It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
a reply to: xuenchen
Without confirmation, I think Trump was addressing the salaried employees overtime. There's a lot of controversy with that Obama regulation.
originally posted by: Kettu
All these salaried people saying, "so what".
This would hurt the lower income people the most. People living today have no idea what the people who bled and died for overtime went through. People today have no idea what it would be like if the overtime rules were scrapped.
It's painful, maddening and sad to see how moronic, ignorant, brainwashed our population has become.
originally posted by: jefwane
Havn't read but the first page of this, but I doubt anyone would be able to abolish overtime laws. Take away mandotory time and a half, and you'd have half the folks that voted for Trump ready to hang him on the national mall. I'm generally conservative, and could probably get behind alternative methods of compensation for that time and a half like PTO useable at will, extra employer compensation to retirement, or something else of equal value. In most cases it's actually comparable or cheaper to pay time and a half for companies than to hire train and pay insurance for extra employees.Under 45 hours it's probably cheaper to pay the OT as needed than to hire more. Over you should probably be thinking about hiring anyway, because the diminishing return of the worn out employee. There are only 24 hours in a day and 2 of seven days off seems pretty reasonable. We could of course get a tariff passed that punishes imports from countries that don't have comparable overtime laws .
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Simple. I can find another company that wants my skills and compensates me better.
No you can't. Not you personally, the you for your field. If you take a higher paying job it just means someone else ends up with the lower paying one. Or alternatively, you stay with the lower paying job and someone else takes the higher paying one. Someone is always going to be on the bottom though. People are going to fall into the range of jobs employers have available, which means that some people are going to be in the bottom x%. Potentially being able to improve your own individual situation does nothing to change that. It can only be changed by altering what employers are willing to pay. Either through market adjustments or through legislation.
originally posted by: bill3969
That is a very limited view of the economy. You are assuming people are stuck in one type of job.
That is how a free market works. There is always a better alternative, and if you are too lazy to look for it, you deserve to make minimum wage. The responsibility for your life and rate of pay is entirely yours. you are not forced to work for anyone. When the government gets involved, it always makes it worse.
What your example misses though is that if the tier factory increases it's wages to above minimum wage, it means another company is reducing their wages to minimum wage, and you still end up with a group in the same place.
Free markets are a competition. Competitions are designed to create losers. Therefore there isn't always a better alternative, you can and will lose at times. Spread across the population, that means a portion of the population is always losing.
originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: CB328
I love how everyone is kicking and screaming about cutting back on the government agencies that ARE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB!!!
They are all corrupt, and do not operate how they are intended. Our education system is in shambles, and people are complaining about an overhaul?
GIVE ME A BREAK!