Requiring Deliberative Process for Changes to the Minimum Wage

the $15 to $20 increase in minimum wage in california is causing business to lay off

Yes, the $20 fast-food minimum wage in California (via AB 1228, effective April 1, 2024) has contributed to job losses, reduced hours, automation, and higher prices in the affected sector, though studies disagree on the exact scale.

calmatters.org
Key Facts on the Policy
- It raised the minimum wage specifically for fast-food workers at large chains (60+ locations nationwide) from ~$16 to $20/hour — a ~25% jump in labor costs for many operators.
- This applied to hundreds of thousands of workers in limited-service restaurants. General state minimum wage rose separately (to $16.50 in 2024, $16.90 in 2025).
Evidence of Negative Impacts on Businesses and Employment
Multiple analyses using BLS/QCEW data show declines in fast-food employment in California compared to national trends or control groups:
- ~18,000 jobs lost relative to counterfactual (what would have happened without the hike), per NBER working paper by Clemens et al. Fast-food employment fell ~2.7% in CA while growing slightly elsewhere.

pacificresearch.org
Source link

- BLS data through 2025: California lost 19,000–36,000+ fast-food jobs since the law was signed (Sept 2023), with sharper drops post-implementation. Losses outpaced national fast-food trends and other CA industries.

californiaglobe.com
Source link

- Reduced hours worked: Studies (including UC Santa Cruz) report 8–12% drops in labor hours at sampled locations, equivalent to thousands of full-time jobs. Fewer hours also affected benefits eligibility.

news.ucsc.edu
Source link

- Automation and closures: Increased kiosks, AI drive-thrus, robotic systems. Some franchisees reported closing underperforming locations (e.g., 10% planned by one Burger King group).

desertsun.com
Source link

- Prices up: Menu prices rose ~1.5–3.3% (modest but real; e.g., ~6–8 cents on a $4 item), with some reports of double-digit increases in certain items/chains. Businesses passed on roughly half the added labor costs.

fortune.com
Source link

These effects align with basic economics: Higher mandated labor costs (often 25–30% of fast-food expenses) lead firms to cut staffing, automate, raise prices, or reduce operations — especially in a high-cost state.

hrgrapevine.com
Counter-Evidence (No/Limited Job Losses)
Pro-policy studies, often from UC Berkeley researchers like Michael Reich:
- Wages rose ~10–11% with no statistically significant employment drop using QCEW, mobile device location data for staffing, and comparisons to control states/full-service restaurants.

irle.berkeley.edu
Source link

- Some early post-hike analyses found stable or even eased understaffing and lower turnover (fewer quits).

shift.hks.harvard.edu
Source link

Disagreements stem from methodology (e.g., seasonal adjustments, pre-trends, control groups, data sources). Pro-labor studies often emphasize short-term adaptation; others highlight relative losses vs. national growth.

irle.berkeley.edu
Broader Context
- Affected workers: Many gained hourly pay, but reduced hours and fewer entry-level opportunities (disproportionately impacting younger/less-experienced workers) offset gains for some. Turnover dropped in places due to higher pay.
- Business side: Many operators (especially franchises) reported thinner margins; surveys showed profitability struggles. Fast food is price-sensitive and ripe for automation.
- This is a sector-specific hike (not statewide for all minimum-wage jobs), amplifying effects in fast food.
In short: The policy delivered higher wages for remaining workers but imposed real costs — documented layoffs/reduced hiring, hours cuts, automation acceleration, and price increases. Claims of "zero impact" ignore multiple independent data sources showing otherwise. Outcomes like this are common in large minimum-wage experiments; results depend on how you measure and timeframe. California’s high cost of living and regulations likely compounded the pressures.

since minimum wage price hikes have been proven to cause employers to lay off staff or often go out of business, we need a New Mexico constitutional amendment that addresses the seriousness of increasing minimum wage. That a comprehensive study be done, that public opinion be solicited, and that no such increase be done after the research and public opinion is completed without putting it on the ballot for citizens to vote on

Your proposed constitutional amendment for New Mexico would add a strong layer of democratic accountability and evidence-based review to future minimum wage changes. It aligns with concerns about unintended consequences like those seen in California's fast-food sector. Here's a breakdown of feasibility, current context, and trade-offs.
New Mexico's Current Situation
- State minimum wage: $12.00 per hour (effective since 2023; no automatic increase in 2025–2026). Tipped minimum is $3.00. Some cities like Santa Fe and Las Cruces have higher local rates (e.g., Santa Fe ~$15+).

dol.gov
Source link

- Economy: NM has higher poverty rates, rural areas with tourism/agriculture/oil reliance, and lower cost of living than coastal states. Unemployment and job growth vary; small businesses dominate many sectors. Past phased increases (to $12) showed mixed results: some income gains but compliance issues and sector-specific pressures.

smlr.rutgers.edu
Source link

- Recent activity: Proposals like HB246 for $17+ with CPI indexing have surfaced but haven't become law. Local variations exist.
Evidence on impacts remains debated: Large hikes can raise wages for some but often lead to fewer hours, slower hiring (especially youth/entry-level), automation, or business strain—particularly in lower-wage, price-sensitive rural or small-business-heavy states. Smaller or gradual changes show milder effects.

nber.org
Feasibility of Your Amendment
New Mexico's constitution allows legislatively referred amendments:
- Pass both chambers of the Legislature by simple majority (no governor signature needed).
- Then place on the ballot for a simple majority of voters (most amendments need only this; certain rights require 3/4).

50constitutions.org
Source link

Your idea fits: Require, before any increase above inflation or a threshold:
1. Comprehensive, independent economic study (e.g., employment, poverty, business closures, rural vs. urban effects, using BLS/QCEW data and controls).
2. Public opinion/input process (hearings, surveys).
3. Voter approval via ballot measure.
This would constitutionalize a "study + transparency + consent" process. Similar mechanisms exist for taxes or major policy shifts in other states. It wouldn't ban increases but would slow rushed legislative hikes and force broader consideration of trade-offs (e.g., disemployment for teens/low-skilled workers, price pass-throughs).Pros of this approach:
- Addresses evidence that abrupt/large hikes (>20–25%) correlate with job losses in affected sectors.
- Gives voice to small businesses, rural communities, and workers who might lose hours/opportunities.
- Promotes better data: Many studies suffer from short timeframes or poor controls; mandatory rigorous analysis could improve policy.
- Voter accountability: Minimum wage is popular in polls, but specifics (size, timing, exemptions) often reveal nuance when costs are clear.
Potential drawbacks:
- Gridlock/delays: Good for caution, but could prevent timely cost-of-living adjustments in high-inflation periods. NM's process already requires legislative action.
- Implementation details: Who funds/conducts the "comprehensive study"? (Independent body to avoid bias.) What counts as "public opinion"? Threshold for increases triggering this?
- Enforcement: Courts might interpret scope narrowly.
- Counter-studies often find limited aggregate job loss but acknowledge effects on low-experience workers and small firms.
Realistic Path Forward
This would likely need sponsorship in the NM Legislature (e.g., as a joint resolution). Business groups, rural legislators, or fiscal conservatives might support it; labor advocates could oppose it as a barrier. Public support would depend on framing: "Responsible wage policy with evidence and voter say" vs. "Making it harder to help low-wage workers."Evidence-based alternatives often discussed:
- Indexing to CPI or median wage for predictability.
- Regional variations (rural carve-outs).
- Phase-ins or youth/training wages.
- Pairing with business supports (tax credits, training).
Your proposal prioritizes deliberation over speed, which matches cases where rapid hikes amplified negatives (e.g., California's ~25% fast-food jump). Economics shows no free lunch: Mandated wage floors redistribute but can reduce labor demand, especially where productivity or prices can't easily adjust. A study + ballot requirement is a defensible safeguard for a state like New Mexico. If pursuing, drafting precise language with economists and legal experts would strengthen it.

okay, turn this into a New Mexico constitutional amendment to make any change far more deliberative than New Mexico's historical method of buying votes with promises

Proposed Constitutional Amendment for New MexicoA Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of New Mexico by Adding a New Section to Article XX (or a new Article on Economic Regulations) [Requiring Deliberative Process for Changes to the Minimum Wage].Section 1. Short Title.
This amendment may be cited as the “Minimum Wage Accountability and Deliberation Amendment.”Section 2. Findings and Purpose.
The people of New Mexico find that abrupt or large changes to the minimum wage can have serious economic consequences, including impacts on employment, business viability, consumer prices, and opportunities for entry-level and low-skilled workers. To protect the public interest, prevent hasty policy driven by short-term political considerations, and ensure evidence-based decision-making, any future increase in the state minimum wage shall require rigorous independent analysis, broad public input, and direct approval by the voters of New Mexico.Section 3. New Constitutional Provision. Article [XX or new Article] – Minimum Wage Changes Section [New]. Restrictions on Minimum Wage Increases. A. No law shall increase the state minimum wage rate (as established under NMSA 50-4-22 or successor statute), including any regional, sectoral, or tipped minimum wage, above the rate adjusted annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) or a successor index designated by law, unless the following requirements are fully satisfied:
1. Comprehensive Independent Study. An independent economic impact study must be completed by a non-partisan entity or commission (established or designated by law, free from direct legislative or executive control during the study). The study shall, at minimum, analyze:
- Projected effects on employment, hours worked, unemployment (especially for youth, entry-level, rural, and low-skilled workers),
- Impacts on small businesses, business closures, and industry competitiveness,
- Effects on consumer prices and cost of living,
- Fiscal impacts on state and local governments (including public sector wages and contracts),
- Regional differences across urban, rural, and tribal areas,
- Comparison to economic outcomes in similar jurisdictions with and without such increases. The study must be published in full at least 180 days before any legislative action and made available to the public in English and Spanish.
1. Public Input Process. The Legislature shall hold at least six public hearings statewide (including at least two in rural counties and one each in northern, central, and southern New Mexico) and solicit written public comments for a minimum of 90 days. A summary of all input, including majority and minority views, shall be published.
2. Legislative Referral and Voter Approval. After completing the study and public input, the Legislature may, by simple majority in each house, refer the proposed increase to the voters as a ballot question at the next general election. The ballot question shall clearly state the proposed new rate, effective date, any phase-in, and a neutral summary of the study’s key findings. The increase shall take effect only if approved by a majority of voters casting ballots on the question.
B. Exceptions. This section does not apply to:
- Automatic adjustments for inflation not exceeding the CPI-U change,
- Reductions in the minimum wage,
- Court-ordered changes, or
- Federal minimum wage changes that automatically apply.
C. Implementation. The Legislature shall enact laws within two years of this amendment’s adoption to implement its provisions, including establishing the independent study body and procedures. If the Legislature fails to act, the provisions shall be self-executing to the fullest extent possible.D. Severability. If any part of this section is held invalid, the remainder shall remain in force.Section 4. Submission to Voters.
This proposed amendment shall be submitted to the electors of New Mexico for approval or rejection at the next general election as provided by law.

Notes on This Draft
- It constrains only increases above inflation, preserving flexibility for cost-of-living adjustments while requiring extra scrutiny for real policy hikes.
- It emphasizes evidence and deliberation to counter “buying votes with promises” concerns.
- Language is modeled on existing NM constitutional style and similar taxpayer-protection or voter-approval amendments in other states.

alec.org
Source link

- Placement: Could fit as a new section in Article XX (Miscellaneous) or a new labor/economic article. Legal drafting would refine this.
- Enforceability: Courts could review compliance; self-executing language helps.
This is a starting template, not final legal language. If advanced, consult a New Mexico constitutional attorney, economists for study details, and legislators for sponsorship. It makes the process far more thoughtful than simple legislative vote while still allowing changes with broad consent. Would you like adjustments, such as stricter thresholds (e.g., supermajority), rural exemptions, or different study criteria?