This is painful truly so:
But it also attributed its difficulties to commodity price volatility as well as a tight labour market and a greater political focus on low wage workers. NPC noted in the filing that minimum wages and competition for workers were driving labour costs higher faster than their ability to raise prices.
It’s a timely reminder that fast food’s success might ultimately stem from it being able to take advantage of low-wage workers who lack bargaining power. If that changes, and profits end up being redistributed more equitably, it’ll be a good thing for fry cooks and cashiers, but not private equity bros.
So, a fast food company (franchisee, that is someone actually paying the wage bills) points out that a rising minimum wage has impacted upon costs so much that it has gone bust. Leading, one would rather think, to people thinking that if employers start going bust then perhaps there might be fewer jobs around for those minimum wage workers to do.
You know, that is, there might be an effect upon the number of jobs of an increase in the rate for the job?
But, but, but – yes, you’re right, it’s canonical these days that rising minimum wages don’t have an impact upon the number of jobs. Therefore the actual evidence right in front of their eyes is ignored. Twisted even. Twisted to the point that wages rising to the point of bankrupting employers is claimed to be good for employees who are no longer employed.
OK, well, if this were Amanduh we could excuse it as she doesn’t know anyway. But this is the Financial Times for the Lord’s Sake. The rot really has set in, hasn’t it?
Perhaps we should get the cows writing and eat the journalists instead?