Obama Wants To Expand Overtime Pay

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Re: Pbama Wants To Expand Overtime Pay

Uhhhhh yeah. I was salaried at a cpa firm and it was mandatory 70-80 hour weeks during tax season and mandatory 50 hour weeks during summer.

Forget about taking vacation because god forbid a client wants something while you're gone, you get yelled at when you come back from vacation and threatening texts while you are on vacation.
 
Re: Pbama Wants To Expand Overtime Pay

But won't someone think of the corporations' rights? They are people my friends. Those costs will be passed on to the consumers who aren't me! Someone else might have to pay an extra 30 cents on their 6$ big mac!
 
Re: Pbama Wants To Expand Overtime Pay

I approve of this. Too many employers take advantage of salaried workers.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/12/news/economy/obama-overtime/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

An odd undertaking for the Chief Executive. Article 2 Section 3 say he shall "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". However, no where is he given power to create the law.

As the article already states, several state already regulate this area so why would the federal government be involved?

This action by this administration is clearly and directly over stepping the executive powers granted in the Constitution.

" The move wouldn't take effect immediately. The Labor Department will have to publish the new rule and take comments from both business and labor groups.
But this is one of the steps the administration is taking on its own to get around opposition by Congressional Republicans to many of Obama's initiatives."

Such action would clearly violate his Oath of office.

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
 
King Barry the First. Those who think it's a good idea for the executive branch to create economic laws, and to selectively veto/change existing law (ObamaCare's multiple extensions/exemptions), need to re-read their modern history.
 
King Barry the First. Those who think it's a good idea for the executive branch to create economic laws

The $455 threshold for overtime hasn't been raised in 10 years, since President Bush upped it from $250 a week.

King George the Second?

Yeah, Bush did it.

barfo
 
Re: Pbama Wants To Expand Overtime Pay

But won't someone think of the corporations' rights? They are people my friends. Those costs will be passed on to the consumers who aren't me! Someone else might have to pay an extra 30 cents on their 6$ big mac!

Ignorance will cause the downfall of this country.
 
If you don't like the salaried position you have, you're free to quit.
 
What was bush thinking, hopefully obama doesn't make the same mistake
 
I average about 2 hours of OT a day. It's the perfect amount. Any more, it gets taxed too much to justify working it and I want to have a life outside of work. In the month of December all bets are off. 60 hours a week all month. It blows.
 
Yah, I am down w/this. All to familiar with my IT career.
 
He sure likes spending other peoples' money.
 
Re: Pbama Wants To Expand Overtime Pay

Ignorance will cause the downfall of this country.

I thought it was the greed and unregulated banking system. Thanks for clearing that up!
 
I average about 2 hours of OT a day. It's the perfect amount. Any more, it gets taxed too much to justify working it and I want to have a life outside of work. In the month of December all bets are off. 60 hours a week all month. It blows.

Curious... what changes with respect to the taxes after 2 hours of OT per day?
 
the real income redistribution

http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/12/wa...ll-workers-earned-making-the-federal-minimum/

Purveyors of Ferraris and high-end Swiss watches keep their fingers crossed toward the end of each calendar year, hoping that the big Wall Street banks will be generous with their annual cash bonuses.

New figures show that the bonus bonanza of 2013 didn’t disappoint. According to the New York State Comptroller’s office, Wall Street firms handed out $26.7 billion in bonuses to their 165,200 employees last year, up 15 percent over the previous year. That’s their third-largest haul on record.

That money will no doubt boost sales of luxury goods. Just imagine how much greater the economic benefit would be if that same amount of money had gone into the pockets of minimum-wage workers.

The $26.7 billion Wall Streeters pocketed in bonuses would cover the cost of more than doubling the paychecks for all of the 1,085,000 Americans who work full-time at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

And boosting their pay in that way would give our economy much more bang for the buck. That’s because low-wage workers tend to spend nearly every dollar they make to meet their basic needs. The wealthy can afford to squirrel away a much greater share of their earnings.

When low-wage workers spend their money at the grocery store or on utility bills, this cash ripples through the economy. According to my new report, every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers adds about $1.21 to the national economy. Every extra dollar a high-income American makes, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the gross domestic product (GDP).

And these pennies add up.

If the $26.7 billion Wall Streeters pulled in on their bonuses last year had instead gone to minimum wage workers, our economy would be expected to grow by about $32.3 billion — more than triple the $10.4 billion boost expected from the Wall Street bonuses.

This immense GDP differential only speaks to one price we pay for Wall Street’s bonus reward culture. Huge bonuses, the 2008 financial industry meltdown made clear, create an incentive for high-risk behaviors that endanger the entire economy.

And yet, nearly four years after passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform, regulators still haven’t implemented the modest provisions in that law to prohibit financial industry pay that encourages “inappropriate risk.” Time will tell whether last year’s Wall Street bonuses were based on high-risk gambles that will eventually blow up in our faces.

Low-wage jobs, on the other hand, endanger nothing. The people who harvest, prepare and serve our food, the folks who keep our hotels clean, and the workers who care for our elderly all provide crucial services. They deserve much higher rewards.
 
Unbelievable crap that guy spews. Every dollar earned by a rich guy or a poor guy adds a dollar to GDP. By definition.

The point is what happens to the money after its earned. Poor people spend it, rich people not so much. Which is better for the GDP then?
 
Blah, blah, blah.

Where are those low-wage workers spending their money that fuels the economy? At the businesses grown by those with the necessary skills and willing to take the risk.

Here are some of them

occupy_portland3.jpg
 
The point is what happens to the money after its earned. Poor people spend it, rich people not so much. Which is better for the GDP then?

It is nonsense.

Govt. spending is the only multiplier, and it is a negative effect.

Unless the rich people are putting their money in their mattresses, the money goes into banks or investments. Either way into investments, effectively.

Invest in google at $1/share and you make out like a bandit when the stock hit $500.

Even so, I wouldn't claim that's a multiplier of 500. You've effectively taken the investment capital from google to give to the rich guys who put the money back into google. GDP only grows because Google is creating wealth in the form of intellectual property. It is a wash. No multiplier.

Workers' labor is factored into GDP. Part of the finished goods metric. Artificially paying more for the labor only reduces the net value of the finished good. It is a wash. No multiplier.

A really basic example. Worker gets paid $100 to make a car. The car costs $100 to buy (no profit). The $100 is the only cost (ignoring the price of the parts). Raise worker's income to $110, and the car maker pays $110 to build a car he sells for $100. GDP loss by $10/car, no? So raise the price of the car to $110 and you get a wash. All you've done us started selling cars worth $100 for $110.

More on how bogus these multipliers are:

http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~vramey/research/NBER_Fiscal.pdf
 
King George the Second?

Yeah, Bush did it.

barfo

Bush didn't selectively change his own existing law. Plus, I thought Barry was supposed to be the anti-Bush? Looks like he fooled you.

Obama is Bush Junior, except he is laughed at by people like Putin because Barry is all about words, and just words, when it comes to foreign policy. "Red line," my ass. What a joke.
 
Last edited:
The point is what happens to the money after its earned. Poor people spend it, rich people not so much. Which is better for the GDP then?

Rich people may hire someone with it. Poor people damn near never do.
 
What a fucking idiot. Does he know that in I-Banking and S&T your base pay is really low (for Manhattan) and most of what you receive in bonus is based on what you personally contributed to the bottom line? In other words, if you lost the company money or the firm overall has a tough year, you get squat.

CEO to worker ratio has grown from 42:1 in 1980 to 354:1 in 2012. Also during our prime boom years of 2002-2012 while CEO's were doing great thing with the economy their ratio grew from 281:1 to 354:1. Problem is that CEO bonuses are often tied to high risk short sighted goals, when that doesnt work out they golden parachute and avoid accountability for their decisions. By comparison the UK is 84:1 and France is 104:1, even Canada is 204:1. Expecting people to curb their own greed for the good of the economy is foolish.
 
CEO to worker ratio has grown from 42:1 in 1980 to 354:1 in 2012. Also during our prime boom years of 2002-2012 while CEO's were doing great thing with the economy their ratio grew from 281:1 to 354:1. Problem is that CEO bonuses are often tied to high risk short sighted goals, when that doesnt work out they golden parachute and avoid accountability for their decisions. By comparison the UK is 84:1 and France is 104:1, even Canada is 204:1. Expecting people to curb their own greed for the good of the economy is foolish.

In the 1980s, the largest Japanese corporations dwarfed ours. Now ours are the biggest in the world. If a CEO gets .0001% of sales, he's going to have a huge bump just because the companies got larger. And they get more than .0001%, I'm just making the case for why they make more. Seems to me that they grew the companies that big, they deserve it.

And another way to look at it is the CEO makes 1% of the sales and the employees make 80% of it. They're not being taken advantage of somehow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top