Here come the price increases!

[storewanderer]

This all makes me smile.

More than half of these fast food places can disappear and we would all be the better for it as a society.

So the franchisees can handle this new overhead? Good, close up. Perhaps non fast food sit down restaurants will do better.

Why? So other businesses could open up and sell the same exact products but not be part of the law? Instead of getting the fast food from a "fast food place" now you get it from a counter in a gas station or a counter in a grocery store or a counter attached to a sit down restaurant so those places can get around this new law? Then what has been accomplished...?

Not all consumers have the time or wealth for sit down restaurants either. Not everyone is so privileged to always be able to go to a sit down restaurant. Not to mention most of the chain sit down restaurants which may be within budget for fast food consumers to switch to serve you what is basically the same as fast food (frozen/reheated stuff, fried stuff) presented on a glass plate and with a tip involved.

Also the sit down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast food places...

There is zero justification for the attack that has been launched on the fast food industry in California. Also interesting how Starbucks is carefully exempted. If you want to attack all food service businesses and put these rules on them then maybe okay but I even think that is too narrow. Maybe all "food" businesses- and that would include grocery stores.

But the big winner again will be the big corporations who get more royalties. As with most of these so called "Progressive" initiatives which seem to be funded by dark money from big money billionaires (not unlike other political initiatives that get pushed by other "groups") under the guise of helping people (higher wage in this case- which will be washed out through cuts in hours/higher prices on items purchased) the end result is really just even more money for big corporations through the higher royalties they'll receive from the increased prices. I wouldn't be surprised if the investors in the franchisors funded this whole thing. Playing the employees as total tools and fools under the guise of "helping" them.

[ClownLoach]

Here's some more, and it isn't even the first yet. Check out the new $1 $2 $3 Dollar Menu at McDonald's...

Normally I wouldn't try to be too political, but can you imagine if the fringe candidate who was running for Senate got through and pushed their agenda? They were running on a $50 minimum wage agenda. I'm not kidding. Can you imagine the $40 hamburger, $30 taco and $20 French fries?

[ClownLoach]

This all makes me smile.

More than half of these fast food places can disappear and we would all be the better for it as a society.

So the franchisees can handle this new overhead? Good, close up. Perhaps non fast food sit down restaurants will do better.

Why? So other businesses could open up and sell the same exact products but not be part of the law? Instead of getting the fast food from a "fast food place" now you get it from a counter in a gas station or a counter in a grocery store or a counter attached to a sit down restaurant so those places can get around this new law? Then what has been accomplished...?

Not all consumers have the time or wealth for sit down restaurants either. Not everyone is so privileged to always be able to go to a sit down restaurant. Not to mention most of the chain sit down restaurants which may be within budget for fast food consumers to switch to serve you what is basically the same as fast food (frozen/reheated stuff, fried stuff) presented on a glass plate and with a tip involved.

Also the sit down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast food places...

There is zero justification for the attack that has been launched on the fast food industry in California. Also interesting how Starbucks is carefully exempted. If you want to attack all food service businesses and put these rules on them then maybe okay but I even think that is too narrow. Maybe all "food" businesses- and that would include grocery stores.

But the big winner again will be the big corporations who get more royalties. As with most of these so called "Progressive" initiatives which seem to be funded by dark money from big money billionaires (not unlike other political initiatives that get pushed by other "groups") under the guise of helping people (higher wage in this case- which will be washed out through cuts in hours/higher prices on items purchased) the end result is really just even more money for big corporations through the higher royalties they'll receive from the increased prices. I wouldn't be surprised if the investors in the franchisors funded this whole thing. Playing the employees as total tools and fools under the guise of "helping" them.

Being a retail focused board, it should be noted the majority of retailers are cutting lunches to 30 minutes as they reduce their staffing. If fast food is severely curtailed then these employees will not be able to leave the store and eat. They certainly can't go to a sit down restaurant. You can say "well they should bring their lunch" but I always hated the break room experience and needed to get out and breathe fresh air. Fast food is a necessary evil.

[storewanderer]

Here's some more, and it isn't even the first yet. Check out the new $1 $2 $3 Dollar Menu at McDonald's...



Normally I wouldn't try to be too political, but can you imagine if the fringe candidate who was running for Senate got through and pushed their agenda? They were running on a $50 minimum wage agenda. I'm not kidding. Can you imagine the $40 hamburger, $30 taco and $20 French fries?

Some of those prices have looked like that in my area for a while now.

The thing is that $50 minimum wage probably has a fair crack at being passed starting in some city then spreading to a few other cities then going to some other state. If San Francisco wasn't in such a dire situation right now I suspect they'd be working on that $50 minimum wage.

And again for big corporations and big government a $50 minimum wage would be great. All of this debt at "old lower" prices would suddenly be watered down by the inflation and devaluation of money that would occur from such a giant increase in minimum wage. But for people out there, consumers trying to buy things, what a disaster. For small businesses who don't carry much debt, again, a complete disaster. Not to mention how it no longer would make sense to go to college in a lot of cases (ironic it is colleges that often pump up policies like this) if you could just get $50/hr at any old job which would have a serious impact on people's brain capacity and "drive" over time.

[storewanderer]

Being a retail focused board, it should be noted the majority of retailers are cutting lunches to 30 minutes as they reduce their staffing. If fast food is severely curtailed then these employees will not be able to leave the store and eat. They certainly can't go to a sit down restaurant. You can say "well they should bring their lunch" but I always hated the break room experience and needed to get out and breathe fresh air. Fast food is a necessary evil.

I just don't see the issue with fast food. If I cook a burger at home or if I buy a burger at fast food there isn't much difference. The fast food burger is actually often smaller than a regular restaurant burger (isn't less meat better according to the health industry and the Progressive agenda?). If I want to cook myself a burger and I try to go to the grocery store and ask for 1/10 lb of ground beef they get pretty angry to assist me and wrap up that order. At McDonalds I can get that Hamburger or Cheeseburger with 1/10 lb beef no problem. Sure it isn't great and the one I'd cook would be better tasting but... it is easier and it is the same thing in the end... burger with ground beef on a bun...

Fast food is what it is for a reason. Construction crews, travelers, truck drivers, homeless people, others with no access to food preparation facilities all day, all heavily rely on the fast food industry for food purchases. For the idealistic types including all of the activists and politicians who pushed the Fast Act who have the luxury of working in a nice office with nice limited refrigeration and microwave facilities, or working from home with full kitchen facilities, it is easy to attack this industry. But I do find it ironic the "White Collar" favored fast food chains Starbucks and Panera are exempt from the Fast Act. Starbucks is absolutely a fast food chain. For many others it is important. And most of the attacks could be applied to a lot of other "food service" operations than just fast food- chain full service restaurants, grocery store delis, school lunch programs, to name a few. So this anger at the fast food industry that some have is potentially well intended but unfairly targeting one industry very unfairly.

[Super S]

This all makes me smile.

More than half of these fast food places can disappear and we would all be the better for it as a society.

So the franchisees can handle this new overhead? Good, close up. Perhaps non fast food sit down restaurants will do better.

Why? So other businesses could open up and sell the same exact products but not be part of the law? Instead of getting the fast food from a "fast food place" now you get it from a counter in a gas station or a counter in a grocery store or a counter attached to a sit down restaurant so those places can get around this new law? Then what has been accomplished...?

Not all consumers have the time or wealth for sit down restaurants either. Not everyone is so privileged to always be able to go to a sit down restaurant. Not to mention most of the chain sit down restaurants which may be within budget for fast food consumers to switch to serve you what is basically the same as fast food (frozen/reheated stuff, fried stuff) presented on a glass plate and with a tip involved.

Also the sit down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast food places...

There is zero justification for the attack that has been launched on the fast food industry in California. Also interesting how Starbucks is carefully exempted. If you want to attack all food service businesses and put these rules on them then maybe okay but I even think that is too narrow. Maybe all "food" businesses- and that would include grocery stores.

But the big winner again will be the big corporations who get more royalties. As with most of these so called "Progressive" initiatives which seem to be funded by dark money from big money billionaires (not unlike other political initiatives that get pushed by other "groups") under the guise of helping people (higher wage in this case- which will be washed out through cuts in hours/higher prices on items purchased) the end result is really just even more money for big corporations through the higher royalties they'll receive from the increased prices. I wouldn't be surprised if the investors in the franchisors funded this whole thing. Playing the employees as total tools and fools under the guise of "helping" them.

Not everybody has perfect day shift work schedules, and those like myself, who sometimes work varying, and sometimes late, shifts, are sometimes in need of something to eat and have limited options for sit-down restaurants, and are tired and don't really feel like cooking when I get home. And in many cases, the sit-down restaurant's quality is not much better but is more expensive, plus you get to deal with varying levels of service and tips. I don't really like the idea of stopping at a restaurant on the way home after a long work day such as Denny's or Shari's, and not knowing if you will get your food in a half hour or an hour after you get there due to how they are staffed at any given time. Grocery store delis are often closed by then also. Fast food is often a more reliable option in those cases.

I will also add that I have more confidence in a fast food establishment that at least has proper kitchen equipment than I am in a neighborhood gas station where the "kitchen" that supplies the hot food case might be nothing more than a storage room that they stuck residential-quality appliances in to like a stove, microwave, and if lucky a deep fryer along with whatever they cobbled together for a sink.

[reymann]

It's gonna be a double whammy, some fast food places are planning to reduce dining room hours on top of the minimum wage price increases.

[storewanderer]

It's gonna be a double whammy, some fast food places are planning to reduce dining room hours on top of the minimum wage price increases.

They know the cost savings closing dine in and being drive through only from COVID. Or think they know. But it also caused a major revenue loss. Many customers left permanently.

During proven slow times 9 PM 10 PM etc. closing inside may not make a huge difference.

However much of the labor saving equipment like order kiosks and self serve drinks are only available inside. So how much cost does drive through only really save?

[ClownLoach]

It's gonna be a double whammy, some fast food places are planning to reduce dining room hours on top of the minimum wage price increases.

I keep hearing this mantra that the fast food places all are going to be closing their dining rooms "soon", but I see the opposite. Chick-fil-A was alleged to be doing this but they've built two brand new restaurants near me that opened in the last couple of months and they have larger and even fancier dining rooms than I've ever seen from them. And they just reopened the kids play rooms this week for the first time since COVID, even in the middle of this wage increase.

Taco Bell and others were allegedly going to tear down their respective buildings and replace with no dining room, extra lanes etc. Did this materialize? Not at all. Taco Bell as I speak is running rapid remodel crews all through SoCal, finally changing all signage to the new logo and redoing the interiors with contemporary new tile and furniture to be open to customers not closed. I can't explain why McDonald's is spending money making their restaurants look like a prison cafeteria but even then they're open until 10pm inside which has been the case for many years although good luck finding an employee to help you.

There is no real cost to keeping the doors open. These restaurants are already running bare bones staffing and they are already not even staffing the order counter with a dedicated employee anymore.

The majority of actions to close dining rooms are not due to labor cost, but due to external problems like homeless, robberies, vandalism etc. The restaurants where the restrooms are being destroyed by some drugged out person who came in late night are going to start locking up earlier. The ones that got robbed are going to lock up earlier. Remember that they're legally obligated to prevent harassment in the workplace as well which includes external third parties, so if employees are being mistreated by homeless or troublemakers later at night then they may force closure as well.

[veteran+]

This all makes me smile.

More than half of these fast food places can disappear and we would all be the better for it as a society.

So the franchisees can handle this new overhead? Good, close up. Perhaps non fast food sit down restaurants will do better.

Why? So other businesses could open up and sell the same exact products but not be part of the law? Instead of getting the fast food from a "fast food place" now you get it from a counter in a gas station or a counter in a grocery store or a counter attached to a sit down restaurant so those places can get around this new law? Then what has been accomplished...?

Not all consumers have the time or wealth for sit down restaurants either. Not everyone is so privileged to always be able to go to a sit down restaurant. Not to mention most of the chain sit down restaurants which may be within budget for fast food consumers to switch to serve you what is basically the same as fast food (frozen/reheated stuff, fried stuff) presented on a glass plate and with a tip involved.

Also the sit down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast food places...

There is zero justification for the attack that has been launched on the fast food industry in California. Also interesting how Starbucks is carefully exempted. If you want to attack all food service businesses and put these rules on them then maybe okay but I even think that is too narrow. Maybe all "food" businesses- and that would include grocery stores.

But the big winner again will be the big corporations who get more royalties. As with most of these so called "Progressive" initiatives which seem to be funded by dark money from big money billionaires (not unlike other political initiatives that get pushed by other "groups") under the guise of helping people (higher wage in this case- which will be washed out through cuts in hours/higher prices on items purchased) the end result is really just even more money for big corporations through the higher royalties they'll receive from the increased prices. I wouldn't be surprised if the investors in the franchisors funded this whole thing. Playing the employees as total tools and fools under the guise of "helping" them.

Being a retail focused board, it should be noted the majority of retailers are cutting lunches to 30 minutes as they reduce their staffing. If fast food is severely curtailed then these employees will not be able to leave the store and eat. They certainly can't go to a sit down restaurant. You can say "well they should bring their lunch" but I always hated the break room experience and needed to get out and breathe fresh air. Fast food is a necessary evil.

At In & Out the employees have about 10 minutes to eat their lunch. They can order their food only after they punch out. Good luck with that. Indigestion?