re: California $20 minimum wage = 18,000 jobs lost

quote:

---

I have a colleague that consults for them. They are planning to halt future investments in California that aren't already budgeted, outside of one-off's for select locations. Also considering shuttering several locations in CA. They are spinning it publicly so Californians don't get too mad, but that is the long-term plan.

---

I do financial consulting as well. And like your friend, I go around disclosing my clients and there intentions for people to share via the internet

quote:

---

Literally every link to a "study" or "data" in that article is garbage.

---

ChatGPT fact check:

The headline is partially accurate, but it only tells half the story. Here’s a clearer breakdown:

?

? What DID the NBER study actually find?
• The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) released a working paper analyzing California’s $20 fast-food minimum wage (AB 1228), which was signed in September 2023 and took effect in April 2024.
• Their analysis used U.S. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data and found:
• A 2.7% decrease in fast-food employment in California relative to the rest of the U.S. from September 2023 to September 2024.
• When adjusting for trends and comparing to other industries, the decline extended to 3.2–3.9%.
• Their median estimate roughly equates to a loss of 18,000 fast-food jobs in California versus a counterfactual scenario ? ?.

So, yes, the NBER study supports the claim of around 18,000 job losses.

?

?? But it’s not the only study—and not the full story
• Other analyses—including one from UC Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE)—found no significant employment decline, along with gains in wages and minimal price increases ?.
• The Los Angeles Times also reported that early data “found no measurable job losses, significant wage gains” after the law ?.
• A commentary in CalMatters highlighted the debate: both sets of studies use the same federal BLS data, but diverge based on methodology and assumptions ?.

?

?? Why such different conclusions?
1. Methodology Differences
• The NBER paper uses a triple-difference method comparing CA fast food to fast food elsewhere and to non-minimum-wage-intensive industries.
• Berkeley’s study looks across restaurants and prices and focuses on worker outcomes.
2. Timing and Data Choice
• Some argue the NBER’s period (Sept–Sept) captures early layoffs and closures, while Berkeley’s covers a longer adaptation period.
3. Outcome Focus
• NBER emphasizes job loss; Berkeley emphasizes wage increases, reduced turnover, and modest price effects (~3.7%) ? ?.

?

?? Fact-Check Summary
• Yes: A credible NBER study estimated ~18,000 job losses (2.7–3.9% of CA fast-food employment relative to a baseline).
• No: That figure is not definitive. Other well-regarded analyses found little to no negative employment impact and highlight benefits like higher wages and stability.
• The claim expresses one legitimate perspective supported by solid evidence, but it’s far from conclusive.

?

?? Bottom line

The claim that California’s fast-food minimum wage led to 18,000 job losses reflects the findings of one respected economic study—but other rigorous research contests that conclusion, showing mixed or negligible employment effects. A full picture requires acknowledging this ongoing academic disagreement.

?