If the company cant pay a liveable wage because they will lose money, then that is a failing business.
If its just “buh shareholders make 1% less” then pay your fucking staff
socialism for corporations, rugged capitalism for the workers. idiotic.
Lemmy Community for economy, business, politics, stocks, bonds, product releases, IPOs, advice, news, investment, videos, predictions, government, money, politics, debate, current trends and more.
If the company cant pay a liveable wage because they will lose money, then that is a failing business.
If its just “buh shareholders make 1% less” then pay your fucking staff
socialism for corporations, rugged capitalism for the workers. idiotic.
Reading the comments on that article was a mistake
Entry level persons with almost zero skills cannot produce enough profit to pay these high minimum wages. That is why these are known as entry level jobs
Entry-level jobs are a stepping stone for individuals with little to no prior experience or specialized skills. They are an investment for a company.
Plus, if you can't make "enough" profit (what is enough, really?) because of a minimum wage, then maybe your business doesn't have any right to exist.
(what is enough, really?)
All of it, duh. I'm surprised fast food hasn't gone after $1/hr prison labor in sympathetic states yet
Or you don't have the right to the job.
That's fine too. I'm just saying, if you need to pay peanuts to your staff in order to break even, your business plan sucks.
1% of jobs? Is the underlying source accounting for seasonal change or were they a desperate narrative chasing data? Even if the underlying story were true that conservatives like to peddle, that jobs are wrecked by raising minimum wage, the impact takes time to suss out the impact of a single variable on a complex item like employment numbers. You don't look at one monthly jobs report and cite 6,000 up or down and proclaim one side was right. The fact they quoted a restaurant org rep with an incredibly dramatized quote "industry smashed, struggling to stay afloat" seals the fact this article is propaganda, not analysis or news.
accounting for seasonal change or chasing data?
My read on it is they are comparing like for like—in the next paragraph:
During that same period a year earlier, California fast food restaurants added 17,528 jobs, a 3.1 percent increase over those ten months in 2022 and 2023, the data show.
The plebs must be punished for asserting their rights!
Headline should read "99% of California fast food workers now make a livable wage and don't have to rely on government handouts to survive anymore" but what do you expect from National Review?