5 ms·

Note: The metric discussed is workers. Not hours. Not full-time workers. Just workers. It also makes no mention of any seasonal adjustments.

Terr_ 2y ago
> Note: The metric discussed is workers. Not hours. Not full-time workers. Just workers. How did you determine that? Following the link-chain of "new state and federal employment data" and "the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics" leads to an uninformative search page with blank/default settings.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  I read the article. It makes no mention of hrs per workers or anything else that matters. This is a classic case of what isn't said is more important than what is said. When one "highlight" is cherry picked and pushed forward like this your BS detector should be flashing.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Just because you're very confident in an unchecked guess doesn't turn it into a fact about the data, please don't misrepresent one as the other. It might be count of unique individuals who spent even a pittance of time working in fast-food, or it might not, which is why I was hunting for methods/stat-details in the first place.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    I think it's meant to counter claims like 'California Loses Nearly 10,000 Fast-Food Jobs After $20 Minimum Wage Signed Last Fall' at https://www.hoover.org/research/california-loses-nearly-10000-fast-food-jobs-after-20-minimum-wage-signed-last-fall https://www.hoover.org/research/california-loses-nearly-1000... from the pro-business Hoover Institute, made last spring. The numbers come from BLS series SMU06000007072259001. California, Statewide, Limited-Service Restaurants and Other Eating Places, All Employees, In Thousands, Not Seasonally Adjusted. I don't see a BLS publication for hours or for 'anything else that matters.' Perhaps that why they weren't mentioned?
    - chiefalchemist 2y ago
      Well, the claim was wrong then. It should have been: Aggregate total hours will decrease. Or similar. So now we have a erroneous KPI and the media - who should know better - letting their bias misreport the news? Regardless, more workers is not enough to define success.
      - eesmith 2y ago
        If only everyone argued reasonable points. But they don't. So how should others respond? Companies said that the increase in minimum wage would result in cut jobs. Here are some quotes from "Fast food workers are losing their jobs in California as new minimum wage law takes effect" at https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/food/2024/03/26/california-minimum-wage-jobs/73107149007/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/food/2024/03/26/californ... : "Multiple businesses have plans to axe hundreds of jobs", "Pizza Hut announced cuts to more than 1,200 delivery jobs in December", and "Round Table Pizza, has plans to cut 73 driver jobs". Can we now say that those predicted claims of doom and gloom did not result in meaningful job loss in that sector? When that was published last March, should the reporter have known better and not written that article? Or should the reporter have commented that these were meaningless KPIs and asked the relevant corporate spokespeople to restate their claims using better ones? Or reported that the companies may be lying through their teeth as an excuse to keep profits high? Given that these publications exist, what should CA and Newsom do to highlight how the predicted job loss didn't occur? What are the right KPIs and are they even available in a way which can be compared across the state?
        chiefalchemist 2y ago
        > If only everyone argued reasonable points. But they don't. So how should others respond? The Media is not everyone. The Fourth Estate has a responsibility to do its job. That is, to ask questions and inform the public. If it's going to parrot press releases, then that should be listed as full disclosure somewhere in the article.
        2y ago

Terr_ 2y ago

> Note: The metric discussed is workers. Not hours. Not full-time workers. Just workers. How did you determine that? Following the link-chain of "new state and federal employment data" and "the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics" leads to an uninformative search page with blank/default settings.

chiefalchemist 2y ago
I read the article. It makes no mention of hrs per workers or anything else that matters. This is a classic case of what isn't said is more important than what is said. When one "highlight" is cherry picked and pushed forward like this your BS detector should be flashing.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Just because you're very confident in an unchecked guess doesn't turn it into a fact about the data, please don't misrepresent one as the other. It might be count of unique individuals who spent even a pittance of time working in fast-food, or it might not, which is why I was hunting for methods/stat-details in the first place.
- eesmith 2y ago
  I think it's meant to counter claims like 'California Loses Nearly 10,000 Fast-Food Jobs After $20 Minimum Wage Signed Last Fall' at https://www.hoover.org/research/california-loses-nearly-10000-fast-food-jobs-after-20-minimum-wage-signed-last-fall https://www.hoover.org/research/california-loses-nearly-1000... from the pro-business Hoover Institute, made last spring. The numbers come from BLS series SMU06000007072259001. California, Statewide, Limited-Service Restaurants and Other Eating Places, All Employees, In Thousands, Not Seasonally Adjusted. I don't see a BLS publication for hours or for 'anything else that matters.' Perhaps that why they weren't mentioned?
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    Well, the claim was wrong then. It should have been: Aggregate total hours will decrease. Or similar. So now we have a erroneous KPI and the media - who should know better - letting their bias misreport the news? Regardless, more workers is not enough to define success.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      If only everyone argued reasonable points. But they don't. So how should others respond? Companies said that the increase in minimum wage would result in cut jobs. Here are some quotes from "Fast food workers are losing their jobs in California as new minimum wage law takes effect" at https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/food/2024/03/26/california-minimum-wage-jobs/73107149007/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/food/2024/03/26/californ... : "Multiple businesses have plans to axe hundreds of jobs", "Pizza Hut announced cuts to more than 1,200 delivery jobs in December", and "Round Table Pizza, has plans to cut 73 driver jobs". Can we now say that those predicted claims of doom and gloom did not result in meaningful job loss in that sector? When that was published last March, should the reporter have known better and not written that article? Or should the reporter have commented that these were meaningless KPIs and asked the relevant corporate spokespeople to restate their claims using better ones? Or reported that the companies may be lying through their teeth as an excuse to keep profits high? Given that these publications exist, what should CA and Newsom do to highlight how the predicted job loss didn't occur? What are the right KPIs and are they even available in a way which can be compared across the state?
      - chiefalchemist 2y ago
        > If only everyone argued reasonable points. But they don't. So how should others respond? The Media is not everyone. The Fourth Estate has a responsibility to do its job. That is, to ask questions and inform the public. If it's going to parrot press releases, then that should be listed as full disclosure somewhere in the article.
        2y ago