Overtime for managers...

[LogGrad98]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/-23-...see-a-raise-from-an-obama-rule-140934283.html

President Barack Obama is preparing to do what the U.S. economic recovery has been slow to accomplish: raise the wages of millions of Americans.

His administration is drafting new rules on who qualifies for overtime compensation, forcing more businesses to pay time-and-a-half after 40 hours of work. Many employees now earning as little as $23,660 a year -- below the federal poverty line for a family of four -- aren’t entitled to overtime pay because they are considered managers.

While Republicans in Congress have blocked proposals to raise the minimum wage, Obama can change the overtime rules through executive authority. Some officials at the Department of Labor are urging the president to lift the threshold as high as $51,000 before someone could be called an executive exempt from overtime. A group of 26 Democratic senators has asked him to push it even higher, to $56,680.

I believe mostly this will affect operations like fast-food and such. There are also other laws governing "exempt" status and it isn't exclusively based on wage. Interesting to see how this pans out. As it is McDonald's is no longer a good place for a quick cheap meal. We paid less at Denny's for burgers and fries than we did at McDonald's. The interesting thing is they pretend this all happens in a vacuum. That raising wages just magically creates money from nowhere and makes everyone happier. They ignore the fact that it raises prices and is at least a partial driver of inflation as well. I am by no stretch against raising wages. Would love to have mine raised as well. But when it is done through administrative action as opposed to being market-driven it is pretty tough to guess what the unintended consequences will be. And sometimes it is true that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

 

[VINYLONE]

But when it is done through administrative action as opposed to being market-driven it is pretty tough to guess what the unintended consequences will be.

True. But can an argument be made that you're going to pay for it one way or the other? Meaning, you can either pay for it on the front end through wages or on the back end when these folks that are making low wages apply for benefits because they can't make ends meet?

 

[candrew]

True. But can an argument be made that you're going to pay for it one way or the other? Meaning, you can either pay for it on the front end through wages or on the back end when these folks that are making low wages apply for benefits because they can't make ends meet?

Do you know how many working people are on Food Stamps or have children that receive medical subsidies - I believe both represent a near majority of the recipients

 

[Harambe]

My alt will be Cantdrew. I can't wait.

Log's right... the money doesn't come from thin air. But if you look at wages over the last 50 years, the middle and lower class make the same or less money(effectively; after inflation), when the upper class jobs have been getting raises. This is a symptom, not a solution.

Had we been distributing the money more fair and effectively all along, we wouldn't be in this situation. And that's got less to do with taxes then most people think...

 

[Beer]

Straight out of college I got a job, salaried, making 30K ... I was working at least 55 hours a week. Total BS. It came out to like 10$ an hour. So I quit and got better job after better job. Now I make a lot more and work like 35 hours a week. Just gotta fight the man.

 

[RandyForRubio]

If I got overtime Id be freaking rich. 70 hour weeks on the regular man.

 

[Harambe]

Straight out of college I got a job, salaried, making 30K ... I was working at least 55 hours a week. Total BS. It came out to like 10$ an hour. So I quit and got better job after better job. Now I make a lot more and work like 35 hours a week. Just gotta fight the man.

But why should a person have to go through such tactics for a fair paycheck?

If I got overtime Id be freaking rich. 70 hour weeks on the regular man.

Don't get me started.... I'm pretty sure exempt doesn't count. Very sure it still won't apply to me even if exempt does count.

 

[Beer]

But why should a person have to go through such tactics for a fair paycheck?



Don't get me started.... I'm pretty sure exempt doesn't count. Very sure it still won't apply to me even if exempt does count.

I guess it depends on your definition of fair. I knew the job was a stepping stone, and I treated it as such. I did gain some good experience it made my resume look better and I got some great connections so it wasn't a complete waste. I technically could have worked 40 hours a week, but I wanted to be good at my job and learn from it. They weren't going out of their way to make the job crappy and underpaying but it was. I got what I needed and moved on.

I'm sure there are places that screw employees over but they will have good employees leave and will be stuck with dumb asses. All in all its still better than a fast food job and people are still free to choose where they work. If they are talented they will have options. If they aren't then maybe they should develop some skills.

 

[franklin]

I've been an advocate of this for a long time. Salary was meant for professionals who earn high salaries and are expected to do whatever it takes. Fast food managers don't fit that description. WTS, you can make more at Wallmart working 40 and a 2nd job. I don't see why these people work 60+ hour weeks for less than minimum wage.

But if you look at wages over the last 50 years, the middle and lower class make the same or less money(effectively; after inflation), when the upper class jobs have been getting raises. This is a symptom, not a solution.

Myth. No one in their right mind would argue that living standards today are lower than 50, 40, 30, 20 or 10 years ago. They've been roughly stagnant for about 7 now but are rising again.


You're relying on highly outdated methodology to measure income. PPP, goods and services consumed... Hedonic quality adjustments no longer capture true product improvement value and it is impossible to calculate brand new product value that didn't exist in the 1960's. Neither can we calculate the value of living a decade longer, which we pay for now (higher cost of living) but reap the benefits of later.


I'll never understand why Americans living in the wealthiest country in the wealthiest time of mankind continually cry poverty. Look around you for just a moment and tell me it's so damn bad. Our grandparents are rightfully ashamed.

 

[Harambe]

I've been an advocate of this for a long time. Salary was meant for professionals who earn high salaries and are expected to do whatever it takes. Fast food managers don't fit that description. WTS, you can make more at Wallmart working 40 and a 2nd job. I don't see why these people work 60+ hour weeks for less than minimum wage.




Myth. No one in their right mind would argue that living standards today are lower than 50, 40, 30, 20 or 10 years ago. They've been roughly stagnant for about 7 now but are rising again.


You're relying on highly outdated methodology to measure income. PPP, goods and services consumed... Hedonic quality adjustments no longer capture true product improvement value and it is impossible to calculate brand new product value that didn't exist in the 1960's. Neither can we calculate the value of living a decade longer, which we pay for now (higher cost of living) but reap the benefits of later.


I'll never understand why Americans living in the wealthiest country in the wealthiest time of mankind continually cry poverty. Look around you for just a moment and tell me it's so damn bad. Our grandparents are rightfully ashamed.

Your retorts consistently lack a backing. I understand not putting one, as so many people don't bother clicking, but I will. Even if I disagree, I will look and acknowledge.

I'm not saying you're making it up... but I am saying if it's as you say it is, I want to see it too.

And it's not that damn bad, get off the "U H8 AMERICA! EFF U" horse for a minute. Don't you think we're obligated to make it even better?

 

[LogGrad98]

Your retorts consistently lack a backing. I understand not putting one, as so many people don't bother clicking, but I will. Even if I disagree, I will look and acknowledge.

I'm not saying you're making it up... but I am saying if it's as you say it is, I want to see it too.

And it's not that damn bad, get off the "U H8 AMERICA! EFF U" horse for a minute. Don't you think we're obligated to make it even better?

This is the tough thing and why so many point to the 50's as a golden age of the US in most respects. Maybe more isn't always better. And how do we know it will be better in the long run? I am sure in the mid-late-90's when they were pushing those deregulation bills through congress that they thought it would make things better, in some ways anyway, even if it just meant more elections won for the folks who could tack their name to it. Did they foresee a total economic collapse just 10 years later? Maybe, I guess, but I doubt they gave it a second thought. After all, at that time the US economic machine was driving on all cylinders and we were all making money hand over fist. Making things better is really a bad goal, imo, since there are so many different definitions of better, and in the end what most politicians mean by better is better for them or their party. And most often, what is "better" for one side and worse for the other is just bad all the way around.

 

[LogGrad98]

Realized I left that thought unfinished. I think a better goal than "better", is sustainable and robust.

 

[Harambe]

This is the tough thing and why so many point to the 50's as a golden age of the US in most respects. Maybe more isn't always better. And how do we know it will be better in the long run? I am sure in the mid-late-90's when they were pushing those deregulation bills through congress that they thought it would make things better, in some ways anyway, even if it just meant more elections won for the folks who could tack their name to it. Did they foresee a total economic collapse just 10 years later? Maybe, I guess, but I doubt they gave it a second thought. After all, at that time the US economic machine was driving on all cylinders and we were all making money hand over fist. Making things better is really a bad goal, imo, since there are so many different definitions of better, and in the end what most politicians mean by better is better for them or their party. And most often, what is "better" for one side and worse for the other is just bad all the way around.

It's very hard to tell mang. VERY hard to tell what's going to be better or worse.

But the idea of not trying to make it any better than it is sickens my stomach. Really? Just ride on our curtails?

 

[LogGrad98]

It's very hard to tell mang. VERY hard to tell what's going to be better or worse.

But the idea of not trying to make it any better than it is sickens my stomach. Really? Just ride on our curtails?

We need coattails that are capable of being ridden on for the long haul, that is what we need. A stable (and high) standard of living that can weather the storms and stand the test of time. Instead we keep trying to push things higher and higher and it makes me think of everyone riding the wave that lead to the collapse that was the great depression. At some point the house of cards will fall. We can build it pretty fast, but it just won't last.

 

[franklin]

Your retorts consistently lack a backing. I understand not putting one, as so many people don't bother clicking, but I will. Even if I disagree, I will look and acknowledge.

I gave you the backing. What more do you need?

Measuring rate of inflation and standards of living is HIGHLY theoretical. From a practical standpoint, you are insane to claim we have a lower standard of living than in 1970. Thus, it stands to reason that incomes have not in fact been stagnant. A more proper term would be stagnant relative to high income growth.

 

[franklin]

BTW, Roach, if you think I'm some sort of ideologue who hasn't slogged through thousands of hours of research regarding this then you couldn't be more wrong. I'm an investor and make macro decisions based on this stuff. I don't give a rats *** what the conclusion is, only how I can profit from it.

I've made plenty of money the last 5 years going against the conventional wisdom that incomes are stagnant and thus GDP growth would remain stuck in neutral. There are several "bowling pin action" plays that are highly linked to a wealthy America.

 

[VINYLONE]

Do you know how many working people are on Food Stamps or have children that receive medical subsidies - I believe both represent a near majority of the recipients

I don't know the exact statistics but I know this to be the case. So, you're agreeing with me. Your post is written in a weird manner.

 

[Harambe]

BTW, Roach, if you think I'm some sort of ideologue who hasn't slogged through thousands of hours of research regarding this then you couldn't be more wrong. I'm an investor and make macro decisions based on this stuff. I don't give a rats *** what the conclusion is, only how I can profit from it.

I've made plenty of money the last 5 years going against the conventional wisdom that incomes are stagnant and thus GDP growth would remain stuck in neutral. There are several "bowling pin action" plays that are highly linked to a wealthy America.

No one's questioning your success... more along the lines of I'd like to see it the way you do.

That way we can have a common understanding. I'm sure the value there isn't lost on you

 

[DutchJazzer]

OBAMA KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT ECONOMY


hahahahahaha. epic fail.

 

[franklin]

No one's questioning your success... more along the lines of I'd like to see it the way you do.

That way we can have a common understanding. I'm sure the value there isn't lost on you

You claimed I was on the "get off the "U H8 AMERICA! EFF U" horse". I was letting you in to how I analyze these things (in part anyway, I do have a humanitarian purist side). I don't care one way or another what the data says. I care about completeness and truly understanding the situation, and that was meant as an example to demonstrate that to you and definitely not to brag.

My ethos is not to maximize the pleasure for the few but to minimize the # of those with pain who have fallen through the cracks. I see that as the American ethos. If I were Danish I might adopt there ethos of having less, much less but content about it, but I'd probably just move to a place that wanted more instead. Here, we don't want less, it's not our ethos. We want more, we love the struggle and keeping up with the joneses. They measure happiness and throw Denmark in our faces but do we ever consider that being miserable because we aren't on top is our true happiness and what drives us to world leading perfection?

There are plenty of sociological surveys of what makes the rich so damn successful. A couple things are high insecurity and a drive to for perfection, to be the best. That is the American ethos and we can tear it down if it doesn't suit us but it's pretty damn hard to deny the comfort, pleasure and quality of life happiness that that ethos brings. Edison, Tesla, Ford, Dr. Jones, Silicon Valley, Wright Brothers.... Drive ethos > content ethos at the end of the day.


"My ethos is not to maximize the pleasure for the few but to minimize the # of those with pain who have fallen through the cracks."

It just so happens that strong economic policy combined with effective, targeted welfare programs go hand in hand to satisfy the former and the latter. We tend to get the worst of both the last 15 years.