Saturday, May 18, 2019

New York City Restaurant Jobs Are Collapsing in the Face of a Higher Minimum Wage

The New York City minimum wage has been exploding:

....and restaurant jobs in the city have crashed.
In addition to the general minimum wage of $15.00 for large employers,  restaurant employers are required to pay servers and bartenders who generally get a lower hourly base pay but substantial tips, $10 an hour, a 16 percent jump from the previous $8.65 per hour mandate.

Is it any wonder the jobs are disappearing, with restaurants running with less staff?



  1. There is definitely some Schadenfreude from seeing Progressives hoisted on their own petards.

    1. The problem is, they will learn exacttly nothing from their experience. They'll just blame evil restaurant owners who won't hire them any longer. Being blind to reality is in the nature of the cults, and leftism is absolutely a cult.

    2. I don't think they are going to get hoisted. Does this not serve progressivism's end goal? It increases their managerial power over society and then through the problems it has caused it can be leveraged for further advances.

      Food businesses are very competitive because outside of government regulations as they have relatively low barriers to entry. The regulation has made start up costs large but that hasn't fully shuttered this avenue from individuals. Once they come up with the nut to get started and grease the right palms they can make a go at it. The minimum wage increases attack their on-going ability to make a profit and stay in business.

      It is very difficult to manage a society with many small players but if they can reduce things to a few large partnered players then it becomes much easier. That is likely the goal here.

    3. JJM, I was not thinking about those in positions of power, but rather the useful idiots who campaign for increases in the minimum wage ("Fight for $15"). They're the ones who will get hoisted.

  2. I wonder why so many Republicans are against minimum-wage laws but are in favor of tariffs? It seems logically consistent to either favor both, or oppose both: They're both examples of a 3rd-Party intruding into the peaceful transactions of buyers and sellers, and forcing the buyer to pay a higher price than the market would naturally bear and at more onerous terms than they otherwise would have agreed to---and causing a destructive, ripple effect.