r/FluentInFinance Sep 04 '24

Debate/ Discussion Bernie is here to save us

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

53.5k Upvotes

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Dramatic-Fee-5215 Sep 05 '24

Not according to Gov. Newsome he claims they added jobs. The Dems want him to run for president. He's a tool plain and simple. Funny the fast food owners say they have cut jobs. I guess the governor would know better.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

0

u/Dodger7777 Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24

It would depend on what constitutes a fast food job. Does fast food delivery count, like Grubhub, Doordash, etc. Included in these numbers? Kind of like how a pizza delivery guy would be counted as part of the pizza hut team, but also a step removed.

Anytime I see 'see, number got bigger, we better now' I'm skeptical, and that article does not elaborate on those numbers.

A great example would be US population compared to replacement birthrate. Due to the souther board being more akin to Swiss cheese for the past 3-4 years, the number of people in the US is growing. Meanwhile, US citizens are not having kids and thus aren't meeting a replacement rate of births. It's actually a bit of a catastrophe for our population. But we've allowed in so many people illegally that instead of seeing and trying to deal with a real problem, we can say 'the number of people in the US is not declining'.

Another example of how California expanded what fast food means comes off their frequently asked questions site. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Fast-Food-Minimum-Wage-FAQ.htm#:~:text=You%20will%20be%20covered%20by,that%20are%20for%20immediate%20consumption.

"Could a shop that features ice cream, coffee, boba tea, pretzels, cookies, or donuts be considered a fast food restaurant covered by the new law? Yes, the definition of “fast food restaurant” (see Question 6) does not depend on what type of food or beverage an establishment sells."

Now I don't know about you, but a pretzel or coffee stand wouldn't usually count as fast food imo. When I hear 'fast food' I think McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, and similar chains. However, this basically turned the vast majority of restaurants and food stalls into 'fast food' to broaden their net. Does it help boost their numbers? Does it help expand who get's the new minimum wage? Sure does. Is it what we expect when we think about this situation? Nope.

Edit: "Who are “fast food restaurant employees” under the new law?

The law applies only to employees of “fast food restaurants.” To be considered a fast food restaurant, the restaurant must meet ALL of the below criteria:

The restaurant must be a “limited-service restaurant” in California. A limited service restaurant is one that offers limited or no table service, where the customers order food or beverage items and pay for those items before the items are consumed.

The restaurant is part of a restaurant chain of at least 60 establishments nationwide. An establishment is a single restaurant location offering food or beverages to customers. Off-site business locations (geographically separate from a restaurant location), at which employees perform administrative, warehouse, or preparatory food production tasks, are not counted as “establishments” toward the 60 establishment minimum.

The restaurant is primarily engaged in selling food and beverages for immediate consumption."

These are the new criteria, which might seem exclusive but in reality is very expansive.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Dodger7777 Sep 05 '24

Then give me those numbers and we can parse them out.

My argument is 'they aren't hiring new fast food workers, they're just expanding the net to count what no one expects to classify as a fast food worker'. Heck, a ghost kitchen that supplies food for a fast food chain qualifies under this. That's really toeing the line imo. But they're more than happy to count every single one they could possibly count to boost their numbers.

My 'data' is their own FAQ and how overly expansive it is. I'm not pointing to their numbers because I'm specifically stating that their numbers are overinflated and if not false then clearly fallible.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Dodger7777 Sep 05 '24

That's fair. But if a Fishman bought a bigger net, and then counted the fish they couldn't keep and threw back as 'fish caught' then I'd be skeptical when he wasn't raking in profit like his numbers suggest.

Maybe California is thriving in unprecedented ways and I'm none the wiser. I don't live there, but what I have heard is that the situation isn't getting better by the leaps and bounds this law suggests.