep up with expenses. I limited my purchases. I limited what I ate,' Martinez said through an interpreter. 'I have been able to cover all of my bills, help my family financially, my savings have grown, and I'm thankful to God, because life feels easier now that I'm not as worried financially.'
Management did, however, shift the opening of Martinez's restaurant one hour later, cutting his weekly schedule shorter by a few hours.
He's not alone. Some workers tell CNN they now work fewer hours.
It's a hard metric to track as economists say there is no reliable data on work hours in fast food. But Recinos, who got a pay bump from $17.25 to $20 in April 2024, says he remembers working more back then.
Recinos now works about 20 hours a week at Wingstop but fights to get more time on the schedule. He pads his hours by filling in for absent co-workers or during higher-demand periods like the Super Bowl.
Recinos said managers blame the shorter hours on labor costs.
'It makes no sense. Because if you are cutting hours to your current workers, why are you hiring new people and blaming the increase of the wage?' he said.
The Wingstop management where Recinos works told CNN they use a standard labor matrix to schedule employees based on business volume and location. Management added that it's not related to the FAST Act, and they're committed to providing a consistent schedule and paycheck for their employees.
While the policy has helped some in the workforce, some owners face a different picture.
Kerri Harper-Howie says she's had to dip into long-term savings for her 40-year-old family business to keep it afloat, with the account down 30% in just nine months.
'We have literally been like, 'Do we need to leave California?'' Harper-Howie said.
The daughter of a social worker and a police officer, Harper-Howie watched her parents buy their first McDonald's franchise location in Los Angeles in 1984. Since then, she and her sister have grown the family business into 24 locations in Los Angeles County.
Harper-Howie says sales growth has declined in every single McDonald's location they own since the FAST Act went into effect — something that has never occurred in the family's four decades in the industry.
As a result of lower sales, Harper-Howie says they've streamlined job duties for employees and cut about 170,000 labor hours. She hasn't laid anyone off but just lifted a hiring freeze that was in place for the past year.
'We put (a supervisor) in charge of going to every restaurant and doing a food cost analysis. Are we giving out too many ketchups? Are we putting too much, too many squirts on the Big Mac?' Harper-Howie said.
She also had to increase prices to offset costs. That's caused employees at neighboring businesses who earn a lower wage to buy less food. Fast food menu prices in California rose by 1.9% relative to the increases in other states over the first six months of the policy, Reich said.
Sales are only now beginning to turn around for Harper-Howie due to a McDonald's partnership with 'The Minecraft Movie' for toys. 'The Minecraft Movie' is distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Discovery, the parent company of CNN.
Harper-Howie said her family will continue the business fueled on hope.
'Not 'hope' in like the 'racetrack hope,' but hope rooted in the fact that our family has weathered storms for 40 years,' she said. 'I do firmly believe in our brand. I love our brand, and so I'm just hopeful that something is going to get better.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The days around Trump's trade war announcements saw spikes in lawmaker stock market transactions
In the days before President Donald Trump suddenly paused most of the punishing tariffs on foreign countries he had revealed in early April, more than a dozen congressional lawmakers were tied to thousands of dollars' worth of stock transactions, including significant purchases as the US stock market tumbled, a CNN analysis of financial filings shows. Seven Democrats and three Republicans reported stock transactions made on April 7, two days before Trump instituted the pause, according to a CNN review of a database of congressional financial filings compiled by Capitol Trades, a platform by the financial data research firm 2iQ which tracks lawmakers' financial activity. That day, a post on X erroneously suggested a pause was already underway, tumbling stocks and sending the markets into a state of turbulence. The next day, on the eve of Trump's tariff reprieve, seven Republicans and four Democrats were tied to transactions, filings show. The White House that day announced it would impose hefty tariffs on China and the S&P 500 closed at its lowest level so far this year. Then came April 9. 'BE COOL!' and 'THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that day, hours before his White House announced a 90-day pause on tariffs against a number of countries save for China. The announcement set the S&P 500 on track to post its biggest single-day gain since October 2008. House and Senate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have long traded stocks, and their reported transactions so far this Congress have largely mirrored Americans' high volume of trading activity amid the frenetic market shifts fueled by the president's whipsaw economic policy. While lawmakers who spoke with CNN denied having advance briefings, some who bought ahead of the president's tariff reprieve stood to make significant gains after it spurred a market rebound. Lawmakers told CNN the trades were made largely by third-party financial advisors with unilateral control over their portfolios. But experts and some on Capitol Hill say questions around the timing of the transactions strikes at the heart of an ethical and optical question that has long dogged Congress: Can lawmakers play the market without generating suspicion their access to information gives them an unfair advantage, or should they ban the practice altogether? 'At a time where there was significant or important non-public information swirling around Washington, the public can't help but fear that members of Congress are using their access to information to personally profit,' Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Donna Nagy, who has testified before Congress on the issue, told CNN after viewing the trading data. 'And whether that perception is true or not, it is destructive. It fuels a corrosive belief that lawmakers are using their positions for purposes of profit and not for the public interest.' Lawmakers, their spouses, and children are permitted to make trades but they are mandated to report any activity done on their behalf within 45 days. They are only required to disclose a monetary value range for trades. From March 31 — just before the president's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement of tariffs of at least 10% across all countries — through the April 9 pause, a total of 35 lawmakers (19 Republicans and 16 Democrats) reported purchases between about $8.6 million and $27.9 million and sales between about $5.9 million and $22.4 million across 1,265 transactions. Not all of the trades were individual stocks; some involved were mutual funds or public bonds. From March 31 through April 9, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna reported the most transactions at 438, while GOP Rep. Kevin Hern reported the single highest-value transaction of up to $5 million on April 4. Eleven lawmakers reported one transaction. Fourteen lawmakers reported two transactions or fewer. The transactions Khanna reported, his communications director Sarah Drory told CNN, were not stock trades but part of a trust managed by an independent third party that stems from money his wife had before they were married. Hern spokeswoman Miranda Dabney, meanwhile, told CNN: 'Rep. Hern does not have day-to-day management or control over his stock portfolio or his businesses.' In statements provided to CNN, representatives for the lawmakers who reported trades during that period pointed to various agreements with third-party financial advisors and noted that some purchases were bonds and not individual stocks. The offices told CNN the lawmakers are not directly involved in the purchases. 'President Trump was telling the entire world for months, and even decades, about the benefits of tariffs. It was even a central component of his 2024 presidential campaign. Suggesting any behind-the-scenes coordination is ridiculous,' a spokesperson for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said, pushing back on concerns around the timing of the trades. The Georgia Republican – whose 11 reported purchases on April 8 included between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of stock each, according to the filings – does not direct her own trades but instead has a fiduciary agreement with her portfolio manager, the spokesperson said. Around Trump's trade war, a number of Republicans publicly pledged support for Trump's economic policy while protecting their own financial interests. Sen. Markwayne Mullin sold between $290,000 and $700,000 in stocks across industries from a joint account on April 8 through 'an independent, third-party operator firm that manages all stock portfolio investments on his behalf,' according to his spokesperson. At the same time, the Oklahoma Republican was publicly supporting the president's escalating trade war, despite the financial decisions that appeared to mirror broader consumer concerns. Hern, the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House said on February 13, shortly after Trump announced 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from all countries: 'These reciprocal tariffs will incentivize other nations to level the playing field and remove long-standing, exorbitant tariffs.' On March 31 — two days before Trump announced expansive tariffs on April 2 — a trust affiliated with Hern sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of structured investments. For Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, one of the Republicans behind the push to ban lawmaker stock trading, having an intermediary conduct the trades does little to assuage concern. 'Members of Congress should come here to advance the interests of their constituents, not to enrich themselves using stock trading,' Roy said. Rhode Island Rep. Seth Magaziner, one of the leading negotiators on the Democratic side of the effort to ban congressional stock trading who participates in regular meetings on the issue, similarly told CNN: 'We should eliminate the opportunity for members of Congress to engage in any sort of insider trading because the opportunity clearly exists.' The director of government affairs at the Project on Government Oversight Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette told CNN, 'You occasionally have these moments where it really clarifies and distills down just how bad this is. And I think the tariff announcements and subsequent trades and transactions are a prime example of that.' March 3 — the day before Trump levied an additional 10% tariff on China and a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian imports with some exceptions — saw the highest number of lawmakers reporting stock trading in a single day through mid-April, according to CNN's analysis. Sixteen lawmakers, evenly split among Democrats and Republicans, reported hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of transactions that day — most of them purchases. The president had confirmed at an afternoon White House event on March 3 that the tariffs would take effect the next day, leading to a sharp selloff in stocks. At that point, March 3 had so far been the worst day for the market. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, who reported purchases between $50,000 and $100,000, was the only lawmaker to report having personally traded on March 3. McCormick did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Lawmakers reached by CNN sought to distance themselves from the transactions filed during those key dates around Trump's tariffs announcements. CNN reached out to the 16 lawmakers who reported transactions on March 3, and the 35 lawmakers, some of whom overlapped, who reported having transactions between March 31 and April 9. Those who responded to CNN said they were unaware of trades being made through various agreements with financial advisors. They said the filings did not reflect traditional stock trades and that they had no interactions with the administration around key announcements. Some told CNN the filings reflected trades or reinvestments through a joint account or by a spouse. Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer is waiting on congressional approval for a blind trust, a spokesman told CNN. GOP Rep. Bruce Westerman, meanwhile, has instructed his investment advisor to not invest in individual stocks and is in the process of putting his assets back into a fund, after receiving heat for recent investments, spokesperson Kinsey Featherston shared. Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson has begun the process of divesting her stocks, managed by an independent third party, into ETFs and mutual funds upon becoming a member of Congress, her spokesperson told CNN. Some said they supported efforts to ban lawmaker trading of individual stocks, even those with active portfolios, including Khanna and GOP Rep. Rob Bresnahan. The STOCK Act passed with overwhelming support in 2012 to increase transparency about lawmaker stock trading and made it illegal for lawmakers to use inside information for financial benefit. But lawmakers and experts argue problems persist with existing reporting structures and enforcement mechanisms. Along with only being required to report a monetary range of transactions, lawmakers also don't report the timing of a trade on a given day, which could be useful context for those determining whether seemingly well-timed trades could be based on non-public information. There is also currently no designated oversight body to determine whether lawmakers hold a conflict of interest in their trading practices. Legal experts say that even lawmakers who use financial advisors to trade on their behalf are not necessarily insulated from scrutiny, and it depends on the details of the agreement. The $200 fine for late filings is hardly a deterrent, experts argue. 'That doesn't pass the sniff test even a little bit because there is no guarantee that they're not talking to those people because there is no prohibition against them from talking to those financial advisors,' Hedtler-Gaudette said of the arrangements most lawmakers have with their financial advisors. As efforts to ban congressional stock trading have fallen short, scholars and ethics experts have argued that members of Congress are privy to more information than the average American and are often faced with legislative decisions that overlap with their investment portfolios. 'It is essentially completely legal for a congressman, congresswoman or senator to go to Goldman Sachs, Blackrock or Vanguard and be like, 'Hey I'm proposing this regulation, what do you think will be the impact on the market?' There is nothing to stop you from that,' said Dr. Jan Hanousek Jr., an assistant professor at the University of Memphis who has studied the patterns of lawmaker stock trading. 'This is an insane problem.' Beyond ethics concerns, a 2022 Fox News poll found that 70% of respondents supported banning members of Congress and their families from trading stock, while a January UC San Diego study found that even when lawmakers make their trading practices public, it 'erodes' the legitimacy of Congress. The push to ban lawmaker stock trading last peaked when dozens of federal officials and some lawmakers made lucrative stock and mutual fund trades as the government was preparing for the financial onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020. The Department of Justice has since closed investigations into the moves. But in a sign this Congress' bipartisan group of lawmakers may be closer to finding the political will to ban the practice, House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the president himself have publicly supported the effort, following news of lawmaker stock trading activity around the tariff announcements. 'I have been working on this issue for years,' Roy told CNN. 'We can and should fix the problem during this term now that President Trump and the Speaker have signaled their support for the measure. We have the will and the mandate of the American people to do this. Let's deliver.' CNN's John Towfighi contributed to this report.

Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
New York renters will save a ton of money on moving starting today
In the summer of 2023, New Yorker Josh Magpantay was in a hurry to move. The price tag for a new spot — not including rent or a security deposit — was $7,000. That's because Magpantay's apartment came with a broker's fee. Since he moved, he's felt locked in — even though he thinks the rent is too high — because of how much it would cost to move elsewhere and pay a similar fee. Magpantay is far from alone: Fees paid to landlord-hired brokers as part of the upfront costs of signing up for a new apartment in New York can range from about one month's worth of rent to 15% of annual rent, which can add up to thousands of dollars paid out even before moving in. But that might change soon for Magpantay and renters like him. As of June 11, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses Act — known as the FARE Act — makes landlords responsible for paying brokers' fees, unless prospective tenants hire their own broker to assist them with their search. "The law is clear. Whoever hires the broker pays the fee," Jackie Vazquez, a 29-year-old realtor in New York City, said. She added: "I think that sounds fair." In 2024, around 47% of New York City rentals had a broker's fee. Between the fee, first month's rent, and a security deposit, upfront moving costs averaged almost $13,000 in New York City between January and April of this year. Under the FARE Act, the average cost of moving into an apartment that previously charged the tenant a broker fee is expected to fall by 41.8%, per a report by the online renting platform StreetEasy. That means the average upfront lease cost, which includes the first month's rent, a security deposit, and the broker fee, would fall to $7,537, down from $12,951. "The FARE Act won't necessarily bring a monumental shift in the rental market, but it's going to be a substantial win for renters, especially for affordability," Kenny Lee, an economist at StreetEasy and the author of the report, told Business Insider. The law will also put New York City in line with most of the rest of the country, where brokers are paid by those who hire them. In the short term, the law could open up pent-up demand from renters. Some in the industry expect a wave of New Yorkers who've postponed their apartment search until after the Act goes into effect to return to the market. "Renters have been sitting on their hands, waiting for this thing to pass," Allia Mohamed, CEO of the leasing and landlord review platform openigloo, told Business Insider. "They're gonna get back in the market right when June 11 passes." A small win for affordability Before online rental listing platforms like StreetEasy and RentHop became ubiquitous, some renters hired brokers to help them find apartments. But these days, tenants can do a lot of that work themselves simply by scrolling the listing platforms. Opponents and critics of the FARE Act argue landlords will simply raise rents to cover the brokers' fees, thus turning a one-time fee for tenants into a permanent upcharge. The Real Estate Board of New York, a major industry group, has sued to block the law, arguing it would increase costs and cause rental market chaos. A spokesperson for the group, Kay Sarlin Wright, pointed BI to talking points arguing the law would also hurt real estate agents and rob tenants of their expertise. "For future moves, I'm worried about the increase in rental prices because I can definitely see landlords lumping the brokerage fee into the rent prices to recoup this cost," Lexis Xia, a 29-year-old finance director and lifelong resident of New York, said. But economists have found that the impact on rent is minimal, and that rents are primarily determined by supply and demand rather than landlords' expenses. Lee found that properties that dropped broker fees in April of this year saw rent increases of 5.6%, compared with a 4.6% increase in rent in the rest of the market. "This small difference tells us that property managers are already absorbing much of the costs associated with bringing the leasing activity in-house or compensating the brokers themselves, and the data really tells us that they'll continue to do so," Lee said. For four years, Dante Fiallo, a 29-year-old actor in New York City, was locked into an apartment where the rent continually increased. Every year, he said, his landlords kept hiking the price, and he just had to swallow it because he couldn't afford broker fees. "We would've left sooner or we would not have renewed if we could have gone to another place," Fiallo said. "But we never had enough money upfront to do that." Landlords who significantly raise rents might have trouble competing for tenants. Mohamed suspects that landlords who choose to use brokers going forward will ultimately negotiate lower fees. Vazquez, the broker, thinks it's an overall positive shift. She said the value is clear: A landlord gets value from hiring a listing agent or broker to aid in renting out the apartment. A tenant choosing to hire a broker receives value from someone representing them and weeding through the apartment market on their behalf. "It's the power of choice, and I think that's very empowering for someone navigating the most intimidating real estate market in the world," she said. "So I think it gives so much clarity and power back to the renters." There are also landlords who say they won't post their units online and will instead rely on word of mouth to fill their apartments, in order to avoid doing the legwork brokers have traditionally done for them. Mohamed doesn't buy that. "At the end of the day, landlords want to fill their apartments," she said. "If posting and advertising the apartment online is what's going to get them a renter faster, that's what they will continue to do."
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
US and China agree on trade framework after two days of talks in London, Chinese negotiator says
The United States and China have agreed on a trade framework after two days of negotiations in London, China's trade negotiator Li Chenggang told reporters on Wednesday, according to Chinese state broadcaster CGTN. The two sides 'have agreed in principle on the framework for implementing the consensus reached by the two heads of state during their phone talks on June 5 and at Geneva talks last month,' he said. The US and Chinese officials will now take the proposal back to their leaders for approval, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters in a separate briefing in London, Reuters reported. 'The idea is we're going to go back and speak to President Trump and make sure he approves it. They're going to go back and speak to President Xi and make sure he approves it, and if that is approved, we will then implement the framework,' he said. The latest round of talks, held Monday and Tuesday, followed a long-anticipated phone call last week between US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The call appeared to ease tensions that emerged over the past month after a surprise agreement in Geneva was announced in May. After talks in the Swiss city, the two sides had agreed to drastically reduce tariffs on each other's goods for an initial 90-day period. Initially, the mood was upbeat. However, sentiment soured quickly over two main sticking points: China's control over so-called rare earth minerals and its access to semiconductor technology originating from the US. Lutnick said that China's restrictions on exports of rare earth minerals and magnets to the US will be resolved as a 'fundamental' part of the framework agreement, according to Reuters. 'Also, there were a number of measures the United States of America put on when those rare earths were not coming,' Lutnick said. 'You should expect those to come off, sort of as President Trump said, in a balanced way.' CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. This is a developing story and will be updated.