Overtime

[Krampus]

And that's precisely why the Govt pays 2-3x more than it should cost for a given result.

 

Well, now you are getting in to HOW the government prescribes stuff.

 

If they left it to their hired prime contractors and use their processes, it could get done cheaper and still work onsite like employees. All the legal and regulatory stuff, not to mention government reporting and tracking requirements, are what weight down the cost of service delivery.

 

Of course it doesn't drive growth or economic stability.  Not sure why it would, eh?  Growth is driven by population, productivity, and innovation.  Economic stability is driven by lots more than that. Yah, and of course growth and economic stability are opposite things, eh?

 

Population does not drive growth. If that were true China and India would have not taken so long to reach their current state. 

 

You don't create growth and stability by creating lower paying or part time jobs UNLESS there are no jobs for those people to begin with. You end up under employing people which leads to more turn over in those positions. To compensate for higher turn over the company either needs to 1) raise wages (which means decreased profit or money to reinvest in the company), or 2) raise prices to recoup the costs of the increased wages. The other alternative -- which is often taken -- is to save money by splitting the one full time job with benefits in to two part-time jobs with no benefits. The company saves money but becomes less efficient. The money saved in avoiding higher salaries is used to compensate for the increased lack of quality or efficiency. That is hardly a recipe for helping business OR the worker.

 

Letting the market decide what salaries should be, rather than the government, has been the recipe for economic growth (as well as the growth of the worker) for quite a while. When government gets involved it rarely ever works.

[Beavah]

Population does not drive growth.

 

Yah, I reckon yeh can choose to disagree with every economist in da known universe about a fundamental principle of macroeconomics, but odds are they're the ones who are right, eh?

 

The market is still decidin' salaries and benefits, eh?  Not sure why yeh think otherwise.   There's no requirement for a full-time or salaried employee to get a benefits package, eh?   That's just market forces acting.  Same with the desire to avoid employee turnover in key positions by makin' 'em full time.   That's the market.  The law doesn't affect any of that.

 

All the law does is try to stop bad actors from exploitin' ordinary workers by pretending they're "executives".  

 

Right now we have high unemployment, eh?  More than that, we have a lot of hidden unemployment in da form of the long-term jobless.   We're also automating jobs away like mad.  I don't reckon that preventin' employers from callin' a fellow who makes $23K a year a no-overtime "executive" will send us off into da realm of an inflationary spiral anytime soon.  Da economic risk right now continues to be in the other direction. 

 

Beavah

[Krampus]

Yah, I reckon yeh can choose to disagree with every economist in da known universe about a fundamental principle of macroeconomics, but odds are they're the ones who are right, eh?

 

You can roll your eyes all you want, but population in and of itself does not drive growth. More people only means more people. People to feed and clothe and take care of. It does not equate to economic growth. And no reputable economist would advocate that more people automatically equates to growth of the economy.

 

 

Right now we have high unemployment, eh?  More than that, we have a lot of hidden unemployment in da form of the long-term jobless.   We're also automating jobs away like mad.  I don't reckon that preventin' employers from callin' a fellow who makes $23K a year a no-overtime "executive" will send us off into da realm of an inflationary spiral anytime soon.  Da economic risk right now continues to be in the other direction. 

First, what the heck are you talking about "high unemployment"? It is currently at 5% and that is just a tick above it's lowest under this administration.

 

Second, the jobs being created -- thanks to 8 years of over regulation and taxation by the government -- has caused a state of under employment.

 

Third, the "automating jobs away" is the free market being allowed to work. Just like the cotton gin, the automating of certain services makes some goods/services cheaper. Industry needs to adapt and reinvest but that cannot happen when they have to worry about too many regulations and taxes.

 

Lastly, if businesses are forced to pay overtime, where do you think they will get the money to pay those workers? They will have to take it from somewhere, Beavah. It is not like they can just print the money. They will have to take money away from investment in council camps, support programs or other areas to pay the overtime of those workers. OR they need to increase profits in order to cover those cost increases. This may mean increased prices for goods and services passed on to the consumer.

 

So if you think companies having to pay overtime isn't going to have a substantial economic impact, then I am sorry to say you have a very simplistic view of macro and micro economics.

 

Where do YOU think that money will come from? How will companies pay that overtime?

[blw2]

yeah, seems to me to be much the same train wreck of an idea as minimum wage....

I figure it boils down to an increase in dues/costs AND/OR a reduction in services.  a loose/loose form my perspective....

 

On the other hand, I have long been troubled with the question.... so just where did this magic "40" hour work week number come from anyway?  ditto the "5" day work week?  

These numbers seem rather arbitrary, and in my thinking I'd much rather work a little less to have a little bit more time for what really matters in life....

So this new thing anyway just seems to be throwing in more seemingly arbitrary numbers into the mix....

[Fehler]

Not really arbitrary, as stated, its what the overtime cutoff would be if it had been indexed to inflation when first created. 

[Fehler]

And nothing better represents the banality of "free market" capitalism like the cotton gin.

[Krampus]

yeah, seems to me to be much the same train wreck of an idea as minimum wage....

I figure it boils down to an increase in dues/costs AND/OR a reduction in services.  a loose/loose form my perspective....

 

On the other hand, I have long been troubled with the question.... so just where did this magic "40" hour work week number come from anyway?  ditto the "5" day work week?  

These numbers seem rather arbitrary, and in my thinking I'd much rather work a little less to have a little bit more time for what really matters in life....

So this new thing anyway just seems to be throwing in more seemingly arbitrary numbers into the mix....

 

Where else? Government. It was established by the Fair Labor Standards Act. It also classified who was exempt and non-exempt. It was one of many attempts to kick start the economy that was not catching fire as a result of all the previous reforms from the New Deal.

[Beavah]

 

You can roll your eyes all you want, but population in and of itself does not drive growth. More people only means more people. People to feed and clothe and take care of. It does not equate to economic growth. And no reputable economist would advocate that more people automatically equates to growth of the economy.

 

 

Yah, read what yeh wrote again, slowly.     "People to feed and clothe and take care of."   In other words, increased demand for food and clothing and housing and consumer products and and and...    Or, if yeh prefer a more supply-side approach, more people means more available workers producin' more goods and services.   In short, every reputable economist from every school of thought on economics would argue that economic growth depends on population and productivity.  They just might disagree on da mechanism.

 

Da upshot is that this Department of Labor move is just an inflation correction to an existing regulation.   We did just fine in da 1980s and 1990s with this regulation in place at this level.  Fixin' it for inflation just stops people who really have been cheating.  But yeh will see some whining and grousin' as they get forced to stop cheating.   Includin' some BSA councils, eh?  It's hard to argue that we've been treatin' da crop of young DEs fairly across the board.

 

Beavah

[Krampus]

Yah, read what yeh wrote again, slowly.     "People to feed and clothe and take care of."   In other words, increased demand for food and clothing and housing and consumer products and and and...    Or, if yeh prefer a more supply-side approach, more people means more available workers producin' more goods and services.   In short, every reputable economist from every school of thought on economics would argue that economic growth depends on population and productivity.  They just might disagree on da mechanism.

Ah, no.

 

They need to be trained, which you assume in your simple application of a growing population. If your population is unskilled, they are a burden to the economy. If they are skilled -- which requires infrastructure and education -- THEN they will be a benefit to the economy. But population growth in and of itself is not a benefit. If you assume the latter, then I agree with you. If you think just a growing population benefits the economy, then again, show me an economist who says that.

 

Da upshot is that this Department of Labor move is just an inflation correction to an existing regulation.   We did just fine in da 1980s and 1990s with this regulation in place at this level.  Fixin' it for inflation just stops people who really have been cheating.  But yeh will see some whining and grousin' as they get forced to stop cheating.   Includin' some BSA councils, eh?  It's hard to argue that we've been treatin' da crop of young DEs fairly across the board.

Again, no. You are WAY oversimplifying what happened in the past. But I am not going to get in to a debate about the economic effects of the marginal rise in the minimum wage law.

 

You cannot "cheat" at something when the law in place is not being violated. These companies are following the law. To call them cheaters is pretty disingenuous.  

 

Like I said, if this rule (not law by the way, it is a rule bypassing Congress) passes judicial challenges, it will only serve to have companies either 1) pass on the increased cost of doing business to the consumer, thus causing stress to the economy, or 2) they will forego this additional cost by lowering the number of hours and making one full time job, two part time jobs. So now we have TWO people not able to make ends meet with no benefits. Oh, and because such jobs lead to higher turn over there will be an increased cost for those two jobs anyway, leading to increased costs for the employer to re-hire every 3-4 months.

 

So all you are doing is increasing the strain on the economy, nothing more.

[Beavah]

On the other hand, I have long been troubled with the question.... so just where did this magic "40" hour work week number come from anyway?  ditto the "5" day work week? 

 

Yah, that would be from our elected representatives, eh?  Representin' da will of the People, which is what we mean by "government" in these United States.

 

Really, though, it reflected da fact that 1920s automation led to overproduction, unemployment, and then deflation, eh?  Not inflation.   That's just da product of rapid productivity increases.  As more and more automation hits, we're goin' to see da same effect.   For example, as self-drivin' vehicles take off in the next 10 years, they can easily put 4 million people in da transportation and logistics industry out of work.  Cab drivers and long-haul truckers will be the first to go.  In the long run, that will make roads safer, goods cheaper and the economy more efficient.  In the short run, though, those 4 million people out of work will reduce demand and lead to deflation.

 

So what do yeh do in such a case?  We decided as a society to try to help all our fellow citizens benefit from da productivity increase of technology, eh?  The argument was made, accepted, and enacted into law that yeh reduce da work week and work day.  People benefit from da productivity increase by gettin' more time for family or hobbies; other people who were out of a job get to step in as additional employees to take up da slack created by reducin' the time for others. 

 

Odds are we'll have to do so again, eh?  Perhaps goin' to a 4-day work week.  I don't know about others, but I'd rather have an extra day off and have another citizen findin' some work than work 5 days and pay for welfare for the fellow.

 

Yah, I do agree with @@Krampus a bit though, eh?  In some ways this is overregulation.   If yeh had employers who cared about their workers and treated people fairly, it wouldn't be necessary.  We pass laws only because at some point we failed to teach ethics.

 

Beavah

[Beavah]

They need to be trained, which you assume in your simple application of a growing population. If your population is unskilled, they are a burden to the economy. If they are skilled -- which requires infrastructure and education -- THEN they will be a benefit to the economy.

 

Nah, you're mixin' things up again, eh?

 

What you're talkin' about here isn't economic growth, it's economic growth per capita.   Absorbin' an unskilled or impoverished workforce can lead to decline in GDP per capita, eh?  For example when da former West Germany absorbed East Germany.  Those East Germans were quite a burden to the economy.    That's because da productivity of East Germany was lower, eh?

 

However, the total GDP of da combined Germany was still increased, eh?  Germany grew economically, just not as fast as its population grew.

 

Of course in da longer run, as East German productivity caught up slowly to their West German compatriots, that population increase was multiplied by da productivity gain and yeh got more economic growth and economic growth per capita.

 

You cannot "cheat" at something when the law in place is not being violated. These companies are following the law. To call them cheaters is pretty disingenuous.

 

Yah, it all depends, eh?   It depends on whether yeh think da law determines your ethics, or whether ethics is somethin' different that depends on concepts like loyalty and honor.    I think callin' a fellow who makes $23K a year an "executive" just ain't ethical, regardless of whether or not yeh can get by on a technicality and da fact the fellow is too poor to take yeh to court.

 

Beavah

Edited May 19, 2016 by Beavah

[Beavah]

[deleted by author for bein' too long-winded]

Edited May 19, 2016 by Beavah

[Sentinel947]

 

Yah, I do agree with @@Krampus a bit though, eh?  In some ways this is overregulation.   If yeh had employers who cared about their workers and treated people fairly, it wouldn't be necessary.  We pass laws only because at some point we failed to teach ethics.

 

Beavah

I believe it was MLK who said "We have guided missles and misguided men."

[Krampus]

I'm tapping out on this one. Life to too short to argue economics with folks that wont grasp the basics n

[cyclops]

Seems like summer staff isn't exactly part of a mature career...more of a way to get a little experience and maybe 'test the waters'. When I was a camp counselor I was paid $5 per week. I had a bed, got fed, had electricity, etc. And I made $5 in addition to the experience and even some elements of education.

Based on that personal experience, I doubt that staff like me would be considered in this whole issue. I sure know I wouldn't expect 'overtime' pay, whatever that is. I freely decided to apply as a counselor knowing what the pay was and that was that. If I was in it for big bucks I would have done something else.