Pasadena Cafe Bizou Closes Permanently

Unfortunately this location has closed after 18 years in Pasadena. Another victim of the Pasadena minimum wage ordinance. Now workers are unemployed due to this misguided law. Making zero instead of earning an income.

1 Like

LMAO. The restaurant didn’t close because they had to raise prices across the board ±25¢ to pay a slightly higher wage to its staff. If a business can only survive based on worker exploitation, then it wasn’t a viable business to begin with.


Was this place related to the one in Sherman Oaks? B/c, if so, I remember the Sherman Oaks one having a lovely ambiance but rather tired food. So may it went out of business b/c people just didn’t want to eat there… ::shrug::

1 Like

Yes its the same restaurant. They have locations in Sherman Oaks and Agoura Hills.

If one is going to derisively mock something, at least make sure to get the facts correct.

Having been in the restaurant business in one form or another for many years now, probably before puberty, it takes quite a bit more than just an “across the board ±25¢” price increase to cover what is, after July 1, 2017, an effective $2.00/hour raise for all employees..

And let’s not overlook the fact that the economic impact of increase minimum wages are not easily quantifiable, and even those that benefit directly from them (i.e., hourly workers) are not always in favor.

It’s a complex issue, that should not be shortshrifted either pro or con in a glib, off-the-cuff manner.

1 Like

The location seems to have a shelf life. Cafe Jacoulet. Tra Fiori. Now, Bizou.


Not viable??? They were around for 18 years. Also it would be more that a .25 increase. Look at the uptick in prices at Mijares. A person I know who benefited from the wage ordinance, blames the ordinance for higher menu prices.

Prices have definitely increased at Mijares. And it’s not all due to the price of avocados.

Every single restaurant in Pasadena has had to contend with the same issue, and every single restaurant isn’t going out of business. So quite frankly, I think a glib, off-the-cuff response is perfect for such a ridiculous assertion.

Furthermore, the lone study you cited contains this very important line:

First off, there are only 24 hours in a day. If someone is working full-time for slave wages, they cannot support themselves let alone a family. There simply isn’t enough time in life to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th jobs at paltry wages to scrape by. So the minimum wage increases…and their hours get cut? Okay, well they at least have some free hours to work a second or third job or maybe even develop their skillset in the short-term with the new free time and free or low-cost job skills development courses. The position gets eliminated completely? Good thing unemployment is really low now, so they should be able to find something that pays at least the minimum wage somewhere else.

Also, people at the lowest end of the economy tend not to save much at all, so every additional penny in their pockets generally goes back into the economy in the form of consumer spending. That’s why trickle-down economics doesn’t really work all that well: giving more capital to the top in the form of tax breaks doesn’t get reinvested directly into the consumer economy as much because the well-off tend to invest extra capital into stocks or other savings investment vehicles, which while that does have a positive impact on the economy, it is NOT as beneficial as direct retail and/or service sector spending.