California fast-food restaurants — including In-N-Out — struggle under $20 minimum wage law

[edjr 6,611]

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/08/02/california-minimum-wage-change-hurts-in-n-out-fast-food-industry/

Quote

 

California’s minimum wage — $16.50 per hour — is one of the highest nationwide. But last year lawmakers in the state boosted fast-food workers even higher: they earn $20 per hour, thanks to the change.

This move meant to elevate lower-wage workers to tackle the Golden State’s high cost-of-living. But a new study shows these employees faced negative effects from the state’s minimum wage policy.

A new study from National Bureau of Economic Research found that employment at fast-food restaurants dipped by 2.64% from September 2023 to September 2024, even though the rest of the U.S. experienced a rise in employment in this industry.

“Our median estimate translates into a loss of 18,000 jobs in California’s fast-food sector relative to the counterfactual,” researchers Jeffrey Clemens, Olivia Edwards, and Jonathan Meer wrote in their paper, published July this year.

The study shows that while the idea of boosting pay may be politically appealing, it could have negative effects on employment.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom enacted the minimum wage law, raising the hourly rate from $16 to $20 for fast-food restaurants that have at least 60 locations in the U.S.

In 2022 and 2023, In-N-Out committed $12.8 million to the Save Local Restaurants committee that opposed this law, as the Deseret News previously reported.

In-N-Out, known for paying competitive wages, would need to raise its hourly rate to $23 or $24 to maintain its service quality in California.

Despite the high-stakes lobbying, the burger chain lost the battle after labor unions struck a deal with state legislators in 2024. In-N-Out raised prices on menu items to keep up.

The fast-food minimum wage law came into effect in April 2024.

In January this year, the state authorized the Fast Food Council to propose yearly adjustments to the minimum wage. The Council suggested a $0.70 increase and will vote on it as the debate surrounding the policy continues.

 

Well done libtards. I don't mean the burgers they cook

[shadrap 236]

only an idiot would not have foreseen these results.  Count Newsome as one.

[Strike 5,618]

Well, looks we found the cause of the bad jobs report!!

[RLLD 4,257]

These morons will gut every major metropolitan area if they can.....

[TheNewGirl 1,506]

Wait, where's the thread that said none of this was happening or that raising the minimum wage was NOT causing job losses? 

[RLLD 4,257]

20 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Wait, where's the thread that said none of this was happening or that raising the minimum wage was NOT causing job losses? 

Leftists will locate some "economist" or "credentialed" person to pretend such nonsense is true.....for now....

[Herbivore 1,142]

 

2 hours ago, edjr said:

In 2022 and 2023, In-N-Out committed $12.8 million to the Save Local Restaurants committee that opposed this law, as the Deseret News previously reported.

Is it that Save Local Restaurants is an organization lead by actual local business owners or is it national franchise owners? Seems its an org that is looking out for corporate, not the employee. Also looks like this article says employment dipped at fast food restaurants, must be because of the wages, but is it? The article cites a few other studies that denied that. 

 

[TheNewGirl 1,506]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Leftists will locate some "economist" or "credentialed" person to pretend such nonsense is true.....for now....

 

[RLLD 4,257]

1 minute ago, Herbivore said:

 

Is it that Save Local Restaurants is an organization lead by actual local business owners or is it national franchise owners? Seems its an org that is looking out for corporate, not the employee. Also looks like this article says employment dipped at fast food restaurants, must be because of the wages, but is it? The article cites a few other studies that denied that. 

 

This is the question.   Not surprised you asked it, you are among the few on this forum who actually have intellectual curiosity.

My opinion, since this org is basically a product of the IFA, the national restaurant association and to some extend the chamber of commerce, I think you touch on the point.  Yes, the opposition was in large part driven by franchise-centric entities. 

I dont see that entirely as a negative, but I concede that the interests here are a little removed from the front lines.  I think many restaurants will thin their margins, raise their prices and lower their labor costs.  They might embrace technology, but that can be dicey.  Eventually this will harm more people than it helps. Bottom line. 

[RLLD 4,257]

4 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

 

No one actually wins in this approach.

There are multiple issues that arise.  Fewer jobs are available, consumers face higher prices, the company margins evaporate causing closures of locations( further hindering employment and local community access), people in this jobs have no motivation to improve and enhance their skills, it encourages a cycle where people never elevate past their station in the socio economic model. 

When this inane concept was applied in Europe it resulted in less economic progress for the lower socio economic members of the economy.  Its fake compassion, with evil outcomes....

[TimHauck 2,952]

Quote from article:

In-N-Out, known for paying competitive wages, would need to raise its hourly rate to $23 or $24 to maintain its service quality in California.
 

 

This isn’t really clear.  What was the hourly rate at In N Out before the law change?  If it was already over $20, then they’d be a weird example to use. 

I do believe that this law likely resulted in less jobs.  I don’t believe it’s the primary reason any particular store went out of business though.

[Strike 5,618]

10 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Quote from article:

In-N-Out, known for paying competitive wages, would need to raise its hourly rate to $23 or $24 to maintain its service quality in California.
 

 

This isn’t really clear.  What was the hourly rate at In N Out before the law change?  If it was already over $20, then they’d be a weird example to use. 

I do believe that this law likely resulted in less jobs.  I don’t believe it’s the primary reason any particular store went out of business though.

I don't know what in-n-outs hourly rate was but I do know they had one of the lowest, if not the lowest, employee turnover rates in the industry because of their excellent (for the industry) pay rate.  So this means they have to pay even higher, and artificially so, in order to maintain that distinction from their competitors.

[Strike 5,618]

On a more personal note, as someone from So. Cal. who grew up eating in-n-out, they've filed paperwork to build a restaurant about a mile from my house.  I'm soooo excited.

[TheNewGirl 1,506]

14 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Quote from article:

In-N-Out, known for paying competitive wages, would need to raise its hourly rate to $23 or $24 to maintain its service quality in California.
 

 

This isn’t really clear.  What was the hourly rate at In N Out before the law change?  If it was already over $20, then they’d be a weird example to use. 

I do believe that this law likely resulted in less jobs.  I don’t believe it’s the primary reason any particular store went out of business though.

In 2023, In and Out paid between $19 and and $22 an hour, they were among the highest paid FF places here. 

Many kids actually want to get a job there; they pay well, they treat their workers very well, and the atmosphere is fun. My cousin's son works at one (he's 19) and he loves it. 

[squistion 2,233]

44 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Quote from article:

In-N-Out, known for paying competitive wages, would need to raise its hourly rate to $23 or $24 to maintain its service quality in California.
 

This isn’t really clear.  What was the hourly rate at In N Out before the law change?  If it was already over $20, then they’d be a weird example to use. 

I do believe that this law likely resulted in less jobs.  I don’t believe it’s the primary reason any particular store went out of business though.

In-N-Out has always paid their employees more than the minimum or going rate in the fast food industry.

From AI overview:

In-N-Out did raise their hourly wage in California in response to the state's new minimum wage law for fast-food workers. The new law, which took effect on April 1, 2024, raised the minimum wage for fast-food employees to $20 per hour. In-N-Out's starting wage in California is now between $22 and $23 per hour, depending on location, which is above the new minimum. To offset the increased labor costs, In-N-Out also raised its prices on menu items 

[HellToupee 1,833]

3 hours ago, edjr said:

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/08/02/california-minimum-wage-change-hurts-in-n-out-fast-food-industry/

Well done libtards. I don't mean the burgers they cook

They’re moving their headquarters out of California to Franklin TN . Things must be going swimmingly 

[The Real timschochet 6,897]

I don’t believe in the minimum wage. Like a tariff it’s ultimately a tax on the consumer. As such it doesn’t really work because it creates inflation. When I worked for minimum wage in the 1980s it was $3.35 per hour. The increase over time in the cost of goods is directly related to the increase over time in regulations like the minimum wage. In addition it creates a black market which many small businesses (including most restaurants in California) take full advantage of. 

That being said, In N Out is not a good example of a company that’s going to be significantly hurt by a minimum wage increase. I haven’t looked up the numbers but anecdotally they always appear to be the busiest drive thru around. Corporate stores are usually able to absorb these sorts of restrictions- the real folks who get punished are small business. 

[jerryskids 6,867]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t believe in the minimum wage. Like a tariff it’s ultimately a tax on the consumer. As such it doesn’t really work because it creates inflation. When I worked for minimum wage in the 1980s it was $3.35 per hour. The increase over time in the cost of goods is directly related to the increase over time in regulations like the minimum wage. In addition it creates a black market which many small businesses (including most restaurants in California) take full advantage of. 

That being said, In N Out is not a good example of a company that’s going to be significantly hurt by a minimum wage increase. I haven’t looked up the numbers but anecdotally they always appear to be the busiest drive thru around. Corporate stores are usually able to absorb these sorts of restrictions- the real folks who get punished are small business. 

It was stated above that Newsom's law only applies to companies with 60 or more stores nationwide.  That's a bit of a lie though, as smaller companies will still need to pay market or near-market wages to retain staff.

Like you, I worked many jobs for that magical $3.35/hour number.  When I got to college and got a job in their bookbinding department for $5.40, I was all cha-CHING!

Interestingly, I don't hate minimum wage as much as you appear to.  I think it served a purpose.  But that purpose was to set a minimum for "starter" jobs, intended for mostly HS kids, often at fast food restaurants.  If you are working a minimum wage job at a fast food restaurant, you should either be living at home with your parents or in a fleabag apartment with at least 3 other renters, all of you eating ramen every day.  It was never intended to provide a living wage to support a family and live on your own.

[TheNewGirl 1,506]

25 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

They’re moving their headquarters out of California to Franklin TN . Things must be going swimmingly 

The CEO is relocating her family, not headquarters. 

I imagine if she finds that TN is cheaper to house headquarters, then it will move. 

[The Real timschochet 6,897]

18 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It was stated above that Newsom's law only applies to companies with 60 or more stores nationwide.  That's a bit of a lie though, as smaller companies will still need to pay market or near-market wages to retain staff.

Like you, I worked many jobs for that magical $3.35/hour number.  When I got to college and got a job in their bookbinding department for $5.40, I was all cha-CHING!

Interestingly, I don't hate minimum wage as much as you appear to.  I think it served a purpose.  But that purpose was to set a minimum for "starter" jobs, intended for mostly HS kids, often at fast food restaurants.  If you are working a minimum wage job at a fast food restaurant, you should either be living at home with your parents or in a fleabag apartment with at least 3 other renters, all of you eating ramen every day.  It was never intended to provide a living wage to support a family and live on your own.

I don’t hate minimum wage. I’m just opposed to it. But there are about a thousand things about government I would change first before I got around to it. (Like tariffs!) 

[Strike 5,618]

9 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

The CEO is relocating her family, not headquarters. 

I imagine if she finds that TN is cheaper to house headquarters, then it will move. 

I don't think they'll move corporate out of CA anytime soon.  Most of their locations are still in Cali so it makes sense to be closest to the majority of your stores.  Also, she announced that corporate was moving from Irvine to Baldwin Park.  I doubt she'd want to move corporate twice in a short period of time.

[weepaws 3,215]

Very good move, I would quickly move my family out of the wicked hole called California. 

[HellToupee 1,833]

3 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

The CEO is relocating her family, not headquarters. 

I imagine if she finds that TN is cheaper to house headquarters, then it will move. 

Misread the story . This is the ai synopsis 

 

In-N-Out Burger is consolidating its corporate presence in Southern California, moving its headquarters from Irvine to Baldwin Park, while also establishing a new "Eastern Territory" office in Franklin, Tennessee. The Irvine office will be phased out by 2030. The Baldwin Park location is significant as it's where the company's founders, Harry and Esther Snyder, opened their first drive-thru in 1948. The Tennessee office will support the company's planned expansion into the Southeast. 

 

Here's a more detailed breakdown: 

• Consolidation in Southern California:

  In-N-Out is closing its Irvine headquarters and consolidating its West Coast operations in Baldwin Park. This move brings the company's headquarters back to its original location. 

   

• New Eastern Territory Office:

  In addition to the Baldwin Park location, In-N-Out is establishing a new office in Franklin, Tennessee. This office will be crucial for the company's expansion into the Southeast. 

   

• Timeline:

  The Irvine office closure is scheduled for 2030, with the Franklin office expected to open in 2026

[iam90sbaby 2,622]

The problem isn’t wages it how much things cost. Like our landlord OP who probably charges as much as he can for a sh!tbox apartment 

[BunnysBastatrds 2,469]

 Economic progesive ideas at its worst.Micro economics explain this. And $20.00. Why not thirty or forty???