New overtime laws

[Jhhnn]

Who says that both figures, 6 mil on the negative side, 1 mil on the positive side, can't be correct? I suspect that both are semi-truthful ballpark numbers. Score big for employers, which figures, given that these changes originate from the Bush Admin.

Gotta love Dissipate's usual disinformation. Employers have already discovered that working existing help into the dirt at time and a half is more profitable than hiring more, and that having a preponderance of part timers is even more profitable. If anything, having fewer actually receive time and a half will merely reinforce and accelerate this trend... he offers no evidence whatsoever that this change will increase full time employment, merely pie in the sky theorizations...

Basically, have a free lunch, but remember, there's really no such thing...

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Dissipate


Employers that know they will be paying significant overtime will just cut the base pay. Simple as that, inefficiency solved.

Overtime laws do not help anyone, anytime, anywhere, anyhow. These laws were enacted by politicians pandering to ignorant people who subscribe to Marxism, just like a lot of other labor laws.

If they cut the base pay, they will cut into their labour base, unless they also inform all applicants of the amount of overtime they can expect. In other words, the law forces the employer to be upfront about overtime, or else the applicants who are expecting better pay will go elsewhere.

Not if their competitors are in a similar situation, which they probably would be, especially businesses with low profit margins. The entire industry would just cut the base pay.

TANSTAAFL still applies no matter how you cut it. Once again overtime laws are stupid Marxist regulations that hurt businesses and employees both, to say that they make the market more efficient is probably one of the most absurd things I have heard in awhile.

I used to work at a fast food restaurant, nobody in that place could get very many hours. Why not? Overtime laws. Think about this, if someone depended on those kinds of jobs for a living they would literally have to work 3 or 4 of those jobs. Having to go from job to job costs them time and money for transportation. Not to mention the costs related to having to learn how to work 4 jobs. Pray tell, how could this possibly be "efficient"? It's simply moronic is what it is.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Who says that both figures, 6 mil on the negative side, 1 mil on the positive side, can't be correct? I suspect that both are semi-truthful ballpark numbers. Score big for employers, which figures, given that these changes originate from the Bush Admin.

Gotta love Dissipate's usual disinformation. Employers have already discovered that working existing help into the dirt at time and a half is more profitable than hiring more, and that having a preponderance of part timers is even more profitable. If anything, having fewer actually receive time and a half will merely reinforce and accelerate this trend... he offers no evidence whatsoever that this change will increase full time employment, merely pie in the sky theorizations...

Basically, have a free lunch, but remember, there's really no such thing...

No, I have real world evidence. Look at the work schedule for any fast food restaurant and tell me if you see very many people scheduled to work over 35 hours.

TAANSTAFL is not disinformation, it is a fact of life that you Marxists just can't seem to accept. Employers don't have money that just comes out of nowhere with which to inflate the wages of wage earners at no cost to society.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So, someone explain to me how in a non theoretical way I will earn more money if my overtime gets cut?

I want an real answer. When will a get a base rate pay that offsets that loss?

If I were making overtime, and my pay went from 60,000 to 50,000 how I am benefiting now? No promises about economic incentives. My bank account doesnt care about these.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, someone explain to me how in a non theoretical way I will earn more money if my overtime gets cut?

I want an real answer. When will a get a base rate pay that offsets that loss?

If I were making overtime, and my pay went from 60,000 to 50,000 how I am benefiting now? No promises about economic incentives. My bank account doesnt care about these.

If your wages were over the equilibrium price for your labor, deserve a pay cut. This will enable the company you work for to higher more workers and expand.

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If your wages were over the equilibrium price for your labor, deserve a pay cut. This will enable the company you work for to higher more workers and expand.

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

If his wages were over the equilibrium price of labour, his company would have let him go.

Changing the market structure will most likely change the equilibrium value of labour, which is not nearly as easy to pin down as some people think.

Remember that the value of your labour has more to do with the quantity of capital your company has to invest in your time, and the efficiency with which they do so, than it does with your skill-set.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, someone explain to me how in a non theoretical way I will earn more money if my overtime gets cut?

I want an real answer. When will a get a base rate pay that offsets that loss?

If I were making overtime, and my pay went from 60,000 to 50,000 how I am benefiting now? No promises about economic incentives. My bank account doesnt care about these.

If your wages were over the equilibrium price for your labor, deserve a pay cut. This will enable the company you work for to higher more workers and expand.

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

Ok, let's try this again.

Hypothetical

If I were earing 60k working 50 hours a week, and this law allows my employer to cut that to 50k how does that benefit me? Stop talking about markets. Tell me how I pay the bills I have now besides working even more hours to make what I have been?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Ok, let's try this again.

Hypothetical

If I were earing 60k working 50 hours a week, and this law allows my employer to cut that to 50k how does that benefit me? Stop talking about markets. Tell me how I pay the bills I have now besides working even more hours to make what I have been?

Eventually the money that employer doesn't have to pay will trickle down to you and be better then the extra $10K in your pocket each year...

Much like the trillion dollar tax cut targeted at the wealthy. Eventually a piece of that will trickle down to you..well theoretically...and thats better then you just have money now...

Oh right no.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, someone explain to me how in a non theoretical way I will earn more money if my overtime gets cut?

I want an real answer. When will a get a base rate pay that offsets that loss?

If I were making overtime, and my pay went from 60,000 to 50,000 how I am benefiting now? No promises about economic incentives. My bank account doesnt care about these.

If your wages were over the equilibrium price for your labor, deserve a pay cut. This will enable the company you work for to higher more workers and expand.

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

Ok, let's try this again.

Hypothetical

If I were earing 60k working 50 hours a week, and this law allows my employer to cut that to 50k how does that benefit me? Stop talking about markets. Tell me how I pay the bills I have now besides working even more hours to make what I have been?

I already answered your question. If you are worth 60K a year market forces will not allow your employer to cut your pay to 50K. If he did you could just go work for a competitor.

Labor markets have supply and demand just like any other market. If the demand curve for your labor dictates an equilibrium price of 60K a year, that is how much you will fetch. I don't know how much clearer I could make this concept.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If your wages were over the equilibrium price for your labor, deserve a pay cut. This will enable the company you work for to higher more workers and expand.

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

If his wages were over the equilibrium price of labour, his company would have let him go.

Not necessarily. Unions have been able to inflate wages on numerous occassions. Of course this causes other irregularities in the market, and a negative effect is achieved. Basically, the company just hires less workers since each worker's pay/output ratio becomes worse.

Changing the market structure will most likely change the equilibrium value of labour, which is not nearly as easy to pin down as some people think.

Remember that the value of your labour has more to do with the quantity of capital your company has to invest in your time, and the efficiency with which they do so, than it does with your skill-set.

 

[piasabird]

I disagree. Many large corporations and factories would rather force overtime than have to pay benefits for one more employee.

Teachers dont get paid overtime so no one else that is a salary worker should get any either. I know this doesnt really make sense. However, when I worked at a factory they were always making people work an extra 8 Hr Shift which is 16 hours straight on your feet all the time doing manual labor. I always thought 16 hrs straight was just too much for people working on heavy machinery, where one mistake can cause an explosion or loss of limb.

I think if salary employees work over they can renogotiate their salary if they quote an average number of hours per week worked. If factory workers can join a union so can admin hourly workers.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, someone explain to me how in a non theoretical way I will earn more money if my overtime gets cut?

I want an real answer. When will a get a base rate pay that offsets that loss?

If I were making overtime, and my pay went from 60,000 to 50,000 how I am benefiting now? No promises about economic incentives. My bank account doesnt care about these.

If your wages were over the equilibrium price for your labor, deserve a pay cut. This will enable the company you work for to higher more workers and expand.

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

Ok, let's try this again.

Hypothetical

If I were earing 60k working 50 hours a week, and this law allows my employer to cut that to 50k how does that benefit me? Stop talking about markets. Tell me how I pay the bills I have now besides working even more hours to make what I have been?

I already answered your question. If you are worth 60K a year market forces will not allow your employer to cut your pay to 50K. If he did you could just go work for a competitor.

Labor markets have supply and demand just like any other market. If the demand curve for your labor dictates an equilibrium price of 60K a year, that is how much you will fetch. I don't know how much clearer I could make this concept.

I was waiting to see what the Rich Elite would reply to you Winston and knew it would be so vile and Elitist.

So basically the Rich Millionaire can take 10K away from 10 of his Middle Managers to get a Free Yacht courtesy of them getting screwed and Tax free to boot. Hooray for the Rich Elite :|

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate


Not necessarily. Unions have been able to inflate wages on numerous occassions. Of course this causes other irregularities in the market, and a negative effect is achieved. Basically, the company just hires less workers since each worker's pay/output ratio becomes worse.

True - but by the same market theory, the union worers are still being paid what they are worth.

Thus:

Changing the market structure will most likely change the equilibrium value of labour, which is not nearly as easy to pin down as some people think.

And the fallacy of:

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

The change in the playing field changes the value of labour, and has no merit in determining whether the current wages are fair or not, given current market conditions. As Winston says, he has been playing by the rules, and has financial commitments based on his position WRT those rules. Changing the rules has fallout effects that may (or may not) seriously affect any given individual.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So basically the Rich Millionaire can take 10K away from 10 of his Middle Managers to get a Free Yacht courtesy of them getting screwed and Tax free to boot. Hooray for the Rich Elite :|

No self-respecting millionaire would be seen in a 100K yacht😉

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So basically the Rich Millionaire can take 10K away from 10 of his Middle Managers to get a Free Yacht courtesy of them getting screwed and Tax free to boot. Hooray for the Rich Elite :|

No self-respecting millionaire would be seen in a 100K yacht😉

But it was FREE off the backs of hard working scum employees, so he would give to a friend or family member.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, someone explain to me how in a non theoretical way I will earn more money if my overtime gets cut?

I want an real answer. When will a get a base rate pay that offsets that loss?

If I were making overtime, and my pay went from 60,000 to 50,000 how I am benefiting now? No promises about economic incentives. My bank account doesnt care about these.

If your wages were over the equilibrium price for your labor, deserve a pay cut. This will enable the company you work for to higher more workers and expand.

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

Ok, let's try this again.

Hypothetical

If I were earing 60k working 50 hours a week, and this law allows my employer to cut that to 50k how does that benefit me? Stop talking about markets. Tell me how I pay the bills I have now besides working even more hours to make what I have been?

I already answered your question. If you are worth 60K a year market forces will not allow your employer to cut your pay to 50K. If he did you could just go work for a competitor.

Labor markets have supply and demand just like any other market. If the demand curve for your labor dictates an equilibrium price of 60K a year, that is how much you will fetch. I don't know how much clearer I could make this concept.

I am employer X.

I had to pay my employees 60k a year under the current law. Now I do not have to. In theory, if I cut wages, you can leave. In practice you cannot, because every other manager knows what I know. You are effectively stuck because I don't have to pay you what you earned, and you earning what you do are skilled, and the positions availible are limited.

Dissipate, assuming what you say is correct the BEST case is that this does not affect me. Anything less that best case harms me.

I am not looking at macro econ theories. I am looking at wallets. Employeers and corporations look at wallets, their own and their shareholders.

Having seen how corporate society thinks, I know that managers are evaluating ways to implement this in a way that works to the corporation's favor as far as cutting payroll.

It does not pay the bills if you are one of the affected.
Stabilization of wages a decade away does not pay them.

Next weeks pay check does.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

I am employer X.

I had to pay my employees 60k a year under the current law. Now I do not have to. In theory, if I cut wages, you can leave. In practice you cannot, because every other manager knows what I know. You are effectively stuck because I don't have to pay you what you earned, and you earning what you do are skilled, and the positions availible are limited.

Dissipate, assuming what you say is correct the BEST case is that this does not affect me. Anything less that best case harms me.

I am not looking at macro econ theories. I am looking at wallets. Employeers and corporations look at wallets, their own and their shareholders.

Having seen how corporate society thinks, I know that managers are evaluating ways to implement this in a way that works to the corporation's favor as far as cutting payroll.

It does not pay the bills if you are one of the affected.
Stabilization of wages a decade away does not pay them.

Next weeks pay check does.

This is the Rich NeoCons Elitists idea of a Tax cut for the Middle Class because if you make less, less income to pay taxes on.

Of course it should've been named the Income Cut Act of 2004.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Dissipate-

"TAANSTAFL is not disinformation, it is a fact of life that you Marxists just can't seem to accept. Employers don't have money that just comes out of nowhere with which to inflate the wages of wage earners at no cost to society."

Mere reassertion and name calling isn't exactly a convincing argument... gotta do better than that if you're actually seeking credibility. The counter argument is just as true- employees don't just do work that comes out of nowhere with which to inflate the profits of owners at no cost to society...

Your part time fast food example won't change one whit under the new rules- they'll all still be part time... It's the folks working the other side of the scenario, 50-60 hrs/week, who'll take the pounding, while their bosses reap greater profits. As if such are needed- profits have been at record levels for some time now...

The current "recovery" from the alleged non-recession includes the poorest wage gains of any on record... and this new set of rules will help that? Dream On...

Yeh, I know, you read one book on economic theory, and you've latched onto that the way Osama latched onto the Word of the Prophet... That, and $1.35, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks...

 

[jjzelinski]

So what your asserting here Dis, in part, is that OT laws require employers to work each employee less and employ a greater quantity of employees to compensate. Hope I got that right, because if that were true then offering OT to all the minimum wage blokes will actually lead to higher employment rates, correct?

 

[Crimson]

Actually my company just sent out an email saying that some non-exempt employees were going to be reclassified as exempt so they can receive overtime because of this new law..

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Actually my company just sent out an email saying that some non-exempt employees were going to be reclassified as exempt so they can receive overtime because of this new law..

Is their pay be re-adjusted down as well???

Let's see the wording of that E-mail.

 

[jjzelinski]

Somehow I found that post confusing. Are you say that your company intends to classify a group of people as exempt from OT and therefore are entitled to it? Help me out here.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Actually my company just sent out an email saying that some non-exempt employees were going to be reclassified as exempt so they can receive overtime because of this new law..

I believe you have the terminology mixed up. If that is the case then I believe that you work for a stand up company!

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: maluckey
Who benefits?

Cops, Federal Law enforcement and Firefighters just to name a few. The upper middle class white collar workers get nothing to speak of, but the middle of the road Joe Professional gets a boost.

do they?
nurses seem to be pretty angry about it. as do teachers...which i seem to have alot of both in my family.
what are the pros?

Why doesn't someone just lay the darn thing out and explain it instead of just SAYING its taking away or giving overtime pay???

 

[chess9]

Ok, everyone who believes the Bush administration implemented these new rules to make sure that employees get a fair shake from their bosses, please raise your hand.

Uh, looking around, I don't see any hands. 🙂

I think Dave has it exactly right.

-Robert