Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage

[danielpalos]

You are the one fishing for red herrings. How is that relevant. I have an actual argument, not just red herrings.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages not market clearing minimum wages. Only lousy capitalists, complain about wages being too high.

And Ford NEVER did it again! Why didn't he? If it supposedly worked as well as you seem to believe, then why did he not do it again? That is why it is relevant, because your lie leads people to believe that it worked and he continued the practice.

He did it to save his company because workers would not stay. Your use of Ford proves that Ford responded to market forces no some minimum wage law. Companies will do the same today if you let them.

It only works once. He needed a new, efficiency plan, Stan.

Then why did you claim he did it more than once? The market forces made Ford double the wages, the same would hold true today.

It is your red herring, right winger; run with it. I am not claiming anything since it is irrelevant to My argument.

So it is irrelevant yet you saw a need to lie about it. Lol!

Market forces caused Ford to double the wages. He did it to keep the turnover rate lower. He made a business decision, just as today's businesses do. He didn't need a federal government or a union to dictate the wages. The market dictated the wages.

I am not lying about anything; it is Your red herring. How is it relevant.

And, Henry Ford identified an inefficiency and corrected it; by having a plan, Stan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no error, just conflict.

Post the text of both laws that you feel are in conflict.
I'll show you your error.

No, you won't. California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

It is null and void, from Inception. Why should I post it.

You don't want to post the proof of your claim?

I'm shocked!!

 

[danielpalos]

There is no error, just conflict.

Post the text of both laws that you feel are in conflict.
I'll show you your error.

No, you won't. California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

You will never get the dishonest lefty to admit he lied or post he was wrong. Admitting he is wrong is not in his DNA, most lefties can't admit it, they just try to change the subject just as Danny boi does. Typical regressive; dishonest, intolerant and slimy.

California is an at-will employment State. It really is, that legally simple.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you won't. California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

It is null and void, from Inception. Why should I post it.

You don't want to post the proof of your claim?

I'm shocked!!

I made my claim. You have nothing but red herrings and can prove, nothing, or you would have already done it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

It is null and void, from Inception. Why should I post it.

You don't want to post the proof of your claim?

I'm shocked!!

I made my claim. You have nothing but red herrings and can prove, nothing, or you would have already done it.

I made my claim.

Yes, we all saw your unsubstantiated claim.

You have nothing ....and can prove, nothing

Why would I try to prove your silly claim?
That's on you.

And you're failing...........

 

[Papageorgio]

And Ford NEVER did it again! Why didn't he? If it supposedly worked as well as you seem to believe, then why did he not do it again? That is why it is relevant, because your lie leads people to believe that it worked and he continued the practice.

He did it to save his company because workers would not stay. Your use of Ford proves that Ford responded to market forces no some minimum wage law. Companies will do the same today if you let them.

It only works once. He needed a new, efficiency plan, Stan.

Then why did you claim he did it more than once? The market forces made Ford double the wages, the same would hold true today.

It is your red herring, right winger; run with it. I am not claiming anything since it is irrelevant to My argument.

So it is irrelevant yet you saw a need to lie about it. Lol!

Market forces caused Ford to double the wages. He did it to keep the turnover rate lower. He made a business decision, just as today's businesses do. He didn't need a federal government or a union to dictate the wages. The market dictated the wages.

I am not lying about anything; it is Your red herring. How is it relevant.

And, Henry Ford identified an inefficiency and corrected it; by having a plan, Stan.

You lied, you claimed that Ford doubled his wages more than once, you out and out lied. No you are lying about not lying! Lol! You are a ridiculous, dishonest person, I have no respect for you or your dishonesty.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, you won't. California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

You will never get the dishonest lefty to admit he lied or post he was wrong. Admitting he is wrong is not in his DNA, most lefties can't admit it, they just try to change the subject just as Danny boi does. Typical regressive; dishonest, intolerant and slimy.

California is an at-will employment State. It really is, that legally simple.

Lol! You still don't deliver, pretty funny! You can't be honest to save yourself. Tricks, dishonesty and word games, that is all you have. No integrity, no honesty, absolutely a pure joke of a poster.

 

[hadit]

Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage

In a pair of affluent coastal California counties, the canary in the mineshaft has gotten splayed, spatchcocked and plated over a bed of unintended consequences, garnished with sprigs of locally sourced economic distortion and non-GMO, “What the heck were they thinking?”

The result of one early experiment in a citywide $15 minimum wage is an ominous sign for the state’s poorer inland counties as the statewide wage floor creeps toward the mark.

Consider San Francisco, an early adopter of the $15 wage. It’s now experiencing a restaurant die-off, minting jobless hash-slingers, cashiers, busboys, scullery engineers and line cooks as they get pink-slipped in increasing numbers. And the wage there hasn’t yet hit $15.

As the East Bay Times reported in January, at least 60 restaurants around the Bay Area had closed since September alone.

A recent study by Michael Luca at Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca at Mathematica Policy Research found that every $1 hike in the minimum wage brings a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of a 3.5-star restaurant on Yelp! closing.

Another telltale is San Diego, where voters approved increasing the city’s minimum wage to $11.50 per hour from $10.50, this after the minimum wage was increased from $8 an hour in 2015 – meaning hourly costs have risen 43 percent in two years.

The cost increases have pushed San Diego restaurants to the brink, Stephen Zolezzi, president of the Food and Beverage Association of San Diego County, told the San Diego Business Journal. Watch for the next mass die-off there...

Luckily, I live in the central coast area between L.A. and San Francisco, so this area hasn't gone as extreme left as those parts of California.

When somebody is working full time and not earning enough to live on, they get food stamps, EBT Card, subsidized housing or child care, and emergency medical care. Benefits vary depending on where they live. THE GOVERNMET has to make up the difference!!!
That means that the Taxpayer is subsidizing McDonalds!!! If a business can't pay a living wage, then it should not be in business. I am not going to buy a Burger out of a vending machine (Kiosk).
When I owned a bar in California, some bars tried using machine mixed cocktails. It was a complete failure. When it comes to food, people want personal service.

Too late. Mcdonalds is already using kiosks to replace counter workers, and people like it just fine.

 

[hadit]

There is no error, just conflict.

Post the text of both laws that you feel are in conflict.
I'll show you your error.

No, you won't. California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

You will never get the dishonest lefty to admit he lied or post he was wrong. Admitting he is wrong is not in his DNA, most lefties can't admit it, they just try to change the subject just as Danny boi does. Typical regressive; dishonest, intolerant and slimy.

You handed him the brush and he painted himself into the corner.

 

[hadit]

No, you won't. California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

You will never get the dishonest lefty to admit he lied or post he was wrong. Admitting he is wrong is not in his DNA, most lefties can't admit it, they just try to change the subject just as Danny boi does. Typical regressive; dishonest, intolerant and slimy.

California is an at-will employment State. It really is, that legally simple.

Which says nothing about why non-workers should be paid as if they're working.

 

[hadit]

Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

It is null and void, from Inception. Why should I post it.

You don't want to post the proof of your claim?

I'm shocked!!

I made my claim. You have nothing but red herrings and can prove, nothing, or you would have already done it.

When the gas tank is "on empty", the engine, sputters and "dies". Just stop.

 

[Tax Man]

Maybe they should not pass the wage increase on to the consumer. Sooner or later these business owners need to take the hit.

Kinda odd that here in the San Francisco Bay Area with it's thousands of restaurants etc. I have yet to notice a price hike. Then again I make good bucks so I do not watch for it.

 

[OnePercenter]

Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage

In a pair of affluent coastal California counties, the canary in the mineshaft has gotten splayed, spatchcocked and plated over a bed of unintended consequences, garnished with sprigs of locally sourced economic distortion and non-GMO, “What the heck were they thinking?”

The result of one early experiment in a citywide $15 minimum wage is an ominous sign for the state’s poorer inland counties as the statewide wage floor creeps toward the mark.

Consider San Francisco, an early adopter of the $15 wage. It’s now experiencing a restaurant die-off, minting jobless hash-slingers, cashiers, busboys, scullery engineers and line cooks as they get pink-slipped in increasing numbers. And the wage there hasn’t yet hit $15.

As the East Bay Times reported in January, at least 60 restaurants around the Bay Area had closed since September alone.

A recent study by Michael Luca at Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca at Mathematica Policy Research found that every $1 hike in the minimum wage brings a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of a 3.5-star restaurant on Yelp! closing.

Another telltale is San Diego, where voters approved increasing the city’s minimum wage to $11.50 per hour from $10.50, this after the minimum wage was increased from $8 an hour in 2015 – meaning hourly costs have risen 43 percent in two years.

The cost increases have pushed San Diego restaurants to the brink, Stephen Zolezzi, president of the Food and Beverage Association of San Diego County, told the San Diego Business Journal. Watch for the next mass die-off there...

Luckily, I live in the central coast area between L.A. and San Francisco, so this area hasn't gone as extreme left as those parts of California.

What was the percentage of restaurant closings per year before the pay hike?

1) 20%

2) 50%

3) 90%

 

[OnePercenter]

Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage

In a pair of affluent coastal California counties, the canary in the mineshaft has gotten splayed, spatchcocked and plated over a bed of unintended consequences, garnished with sprigs of locally sourced economic distortion and non-GMO, “What the heck were they thinking?”

The result of one early experiment in a citywide $15 minimum wage is an ominous sign for the state’s poorer inland counties as the statewide wage floor creeps toward the mark.

Consider San Francisco, an early adopter of the $15 wage. It’s now experiencing a restaurant die-off, minting jobless hash-slingers, cashiers, busboys, scullery engineers and line cooks as they get pink-slipped in increasing numbers. And the wage there hasn’t yet hit $15.

As the East Bay Times reported in January, at least 60 restaurants around the Bay Area had closed since September alone.

A recent study by Michael Luca at Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca at Mathematica Policy Research found that every $1 hike in the minimum wage brings a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of a 3.5-star restaurant on Yelp! closing.

Another telltale is San Diego, where voters approved increasing the city’s minimum wage to $11.50 per hour from $10.50, this after the minimum wage was increased from $8 an hour in 2015 – meaning hourly costs have risen 43 percent in two years.

The cost increases have pushed San Diego restaurants to the brink, Stephen Zolezzi, president of the Food and Beverage Association of San Diego County, told the San Diego Business Journal. Watch for the next mass die-off there...

Luckily, I live in the central coast area between L.A. and San Francisco, so this area hasn't gone as extreme left as those parts of California.

When somebody is working full time and not earning enough to live on, they get food stamps, EBT Card, subsidized housing or child care, and emergency medical care. Benefits vary depending on where they live. THE GOVERNMET has to make up the difference!!!
That means that the Taxpayer is subsidizing McDonalds!!! If a business can't pay a living wage, then it should not be in business. I am not going to buy a Burger out of a vending machine (Kiosk).
When I owned a bar in California, some bars tried using machine mixed cocktails. It was a complete failure. When it comes to food, people want personal service.

Too late. Mcdonalds is already using kiosks to replace counter workers, and people like it just fine.

Kiosks at McDonalds WILL NOT replace workers. It WILL get you your ?meal? faster.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

You will never get the dishonest lefty to admit he lied or post he was wrong. Admitting he is wrong is not in his DNA, most lefties can't admit it, they just try to change the subject just as Danny boi does. Typical regressive; dishonest, intolerant and slimy.

California is an at-will employment State. It really is, that legally simple.

Lol! You still don't deliver, pretty funny! You can't be honest to save yourself. Tricks, dishonesty and word games, that is all you have. No integrity, no honesty, absolutely a pure joke of a poster.

California is an at-will employment State. That is my argument. You have nothing but red herrings. See the difference.

California is an at-will employment State. That is my argument.

So get a job already. That is my argument.

 

[danielpalos]

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

It is null and void, from Inception. Why should I post it.

You don't want to post the proof of your claim?

I'm shocked!!

I made my claim. You have nothing but red herrings and can prove, nothing, or you would have already done it.

When the gas tank is "on empty", the engine, sputters and "dies". Just stop.

When are you going to take your own advice, in any at-will employment State.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.

California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.

California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

You post the text since you have such a good argument

You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.

Or run away.....again. LOL!

You will never get the dishonest lefty to admit he lied or post he was wrong. Admitting he is wrong is not in his DNA, most lefties can't admit it, they just try to change the subject just as Danny boi does. Typical regressive; dishonest, intolerant and slimy.

California is an at-will employment State. It really is, that legally simple.

Which says nothing about why non-workers should be paid as if they're working.

Employment is at will. That says every Thing; Only the right wing is too incompetent to understand legal or political language, and blame the left for "being too complicated".

Only the right wing is too incompetent to understand legal or political language,

Post the legal or language, I'll point out your error.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You will never get the dishonest lefty to admit he lied or post he was wrong. Admitting he is wrong is not in his DNA, most lefties can't admit it, they just try to change the subject just as Danny boi does. Typical regressive; dishonest, intolerant and slimy.

California is an at-will employment State. It really is, that legally simple.

Lol! You still don't deliver, pretty funny! You can't be honest to save yourself. Tricks, dishonesty and word games, that is all you have. No integrity, no honesty, absolutely a pure joke of a poster.

California is an at-will employment State. That is my argument. You have nothing but red herrings. See the difference.

California is an at-will employment State. That is my argument.

So get a job already. That is my argument.

How socialist of you. Should I go to a Right to Work State and insist on a job?

Should I go to a Right to Work State and insist on a job?

Yes.
Post their reaction. Video, if you can.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You will never get the dishonest lefty to admit he lied or post he was wrong. Admitting he is wrong is not in his DNA, most lefties can't admit it, they just try to change the subject just as Danny boi does. Typical regressive; dishonest, intolerant and slimy.

California is an at-will employment State. It really is, that legally simple.

Which says nothing about why non-workers should be paid as if they're working.

Employment is at will. That says every Thing; Only the right wing is too incompetent to understand legal or political language, and blame the left for "being too complicated".

Only the right wing is too incompetent to understand legal or political language,

Post the legal or language, I'll point out your error.

I already did; y'all have nothing but fallacy.

You posted the text of the conflicting laws? Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lol! You still don't deliver, pretty funny! You can't be honest to save yourself. Tricks, dishonesty and word games, that is all you have. No integrity, no honesty, absolutely a pure joke of a poster.

California is an at-will employment State. That is my argument. You have nothing but red herrings. See the difference.

California is an at-will employment State. That is my argument.

So get a job already. That is my argument.

How socialist of you. Should I go to a Right to Work State and insist on a job?

Should I go to a Right to Work State and insist on a job?

Yes.
Post their reaction. Video, if you can.

How should I write my cover letter? Hey there right wingers in an alleged, Right to Work State; y'all prepared to "work hard" and "bear True Witness today"?

How should I write my cover letter?

Go with your gut......

"Dudes, where's my job?
You have to hire me, it's the law"

Post the video.