> "It's very rare to really see a policy like the minimum wage lead to restaurants exiting the market unless they were already marginally on the edge of making it or not making it"
The law only applies to the big guys. Ikeda’s isn’t covered; the law only applies to “a restaurant chain of at least 60 establishments nationwide” [1]. It’s a good idea that generalises to e.g. any firm with more than N global employees.
I'm a huge fan of increasing minimum wage, but this definitely still impacts smaller companies, who have to compete for the same labor pool. Hard to hire people at $15/hr when your competition is hiring them at $20/hr.
No the price would not have been bid up. The state enacted a price floor, distinctly overruling the market clearing wage.
When two employers pay differently, the better workers leave the lower paying one. The higher paying one has their choice of workers. The lower paying one ends up either lower quality workers.
Compare Costco to Walmart worker quality in the same area. They have the same labor pool. Costco gets better quality workers by paying for them.
So you're saying because of the prior minimum wage, both large and small employers would pay the same, so they have an equal shot at getting a given employee. But now that McDonald's has been forced to pay more, they naturally get all the best ones?
Better yet, GrapheneOS allows you you sandbox Google's crap if you need or want it. Very useful when needing to use a proprietary app that requires it.
> You really think Musk himself designed the rockets, robots and brain chips?
You really think any of that would have been possible without him? What EV company is as successful as Tesla? How many rockets does the second most successful company launch every year?
So the "truth" would be his primary base of personal wealth is utterly derived from selling cars to...checking notes...the worst people in the country who deserve to be bullied and ridiculed? And that he has no choice but to educate the world about this truth? Even if it means destroying his personal reputation and businesses?
Or - and this is amply documented now - perhaps the "truth" is he's doing way too many drugs (WSJ), making horrible decisions (Supercharger), and per the deeply persuasive data in the linked thread, is killing the company?
The word lying implies that Reuters was aware, either before or after publication, that their information is untrue, and they published that false information purposely and failed to correct it.
On that basis, it doesn't seem like Reuters is lying. It seems like Reuters has been accused of lying, by someone with a history of misunderstandings with the truth.
It may be the case that they have lied. That would be a pretty egregious act by Reuters. It may also be the case that Elon Musk has reason or incentive to cast doubt on the story whether it is true or not.
reply