IT Employment optimize

Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT pros

A bill is currently making its way through the United States Senate that effectively eliminates overtime pay for IT professionals.

There was a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate last week that seeks to modify the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) computer employee exemption, effectively eliminating overtime pay for IT professionals. The Computer Professionals Update Act ("CPU"/S. 1747) was introduced in the Senate by Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) and cosponsors Senators Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Enzi (R-WY), and Michael Bennet (D-CO).

Under current law, an employee qualifies for the exemption if his "primary duty" consists of:

  • The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications;
  • The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;
  • The design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
  • A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.

In effect, S. 1747 would remove overtime protection and compensation for virtually any worker directly employed in information technology. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. National Advocates for Employee Rights is working with coalition partners to oppose the legislation. The bill can be found at:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1747is/pdf/BILLS-112s1747is.pdf.

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

340 comments
adornoe
adornoe

The legislation doesn't have intent stated in the bill. The economy has lost many millions of jobs in the past few years, and we're still losing millions more on a yearly basis, no matter what Obama and the 8.6% official unemployment rate say. During this recession, many corporations have demanded more of those employees who they did retain, and some of those demands are increased hours of work, and, those employees have "happily" agreed to work more in order to not join the ranks of the unemployed. So, in order to create jobs, the bill would "force" companies to take the overtime that's either paid or not, and create new jobs with that overtime. So, if Joe was working 50 hrs per week, and only getting compensation for 40, then those extra 10 hours could be going towards creation of a new job. So, if a company had 4 of those "Joes", the total number of hours available for creation of a complete new job, would be 40. So, if a company agreed to create a new job where there used to be just 4, that company would increase its payroll by one person. If that were to happen throughout the economy, and salaried jobs were to be for just 40 hrs, many corporations might be forced to create new jobs in order to maintain the same productivity. So, throughout the economy, we could end up creating millions of new jobs. The problem is that, not every employee is as productive as the most productive of employees, and some people require 50 hrs of work to accomplish the same amount of work as a good employee who only needs 40 hrs to get his/her job done. So, taking the 10 hrs of work from the least productive, would be counterproductive, and it would end up costing more money to a company, and to many, that would be a cost too high, and their bottom lines would be hurt. When a corporation's bottom line is hurt, costs have to be cut, and oftentimes, jobs are the highest of costs, and so, many jobs would be lost when that corporation ends up being less profitable. The intent might not be stated, but neither are the repercussions. The bill is merely another regulation on top of the many more which end up causing more harm to corporations and the economy as whole.

MargaretlBartley
MargaretlBartley

Back when people knew where their interests lie, and voted out politicians who screwed them, the politicians used that rationale to explain why they voted in legislation creating the 40-hour work week, and other pro-worker bills. The real reason, of course, was because they would be voted out of office if they didn't but what they said was that it would create new jobs. Now, workers listens to propaganda and vote for people who blatantly screw them over, and the politicians are serving the interests of the minority who give them the money to pay for the lies that blind working people into accepting the current system, which is overthrowing a hundred and fifty years of organizing for workers' rights. What is costing jobs are the billions of dollars these corporations have moved to Asia, taking their jobs with them It's a Done Deal.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Is this intent explicitly stated anywhere, or even strongly implied? Got a source?

adornoe
adornoe

and the high-cost of union and labor regulations. Most of those jobs and operations that companies have had to set up on foreign soil, would still be on our shores if government had not become so expensive and so intrusive. In fact, with a low corporate tax rate, and with fewer regulations, and with less government intrusion into the marketplace, there is no doubt that, the U.S. would have full employment, all the time, and we'd have to import a huge number of laborers/workers/professionals to fill the overflowing number of positions.

dogknees
dogknees

Of course they would, we are the constituency, not businesses, people. The job of my elected member of government is to represent my desires and beliefs. If they don't I don't vote for them. That's how democracy is supposed to operate, we express our individual desires when we vote and the government determines how to satisfy them if they are elected. Unless you believe the great lie that those that invest in a business deserve greater rewards than those that work in it, it's always about the people over and above businesses.

adornoe
adornoe

for you? It's the same kind of thing that Obama and liberals and even some republicans have been bitching about when it comes to machines, like ATMs, taking work away from people. They'd like nothing more than to create more jobs out of thin air in order to make the unemployment numbers seem better, and that's why, they'd take away unpaid overtime in order to create paid positions out of them.

adornoe
adornoe

"Not the current state of the world economy, but what got us there." The state of the economy, national and worldwide, had causes, and you still don't understand them, or refuse to acknowledge them. "You blame government." Most economists put a lot of the blame on government intrusion; it's not just me. "I'm not so narrow-minded that I can't see there are multiple causes," Anybody can make that simple statement, and for most cases, you'd be correct, but it doesn't address the real causes and it doesn't make you correct on the causes that brought the economy to its knees. "including individual and corporate greed," What you fail to realize or understand is that, greed is a characteristic of humans which creates wealth; it's another word for "ambition", although ambition sounds a bit less evil to some. Without greed, aka: ambition, there would never be any economic growth, and what we'd have is a stagnant economy, or poverty all around. "lack of regulation," Nobody denies that some regulations are needed, but not the massive number of regulations which only serve to kill economic growth and jobs. "failure to enforce existing laws and regulations," Fact is that, there are far too many laws and regulations, to the point that, it's very hard to enforce them. Furthermore, most regulations are not needed, and their enforcement only forces people to seek ways around them, and thus, you have companies moving operations and jobs to other countries. There are repercussions to regulations. Another example, a big one, is the need to import our oil, because, the government has prohibited our oil companies from drilling for oil and from digging our coal and from constructing pipelines to deliver our own natural gas. So, we end up sending some $700 billion dollars to the middle-east and to other regions, when that money could be used to create millions of jobs at home and to lower the price of energy, which would in turn, create a few million more jobs. Like I've been saying so many times, you need to dig deeper into the issues, and not just on the surface. " and outright fraud." Fraud can't be eliminated, and it can only be controlled via laws, not regulations. But, even in fraud, the free-market knows how to take care of fraud, because, people won't be frequenting a service where fraud was committed against them, and thus, that shop or business won't be around for long; that's a better self-regulating effect than through a government regulation or a law. Most people don't like being made a fool more than once. If a business sells me a defective product, I won't be going there for a second chance at being made a fool; same with any service where there is competition and I'm not stuck with using the same single service provider. "Only two of those can be attributed exclusively to government." In every case where businesses and jobs have been affected, you can be sure that, government had a hand in destroying them. Fraud and sleaziness can be handled by the private economy, and in most cases, it works just fine. I don't, like I said before, go back to a business that sold me something at a ridiculous price, or sold me a product that was defective, or put a charge on my credit card for something that I didn't buy. Look at the recent case of Bank of America wanting to charge $5/month to maintain a checking account; that wasn't necessarily fraud, but, the people rebelled and BofA pulled back and never started the charge. The people did the "regulating" without government intervention. However, the ironic part in the whole episode is that, it was government regulations that created the whole BofA episode, where other government regulations prohibited banks from charging for certain credit card transactions, and thus, BofA and other banks felt the need to gain that lost revenue through other means. We haven't heard the last of that, but, the credit card regulations are still in the books and there will be other repercussions from them. It never fails that government regulations have repercussions that you don't hear about when they're proposed and passed. So, it appears, again, that, you're doing simple-thinking and not doing the deep analysis necessary on the issues. The only single fact in the whole economic mess is that, without the intrusive government regulations, and without the heavy expense that government has become, that the economy would very likely be thriving, and the economic downturn would never have happened.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Not the current state of the world economy, but what got us there. You blame government. I'm not so narrow-minded that I can't see there are multiple causes, including individual and corporate greed, lack of regulation, failure to enforce existing laws and regulations, and outright fraud. Only two of those can be attributed exclusively to government.

adornoe
adornoe

Look, whether Hoover or FDR or anybody, if the policies are socialist in nature, they are harmful. It doesn't matter what party or which president or which political party brings about bigger government and bigger social spending and bigger control over the economy. The fact is that, even the republican party has had presidents who were quite liberal in their governing and spending and political views. Teddy Roosevelt might have been labeled a republican, but he was mostly liberal in his governing, and even the 2 Bushes were liberal in spending and in social programs. So, it's not the label that matters; it's what the person does that matters. The plain and simple fact is that, the economy in the U.S. has trended towards socialism for more than 100 years, and with each new social program which increases spending and requires more taxation, the country becomes poorer and those programs then become unsustainable. That's what's happened with Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and all other government programs, and there isn't any social program around that is not in trouble or in the red and basically, running huge debts. It's the cumulative debts of all those programs that have created the national debt, which is now headed towards 16 trillion dollars, and Obama is now requesting another 1.2 trillion in spending for the next year. It's quite easy to spend money when it's not coming out of your pocket, and it's a lot easier when the can continues getting kicked further down the road. People continue being in denial about the huge problems we have, and kicking the can further down the road is not a solution. FDR was the worst thing that could've happened to this country, and with his programs, the country became doomed to leaning socialist, and now, that socialism is coming back to destroy us. That socialism became worse when LBJ became president with his Medicare/Medicaid and Food Stamps programs. Then we got Carter and Clinton and now Obummer. Even the Bushes added to the cost of government with their social spending. So, you don't need to point to any one act or any one social program or any one president, to tell me about where the problems got started. The most important thing to understand is the general trend towards socialism, which is what always ends up destroying economies and governments and sometimes a country. So, don't examine one single tree in the forest; look at the whole forest, and you might notice that, it's not about a defective tree, but about the whole defective forest. The country has gone to hell, and no one single act was responsible. There were a whole series of actions taken by government that have led to our current dire situation. BTW, there is no need for me to pick and choose facts; not when they're out there, in plain sight and in real life for everyone to see. The biggest fact that proves everyone of my points, is the state of the economy, within the U.S. and worldwide.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I keep forgetting that, for you, this is a religious discussion. Just as you don't get to pick and choose your facts, you don't get to pick and choose your history. Government action strongly contributed to the Great Depression, even deepened it, but that action was mainly protectionist, not socialist, in nature. Many of the social programs to which you refer, while advocated by Hoover, were not instituted until Roosevelt was President, well after the combination of deflation caused by tight money policies and a tax increase, and economic contraction caused by Smoot-Hawley tariffs, plunged the country into depression. The one "socialist" act (and like the other decisions, it was a stupid one) was Hoover's urging (not ordering, urging) businesses not to reduce wages during the deflationary period.

adornoe
adornoe

"Then the only reason I can see for you to get it so wrong is that you ignore what doesn't reinforce your desired conclusions." Actually, history bears out my conclusions, and the real world conditions bear out my conclusions. So, again, you are the one that's not comfortable with reality. Like I've been saying, your apparent life-long indoctrination has you blinded to reality. "And about lessons from the past? Tight money policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression, yet you seem to think that the same policies can make things better now. Take your own words to heart and learn from the past." No!, you ninny! Tight money policies were the least of the problems during the great depression. The biggest problems, were the big government advocates that created the economic conditions that in turn brought about the great depression. Tight money is just one policy, and there were myriads of problems. However, you are apparently unable to think below the surface of the issues. Whatever the problems, there were people involved in creating them. And the people involved were the progressives in power who only had one solution, that being, big government, with big government spending, with big government social programs, with big government projects, with government in control of the economy. The idiotic policies failed, and failed big. Those same idiotic policies are with us again, with big government advocates all around us, starting with our idiot president and including many members of congress who have no idea about how free-market economics work. You can be sure of one thing, and that is, that as long as governments remain so intrusive in our daily lives and in their respective economies, there wont be any recoveries. That is precisely what is happening right now, and that is precisely what happened to make the great depression last so long. So, again, you fail in logic and in common sense, and most importantly, you are failing to learn from the lessons of history. You and countless millions of people, are precisely why the recovery is nowhere to be found, and no recovery will be coming until people learn the lessons of the past.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

is that you ignore what doesn't reinforce your desired conclusions. And about lessons from the past? Tight money policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression, yet you seem to think that the same policies can make things better now. Take your own words to heart and [b]learn from the past[/b].

adornoe
adornoe

not that difficult. What's makes economics "hard" for some people, like you, is the refusal to learn the lessons of the past. When something doesn't work, the solution is not doing more of the same. When something has never worked in the past, the solution is not changing the people in charge. When something has failed in the past, the solution is not to implement it in a different location or different country. No matter where in the world socialism has been tried or when, it's always failed. That's a simple lesson of economics that has been the same the world over. What makes economics hard for many people is believing that, government always has the solution, but, big government always has the same single solution, and that is, taking from the haves and giving to the have-not. That's pretty naive and dumb, no matter how many times it's tried. The only thing complicated about world-wide economics is getting people to realize that, the stupid and simple and big government solutions, will always, in the end, come back to destroy them. Economics, in simple terms, is actually common sense. There is no need to make it complicated. The interactions of a world-wide economy, could still be simple if they all understood the basic principles of economics. Different economic systems, like socialism and capitalism, will never be in agreement, and that's not a complicated issue to understand. What can be easily noticed is that, in just about every situation where capitalism is the preferred economic system, there is more prosperity and a lot less poverty, whereas, with socialism, there is very little wealth and poverty is very noticeable throughout a country that uses it as their economic system. When an economic system attempts to make everybody equal, the result is always poverty, because, there is no room for ambition and no room for the achievers to create great wealth. The human spirit is squelched, and you end up with a stagnant or dying economy. The fact is, that it is you that has no clue about economics, on a local, or national or worldwide basis. I'm not an economist by profession, but I understand it enough to know that, you know squat about it. Let me put it simply for you: socialism should not even be considered an economic system; it's actually an ideology which requires government to be the main driver for anything that happens within the system, and thus, the independent external human influence, does not enter into growing an economy. Worldwide economics is complicated, only because, there are just too many clashes between the different "economic" systems, and governments involved. There is an interdependence in world economics, but, it's not really complicated when broken down to the basics.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

You display an inordinate amount of ignorance of how the world economy interacts.

adornoe
adornoe

everything else that people in the UK want to be in denial about. Fact is that, there is a whole lot more socialism in the UK than in the U.S., and you're all reaping the consequences of that stupidity. You reap what you sow.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Some greedy wankers, I mean bankers apparently. The democrats can't even start to be conpared to UK Socialists, and even they aren't real ones. I said I'm a real socialist. "The goal isn't to have a welfare state, it's not to need one" Your versions of capitalism and socialism REQUIRE one. Enjoy your Yuletide

adornoe
adornoe

and though the country still exists, the economy, just like most of Europe and the U.S., is in shambles. Most countries that had socialist economies are still in existence, but, the economies still failed. That's the argument I'm making, where, the economies of countries end up being destroyed from socialist policies. The UK and many of the world's economies, are experiencing very bad economic times, and most of it can be attributed to socialism. If you like socialism, then you are part of the problem. When I mention "democrat", I'm talking about the democrats in the U.S., who have actually morphed into socialists, and it's that socialism which has virtually killed the once great economy of the U.S. Like I keep saying, socialism eventually destroys economies, and the UK is no exception. Enjoy your economic downturn.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

The UK... As for even suggesting that big government = socialism, that ones got me rolling about. I'm not a democrat, I'm a real socialist. I believe wholeheartedly in small government, I believe that a government that chooses to constantly interfere in it's electorate's lives is bad. Your democrats would have less use for than your republicans. I don't believe you need big government to have socialism. What I do believe is regulations that protect the working man from the money man are to be dropped, then the ones that protect the money man from the working man should be as well. I don't believe that's what you have in mind....

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

That's why I've been posting extreme examples...... I

adornoe
adornoe

opinions are a dime a dozen, and facts are priceless and unchanging. I consider the fact that, most readers of ZDNet are liberal, and that their opinions are not going to be in agreement with mine. I prefer to be analytical and not just allow others to think for me. I like to work with the facts, and not with how I wished things would be, which is how you and a lot of other ZDNet readers think. I could easily take you to other websites, which I frequent, and you probably won't find anyone agreeing with your side of the issues. Perhaps that's what I'll do with you in the future, to get you to understand how the other side thinks and views things. The people that I engage with in other discussions, are a lot better informed than the crowd here is on the issues, and better educated too. So, that there might be others that agree with your nonsense, and not with the facts, is a non-issue, because, being right is what matters most to me.

rmerchberger
rmerchberger

I'm not saying you personally are "labouring under the delusion" that (on the other swing of the pendulum) 'complete and utter governmental control of the populace' can only be a good thing... but a lot of people in the US seem to think just that; and the current state of the lack of freedom in the US IMHO is quite stifling both to personal and business growth. [[ I may not have all the facts, but I think you might be from the UK - of which the political situation there I'm certainly not be fully cognizant - and likewise, you may not be fully cognizant of the intricacies of the current state of US economy and politics... ]] I'm not saying "erase the chalkboard and let anarchy ensue" like another vocal individual in this forum -- but right now in the US most of the regulations (despite what those here with the 'liberal' moniker say) are actually geared towards the benefit of huge corporations and penalize small businesses, which is hurting our (US) economy. *Easing* (not removing) those regulations so that small businesses have an easier time to flourish IMHO can only be seen as a good thing. I guess what I'm trying to say is (kinda paraphrasing you) removing all freedoms doesn't insure that the government will be nice, either... Without rambling on _too_ much, the other thing I do have to say is this... Paraphrasing Plato: "Those smart enough to not enter politics are governed by those who aren't." ;-)

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

With very few exceptions, almost every response to you by any participant in this thread has been to question your conclusions. In [b]every[/b] case, you have been the one to deny the possibility there might be some substance to those responses. As you said, if the problem appears to be everyone else, it might not be them. Have a good one. I hope it doesn't hurt too much when reality bites.

adornoe
adornoe

the sane one, and everybody else is crazy. How is it possible that anyone could not see how the liberal stupidity got us into the messes we're in? What is happening now is that, we're paying a very heavy price for the idiotic policies perpetrated on the country by the idiotic liberals, including people like you who have been indoctrinated to the point you can't even think anymore. The facts are very easy to confirm, and all you need to do is look at the economy, look at the unemployment rate, look at the destruction in the housing market, look at how many businesses, big and small have had to shut down, look at how companies have had to move operations and jobs overseas, look at how expensive government has become, look at the messes that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security have become, look at how the number of poor have increased tremendously in the last few years, look at the number of people who have become homeless and can't even feed themselves, look at the number of people who have become dependent upon government to provide most or all of their needs; in short, open your eyes and look all around you. There is a huge difference between facts and opinions. What can be easily confirmed, are absolute facts. Opinion carries interpretation with it, and though the interpretations might deal with some of the facts, the facts won't be changed by those opinions. So, the unemployment rate, for example, can't be helped or changed by just claiming that, it's not as bad as it could've been. Perhaps your problem is that, you don't know how to tell the difference between opinion and facts. Or, perhaps your problem is that, your ideology has you permanently wired to deny the facts on the ground.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I think your opinion on this subject is ignorant, misguided, blind to actual fact, and at times flat out stupid.

adornoe
adornoe

and the facts are easily confirmed from what's actually happening or has happened on the ground. What has occurred in the economy and to countries around the world are the real facts, and theories and ideologies and policies which got us into the messes we're now suffering through, are the real facts about how to do things the wrong way. The liberal label is about those who have been the party that's been in control the most, and most social programs were enacted when the liberals were in control, and they controlled the congress for 40 straight years when a lot of the liberal stupidity was imposed on the U.S. Then there are the progressive policies which brought about the depression and the New Deal (raw deal, to those in the know), which have been plaguing this country since. The liberal label is actually pretty lenient, and the real label for those that have perpetrated so much damage on the country, should actually be socialists and communists. The policies and programs are pretty much in the same ballpark of what communist regimes had or have created in their countries. You may not like the facts, but they are reality.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

You believe "facts" are only facts when they come from sources of which you approve or confirm your opinions. You're worse than a moral relativist. And again you dig out the "liberal" label. If not being afraid of the truth, if not being afraid to consider ALL the information before I form an opinion, if not being afraid to [u]learn[/u], makes me a liberal in your eyes, so be it. Your opinion of me means less to me than something on the bottom of my shoe.

adornoe
adornoe

If so, then I suggest that you start smoking what I smoke. Look, there are way too many people out there who are convinced that they have the "facts", and that their version of "reality" is the truth. But, when it comes to how things really work, then your facts and your reality end up being no more truthful than a fantasyland. I'll give you another example of how a fantasy can become a reality to some people... There are over a billion people in the middle-east who believe that, their religion and their leaders are the way to heaven on earth, and they come up with groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood who want to destroy any other way of life, because, they're convinced that, theirs is the only way to live, and everything else is evil and the wrongful way of life. To them, there is one reality, and the western way of life is wrong and evil and. Your ideology, is somewhat similar, and there is nothing that can convince you that, there is a "better set of facts" and something that is "more real". Liberals are convinced that, their ideology (socialism, progressive policies) is the best way for a country, even after it's been a disaster everywhere their ideology has been tried. As a former liberal, I know exactly how you think. Now, I cannot believe that, I used to be that way.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

The one time you provided a list of facts, I agreed with most of them as the basis for this discussion. I have questioned your conclusions; that you see this as denial of the facts brings into question your ability to distinguish between fact and opinion. You, on the other hand, have consistently denied facts that I (and others) have presented, writing them off to whatever reason, usually intellectual deficiencies on the part of the person who posted them. If reality bites me, at least I'll recognize it..

adornoe
adornoe

I give you the facts, and you use your closed mind to deny them. I mention the facts out there in the real world, and you claim that I'm using fantastic beliefs. Notice a pattern? I even quote from one of the heroes of the left, and you call it fantasy. Sooner or later, you're going to have to realize that, your wrongheaded beliefs is the type that have destroyed this country and those in Europe and in Asia and South America. Someday, reality is going to bite you in the azz, but, your brain is ideologically wired toward denial of the facts, so, the consequences wont really matter to you, and you won't have learned anything. Hey, from now on, I'll be referring to you as Nick-AlwaysInDenial-Nielsen. It fits you quite nicely.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

to cling to your fantastic beliefs. And you accuse me of being closed-minded? The psychological term for that is 'projection, ' where one denies one's own faults and projects them onto others. Personally, I think you're an intellectual coward, afraid to consider anything that might disrupt your narrow, comfortable, know-it-all world view. I know you'll have a come-back for this one too, but that's all right. I've tried to consider that you have a valid point of view, and you actually might. But with the exception of only one or two posts, I've not been able to make sense of your rantings in this thread beyond your apparent belief that if we only allow those with enough money to keep more money, it will fix everything.

adornoe
adornoe

in detail to you. You still insist on going with cases of the past, and hypothetical situations, which are not the reality in the U.S.; not that anybody is aware of. And, if there is anybody that needs to heed the lessons from the past, it's you and the democrats, who don't understand, or refuse to understand that, big government and big social programs and government intrusion into the free markets have killed most economies of the past and the countries which practiced that socialism. Can you name one single country where socialism was the underlying economic system, and which survived for more than a few decades? Which country has ever been successful at making socialism work? While some might appear to be successful for a period of time, the fact is that, it's unsustainable in the long run. That's a historic fact, so it's you that needs to learn the lessons of the past. But, you don't even need to go far into the past, because, we're experiencing the downfall of the economies which allowed socialism to creep into the economy. So, when it comes to the one that has learned from the past, it would appear to be me, and you're still not even acknowledging that the past lessons are escaping your ideologically static mind. So, why are you having to reach into the railway past to try to make your point? Is it that you can't relate to the lessons of the present and of the relatively recent past? It seems that you're desperately seeking some points to clarify and justify your points, but, you're not paying attention to the reality on the ground when you become desperate. Try to study up on the real causes of the problems that we have today. Learn the lessons of the past, and try to apply them to today's problems. What ails the country is the failure to learn those lessons from history, and to then apply what's learned into not repeating the mistakes. What you and others advocate is the repeating of those mistakes, which means that, you haven't really learned the lessons of the past.

adornoe
adornoe

but, you're still not getting it. Statistics and their interpretation, are all dependent upon who does the study and what goals they wished to achieve with the study. The facts are undeniable that, the U.S. is still the country with the highest tax burden on corporations, and the burden that corporations have to endure are made worse by the massive number of regulations that they have to comply with, and the unions, and the government intrusion. Like I said, numbers are relative, and taxes are relative. There is a lot more than just the corporate taxes that businesses have to contend with. Not all corporations get the same breaks, and not all end up paying that much less than the 35%. The burden of the high corporate rates is evident by the number of lawyers and tax professionals that they need to hire in order to cut that burden, but, what they might save by means of lawyers and tax accountants, would have to be paid back towards supporting those lawyers and accountants. It's, save a dollar here which goes towards another expense caused by the original tax. What is real is the burden that businesses have when having to support expensive government programs, and that is evident in Europe and the U.S. and everywhere that government has become too big to be sustainable, and intrusive. Europe is failing; in fact, it's failed. The U.S. is failing; and we are in the same boat as the Europeans. Most of the reasons for the failures can be traced back to the heavy burden that are imposed on businesses by government. Big government programs are unsustainable, no matter what the underlying economic system for that country. Everything that's happened in the U.S. and in Europe, was predicted to happen, and it was just a matter of time before they became true. It a corporation pays any taxes at all, that's a burden, to the companies and to the consumer. That's a fact that cannot be explained away by quoting any numbers or statistics, or any interpretation of those statistics. The socialist policies which the U.S. and Europe have been practicing for the better part of the last 100 years, were unsustainable, and we're experiencing the repercussions of that stupidity. What you and that idiot from Salon advocate is more of the same idiocy which has ruined once great countries. The results of that idiocy are going to be hurting billions of people for decades, and many of those countries may never recover, and Greece and Portugal and Spain and Italy, will be in dire straits with no hope for at least a generation. The U.S. is in fact in the same condition, but, the people in Washington have been trying to hide the fact by spending and spending, which really just continues to get us into much deeper trouble. We will not be able to pay our debt for generations, and we won't be bringing the deficit down for at least 10 years, if ever. That is a disaster, and you are too blind to understand that. We have been on a downhill slide ever since the progressive movement took hold in the U.S., and though we had many periods of relative prosperity, the relentless growth of government and social programs and high taxes and regulations and government intrusion, was adding up to an end which was predicted, but which too many dismissed. The end is here, and we're going to have to start over. Even your liberal buddy, Paul Krugman (NY Times), has begun to recognize that, what's been happening to the country and to Europe is unsustainable and dangerous to the democracies involved. Paul Krugman: We're in a Depression as Democracy Under Siege Read more: Paul Krugman: We're in a "Depression as Democracy Under Siege" http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Krugman-Depression-us-Democracy/2011/12/12/id/420639?s=al&promo_code=DB1D-1 The problem with the Krugmans of the world is that, they were the main advocates for the stupidity which brought down those economies, and he and others like him will probably suggest more of the same stupidity Here's a little of what he's got to say: "The United States and Europe are stuck in a democracy-threatening depression and not merely recovering from a strong recession, says economist and New York Times economist Paul Krugman. Recessions are typically marked by downturns followed by relatively strong and clearly defined snapbacks. But today, unemployment rates remain stubbornly high in both the United States and in Europe, the latter of which may see returns to more authoritarian governments if better days don't return soon. That's somebody that finally recognizes that, the whole world is in deep trouble. But, he's got to figure out exactly what caused that trouble, and until he, and you, recognize the problems, you won't figure out the solutions. But, never mind, the world will be better off without your solutions and those of Krugman, because, your solutions will just make matters a lot worse. Wake up already!!!

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Start with Santayana Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it Though "will not" would appear to be nearer the mark in your case. Have alook at the impact of british investment in railways and opening up the US prairies, coupled with the UK government's Free trade proponents.... Child prostitution was a simple and relatively minor issue compared to the consequences of that lot. Some would argue WWI for starters....

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

How, then, do you arrive at some of your conclusions? The only rationale I can see for some of your conclusions, is, as I posted earlier, your agenda shades your thoughts. For example, you keep going on about high taxes; when called on it, you said that the rates are relative. How relative? And relative to what? The total tax load (federal, state, and local) on Americans is 26.9%, [b]59th[/b] overall in the world (source: World Bank). The Scandinavian social democracies, the successful economies of Germany, Switzerland, and Brazil, and the failing economies of France, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy all tax at higher rates. In the U.S., statutory income tax rates (both personal and corporate) are at their lowest levels since WW2; effective rates are even lower. Income tax collections reflect this: collections as a percentage of GDP are also at their lowest since WW2. Relative to GDP, corporate income tax collections in the 2000s were a quarter of what they were in the 1960s. Yes, the statutory corporate tax rate [u]is[/u] 35%. But the effective U.S. tax rate for the largest corporations is much less. The vast majority of Fortune 500 corporations pay at less than half that rate; many of them had [b]negative[/b] tax rates, meaning the government [u]paid them[/u]. And small businesses (usually S corporations), which really need the lower tax rates, pay tax at the owner's tax rate, which, while usually less than 35%, is greater than the effective 21% rate of the large corporations. Is it possible that there's more to economic success than just low taxes on businesses? You invent outcomes. Quoting from your reply to the article that started this thread: [i]So, in order to create jobs, the bill would "force" companies to take the overtime that's either paid or not, and create new jobs with that overtime.[/i] The bill does not state that companies cannot work their people longer than 40 hours, nor does it state that overtime is illegal, nor does it remotely imply either case. Nothing in this bill can be interpreted as forcing companies to hire more people. You even say that the bill doesn't state this, yet you come to this conclusion. How? When questioned, you stated a third-grader should be able to understand it. My third-grader niece read the bill, read your post, and said "I don't understand it. How can he think that if he knows how to read? You exaggerate. You keep citing unions as a cause of our current economic straits and a drag on the economy. In American business today, less than 7.2% of workers are union members. How, then, are unions a drag on the entire economy? Yes, unions are a drag on the automotive industry, but the unions didn't make the idiotic business decisions that have come out of Detroit in the past 4 decades. You attack the source or the person (or both) while ignoring the data: [i]I notice you blog at "Salon", net magazine with a rabidly left-wing agenda. Credibility is not a virtue which will ever precede what they do or what you do working for them.[/i] The remainder of that post is you questioning his thought processes and calling the data 'lies' because it doesn't support your conclusions. That's just one example. While I share your stated agenda of "a prosperous and growing economy that can be self-sustaining and that is able to provide for everyone that seeks to earn decent lifestyles", I fail to see how recreating the business environment of the Gilded Age will allow "everyone that seeks to earn" to actually earn.

adornoe
adornoe

your point. So, when is the last time that children were used to work in factories, at least here in the U.S.? There might exist some unknown cases, but it wouldn't be because it's standard practice, so, let's stick to the standard and real cases, not the hypothetical or the ugly past. And, there is nothing in what I said that says that everybody might play nice in a truly free market system. Not even close, and you're trying to read things into what I said that aren't there. Why not argue on the facts, and not on some off-the-wall interpretations of what you read? The facts are that, in every endeavor, business or leisure or family matters or government or politics, there will be differences of opinions, and many different decisions which people will make. We are humans, and not everybody was created equal, and not everybody will be as agreeable as one might wish, but, we all strive for a world where most can co-exist and live in relative peace and harmony, and that's the same kind of environment which is desirable and even attained in the workplace. Not everybody will play nice, and not everybody will be happy, but, nobody is forced into an environment which they have to accept. There is no delusion about how the real world works nor about how businesses operate nor about how some people can be evil while others might be saintly. However, freedom is about making one's own choices, and some of those choices can lead some in the wrong direction (the mean bosses), and others will choose to treat people with respect. It's not a perfect world, because, we're not a perfect species. However, the free market system is about using the skills of people to advance their own lot in life, and to elevate others while benefiting yourself. If there is no benefit, and everybody starts and stays equal, then the world will be much poorer because ambition will have been suppressed and progress won't be achievable with the lack of initiatives.

adornoe
adornoe

because, your problem seems to be that, you're disconnected from reality, or the capacity to understand the reality. Some undeniable facts: We are losing jobs to other countries and to foreign labor. We have high tax rates, for corporations and for employees, except on the poor who don't even pay taxes. We have a massive number of regulations which hinder business and job growth. We have government intrusion into the marketplace, which stifles economic growth. We have union labor which renders many companies uncompetitive against foreign competition. We have massive government spending on social programs. We borrow around $500 billion dollars a year so that the federal government can pay its bills. We have a national debt way over $15 trillion dollars, and increasing by about $100 billion per month. We have a national deficit of about $1.5 trillion dollars per year, and it continues to get worse because, the revenues collected cannot pay the bills due, and the only response that Washington has, is to borrow more, putting us into even deeper debt. When government takes more from the economy, there is less money available for companies to grow, and if a company is not growing, there won't be any new jobs. We have people and businesses having to spend a lot more money for transportation because of the high cost of energy, and we have to spend some $700 billion dollars a year to import our oil and other energy, while that money could be put to better use within our country to grow businesses and to create jobs, perhaps millions of jobs. Those above are facts; undeniable facts. There are many more problems which would take a book to write about. But, the problems are there, and it doesn't require an IQ of more than 50 to notice those problems. Forget the politics, and forget the ideology, and look at the facts and the reality. As long as we continue to believe that government and big government advocates can solve our problems, our problems will continue to mount and get bigger. So, look again, and you'll notice that there is absolutely nothing contradictory about anything I post.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Your argument is far from new. It's the same one that was used to justify children working for 10 hours a day in factories, on account it gave them something to do, instead of getting into mischief. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that given freedom, everybody will be nice, I don't suffer from that particular character flaw.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

[i]If you consider facts and reasonable analysis as MY gospel, then you are living in a different upside world.[/i] Finally, you understand. I [b]don't[/b] consider facts and reasonable analysis as your gospel. I consider that your gospel, as posted in this thread, has nothing whatsoever to do with either. It is self-contradictory, minimally supported by facts, and almost totally devoid of reasonable analysis. It appears to be based more on the fantasies of Glenn Beck than on actuality. You state 'real' facts, 'true' facts, and facts 'on the ground' as the sources for your conclusions, but provide no [u]actual[/u] facts to support those conclusions. When asked for such facts, you either don't respond at all, dodge the question, or accuse the questioner of being simple-minded or dense. If I had submitted anything like any one of your posts as a position paper in any of my high school or college English classes, I would have been laughed out of the room...by my classmates.

adornoe
adornoe

"He preaches a gospel of his own making." If you consider facts and reasonable analysis as MY gospel, then you are living in a different upside world. "Those of us who cannot ignore science, education, and real life experience" You are a riot! You are the exact opposite of what you profess to be. You don't use science, and you sound pretty much uneducated on the issues and on the real facts of life, and you only spout what you hear from the liberal news sources, which are blatantly biased and flawed in the coverage of the real world, and thus, what you spout as facts and science and truth, is nothing more than the filtered garbage which you are incapable of using your head to analyze and process and come up with your own results. You are, basically, the typical unthinking liberal who is only as useful as a dumb computer that can only do things with the method of "GIGO". "to join the true believers are to be reviled and castigated for our inability to see the 'truth' as spoken. " What you see is garbage, and of course, if you don't have a well-trained mind to analyze and question what is fed to you, then you will, like most illiterate and uninformed people out there, assume that, what you hear and read is "truth". I'm beyond the simple-minded acceptance of the "facts" (as you see it) that are fed to me. You need to question everything, with a real analytical and scientific approach. Anyone who doesn't do that is merely a mental midget, and after a while, begins to believe that, he's the only one that knows the "truth" and is educated better than those who dare to believe different from you, but who actually happen to understand the issues a lot better than you. You sound just like the typical liberal morons out there who believe that, their stances on the issues are superior to those that don't follow their liberal religion. Liberalism is highly illogical; and you are highly illogical and uninformed. Get out of your liberal bubble and try to get into the real world, and perhaps, then, you'll begin to understand how egotistical you sound and how wrong you have been. I was in the same boat as you are now, a long time ago, but, I've since grown out of that, and I look back, and I begin to feel sorry for people like you who refuse to think on their own. Only people with superior intellect have the right to be conceited, but you are very far from being that. However, even a person with a superior intellect would understand that, being conceited is anti-social. Nobody should go through life being conceited or anti-social. Live and learn, and you apparently haven't lived in the real world, and thus, you won't be able to learn.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

He preaches a gospel of his own making. Those of us who cannot ignore science, education, and real life experience to join the true believers are to be reviled and castigated for our inability to see the 'truth' as spoken.

adornoe
adornoe

because, even when you have been rebutted effectively, you still come back with nonsensical comments and non-contributory attacks. When it comes to the bill at hand, the assumptions are logical regarding the purposes, especially when the reasons for the legislation is not stated clearly. If government suddenly decided to make homeowners build fences around all their houses and property, would you just "assume" that they had good reasons for doing so? Wouldn't you want answers? Myself, well, I would try to figure out a reason that the legislators created the proposed bill, and then start asking the legislators the tough questions. I don't just accept things at face value. When any issue is unclear, one of the things that many people do is to do their own interpretation, and assumptions about what's not stated. Sometimes, that helps in clarifying the issues. But, in the current case, there is not much need for assumptions or interpretations, because, Obama and the democrats, and even some republicans, have stated the need to create more jobs, and they've hinted at where there could be many jobs, if only businesses would do what congress and the president wished they would do. Obama was very clear about how he felt about ATMs taking jobs from Americans, and he is also on record about farmers not using their children to labor on their farms. All of that is for the purposes of trying to create paid jobs where there is a perception of unpaid labor occurring. The perception also goes into the higher pay echelons in corporations, where many liberals believe that, if upper management would just take huge pay cuts, that the cuts could be used to create more jobs within those corporations. It doesn't work that way, but, it's a vote-getting tactic which democrats know how to exploit. Basically, dude, I like to use my head to think, and a lot of my thinking is based on what has transpired in the past. You should try to get educated on the issues, and then learn to approach the issues without agendas getting in the way.

adornoe
adornoe

because, what I stated has nothing to do with the current conditions; it's about how things could be if government would get out of the way, and taxes were lowered, and burdensome regulations were pulled back. So, even the labor regulations you mentioned, would have to be stripped and the American workers could be unleashed to become more productive to grow a great economy. With the conditions I mentioned, there probably wouldn't be a need to overwork anybody, and labor regulations wouldn't be needed except for the ones that relate to safety in the workplace and discrimination.

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

With your ability to write long and convoluted posts with so little to start with. Especially in light of your assertion that you do this without interpretation or assumptions! :-/

adornoe
adornoe

A tax rate is high when compared to what others offer. Thus, if another country offers 5% or 10% or even 0% tax in order to lure a business away from us, then, 35% is HUGE. It's all relative. People and companies tend to move towards what offers them the best environment, and anything that is lower than 35% is a huge motive to go there. However, you aren't considering long-term economics, which says that, the longer you have an economic condition which inhibits growth, then eventually, growth will dwindle and you'll end up with no growth at all, and perhaps no economy at all. So, while the corporate tax rates might have been higher in earlier times, those rates would have eventually caught up with the reality of unsustainable corporate budgets, and sooner or later, those high tax rates would have been killers to many companies. The only reason that we have big corporations right now is because the tax rate is not as high as in the past, and those corporations are now multi-national in scope, and their growth is not dependent upon just one set of circumstances or economic conditions in one country. If corporate America weren't allowed to do business overseas, and all of their operations were, by law, supposed to happen just in the U.S., then we wouldn't have the big corporations such as Apple and Microsoft and IBM and GE and Boeing and the many others. And, stop being so naive! Business is not about villains or heroes or greed. It's about making a good living with investments of time and money. A good living could also mean getting wealthy. But, while the wealth creation is happening, there is also the creation of jobs, which helps to lift the lifestyles of millions of others who would not have seen that benefit if there hadn't been a risk taking entrepreneur along the way to get things started. Like it or not, not everybody is going to have the innovations or ideas to get businesses started. The villains or heroes analogies have no place in consideration for starting a business. Evolution is not kind to all creatures, and it's not kind to the less able. But, there are humans who are more capable than others, and the others often become dependent upon the more capable. It's a fact of life, and that will never change unless God changes his mind and really makes everybody truly "equal" in all aspects.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Just make the ones you have, work harder, preferably for longer and less.... Ah damn, labour regulations.... You already import huge amounts of labour, it's cheaper...

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

Tax rates were much higher in the past and did not inhibit job creation. It seems to me that regardless of where you are wrt "Management" or "Union" human nature stays true - Grab all you can from the pile while it is in front of you. There are no villains or hero???s here, just folks trying to get by, operating off millions of years of evolutionary shaping.

adornoe
adornoe

doesn't change the facts about what free markets means. "...means no subsidies, no protection, no disabling or enabling practices" I agree completely, but, it's not a fault of the free market system, which we obviously have moved away from with the problems you mentioned, and which include, crony capitalism, which isn't a true free market system. If we did have a true free market system, none of the problems you mentioned above would exist. The problem, again, is not with the free market system; the problem is what has been done to damage the free market system. "If that isn't true (and I personally find the entire concept a fraudulent delusion) " I don't disagree with that, but, again, the fraud that compromised the free market system, was either created or allowed by government intrusion. " then we aren't discussing the impact of free market on the economy but a particular style of management." You are actually making my point, in a roundabout way. The free market is not about government intrusion nor about a certain type of management which circumvents the methods of the free market system. "After all there's a market, for child prostitues, slaves, mind altering substances, murder...." Exaggerations and worst case scenarios are not a way to win an argument. While you might be correct on many aspects regarding the "supposed" free market system, the problems which have been plaguing the system, are not emblematic of a true free market system. "Take your blinkers off, you'll see more." It's you that's needing to use exaggerations and worst case scenarios to try to make your points. There is nothing that I've said that is untrue about how a true market system should operate. The way it should operate is not the same as the way it's operating now, and that's not the fault of the system but of those that corrupted the system.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

means no subsidies, no protection, no disabling or enabling practices, enfored by any mechanism. If that isn't true (and I personally find the entire concept a fraudulent delusion) , then we aren't discussing the impact of free market on the economy but a particular style of management. After all there's a market, for child prostitues, slaves, mind altering substances, murder.... Take your blinkers off, you'll see more.

adornoe
adornoe

about what "free-market" means, but, there are also the real facts on the ground about what the free market system is and can do for a society. No system is perfect, and though capitalism isn't perfect and there will be corruption and government intrusion into the system, a free market is still the best economic system, and the only one that can produce enough wealth and growth to sustain a country, especially large countries with huge demands and a huge variety of industries.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

There has never been a free market, as soon as Ug figured out Son of Ug was making a profit out of coming home with a box of apples and wanted his cut... Import and export duties were the mainstays of financing kingdoms, they've always existed. There has bever been a free market. The managed economy was invented to pay for wars (most of which are entered for economic reasons), and to pay for social improvements to avoid a trip to Madam Guillotine. Read some history ffs.

adornoe
adornoe

about is the only reason you would lose a debate. Poking fun is not conducive towards an intelligent debate. If poking fun is what you're about, then I'd suggest that you leave the discussion to the adults. And, again, there is nothing I've said that is based on assumptions; it's mostly based on facts on the ground and reasonable conclusions based on the history of the people involved. Think above the surface of the issues; there are many underlying facts that people forget to analyze.

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

At how little you assume or interpret! I think rather than gently poke fun I shall take Nick's advice and conclude my business here...

adornoe
adornoe

because, a lot of Adam Smith's work is related to free-markets and capitalism, something which you seem to be against with your kind of posts. Much of what Smith talked about, referred to laborers, and how their desire to look after themselves, contributed to the greater welfare of economies and countries. Nobody is ever going to deny that without labor there could be prosperity. That would be asinine. But, labor without a purpose, is fruitless. And labor without productivity does not produce growth. That's where communism always fails. There is no desire to produce in a communism-based economy. It's everyone on his own, with productivity, if any, being absorbed into government directed social efforts, and thus, no real investment for growth. That's where Obama and the democrats (who are now, basically, socialists) fail to realize that, the economy will forever be shrinking if their economic plans were to ever be implemented. Adam Smith is the opposite of communism, and if he were alive today, he would be the first condemning the socialist policies of Obama and the democrats.

adornoe
adornoe

"Hard-working" people, do not create wealth, and the hard work can produce wealth, but only after an entrepreneur and/or investor has decided to make the sacrifice. Labor alone cannot produce wealth if the underlying purpose for the hard work didn't have a clearly defined mission, which mission was the idea that prompted the entrepreneur or investor to put up the investment and time and effort. Take 100 people, work them hard to move a pile of sand from one location A to location B, and check to see how much wealth that hard work has produced after many iterations of moving the dirt between locations. Even if the hard-working people are getting paid to move that dirt, they're not going to get wealthy, and neither is the person paying for that work, because, the mission is not well-defined and is completely worthless, and it's just a transfer of funds from the person paying the salaries to those doing the work. Nothing of value comes from that effort other than providing "make work" and some funds for spending by the workers, and the person paying the salaries is poorer for the effort. There is no productivity and nothing that will create value or wealth. That kind of work is what Obama and the democrats created with their stimulus package in 2009, and nothing of value was created, and in fact, the country ended up poorer and deeper in debt because of the stupidity.

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

what you post? First you assert "Labor does not create wealth." (Which is absurd, that is one of several tried and true methods.) This followed by - "Wealth is created by innovators and ideas and entrepreneurs and hard-working people." Hard-working people don't labor?

adornoe
adornoe

Wealth is created by innovators and ideas and entrepreneurs and hard-working people and by people who take risks with their investments. Labor comes after somebody has decided to take the risk, with their money and with their time. While labor will be required to complete the mission, no mission can ever get started without the investments of time and money. To many business owners, there is a high risk that a business won't ever become established for enough time to make it sustainable. Hence, most start-ups fail, but, for the persistent, there is always another day and another attempt. Labor has nothing to do with that kind of spirit. And, apparently, you don't understand what "free-market" means. The free-market is about a society where businesses are allowed to thrive and make profits and use those profits to further grow. Once government gets its grubby hands on the system, then the free-market won't perform as expected. At that point, where government gets involved and tries to create "fairness", then it's no longer a free-market system. Attempts at fairness, through government, eventually turns into full-scale socialism, and soon after, there won't be a free-market, and later, no economic growth, and later mass poverty. That's what's happening around the globe right now, where governments killed the golden goose with their interventions in order to create "fairness". The America you describe is not what real free-market proponents had or have in mind. There was a time when the free-market was unencumbered by massive government regulations and high-taxation. What America had, wasn't so dependent upon other markets, and protectionism. While it was a factor in certain sectors of the economy, it wasn't that much of an influence. What destroyed the true spirit of the free-market, was, again, government. Government can't lead an economy to prosperity, and what it ALWAYS ends up doing, is killing its underlying economy. The free-market can be "free" again, like it was supposed to be, but, there are way too many people with the entrenched idea that, an economy has to be "fair" to all. But, one thing for sure is that, a free-market system ends up being the most fair to all, by providing the wealth and jobs that no other system can even come close to doing.

adornoe
adornoe

for many companies, and oftentimes, they overlook the long-term health of a company in favor of short-term gains. However, short-term gains is how a company is judged, because, without the short-term gains, a company might not be able to survive in the long-term. It's a catch-22 situation that many businesses can't overcome.

adornoe
adornoe

where a company needs to create a product or service which will keep them competitive and profitable. But, the question in this sub-thread is about the number one priority of a business, and that is to provide earnings for the owner or owners. Without that profit, the company will shut down, no matter how nice a product or service they produced. That kind of company, which provides a nice product or service, but which can't turn a profit, is oftentimes a target for a takeover, and we've seen plenty of that in the past.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

No labour nothing to invest in.... This free market you believe in, this the one where you are free to market what you want, but other's aren't because that would be unfair to you? America has never believed in the free market, they've vbelived they should be given free access to markets despite centuries of protectionism, which have served you very well....

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

is not present in most B-school graduates of the last 30 years...

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

was to create a good or service of such desirable quality that in a free and open market it would beat out the competition thus yeilding a profit.

adornoe
adornoe

The fact is that, the people who do the investing in a business, are the people that need to be satisfied the most, and more urgently than the people who work in that business. The people doing the investing, are the people creating the jobs, which, I'm pretty sure, the workers are very appreciative about. But, without the investors getting a return for their investments, the business and the jobs, will disappear. So, priority number one, for any business, is for the company to return a profit, which belongs to the investors. No profit, no investors. No investors, no business. No business, no work and no workers. So, priority number 2, workers. It may sound heartless to a social programs advocate, but, it's still the best system around. Socialism always ends up failing to create the jobs to support an economy, and, in reality, capitalism and the free-market system, ends up being the best social program of all.

adornoe
adornoe

as far as overtime pay was concerned, and how I viewed it. However, most companies will disclose to a prospective employee what the responsibilities will be, and oftentimes, they'll also explain that there won't be overtime for the position being filled. If an employee accepts the position, then that employee has accepted that, there won't be overtime pay when they have to work the extra hours that the position might require. That's kind of like an unwritten contract. An hourly wage employee, should be compensated, because, it most likely is not a supervisor or management position. But, where a job requires constant overtime hours, the employer would've recognized that fact early and would've hired more workers, thus, eliminating overtime pay for many, which many employees then would be unhappy about. It's sort of like a catch-22 for businesses in that instance. When a person takes on an exempt position, they know that fact before coming to work the first day. No ifs, no buts, no ands. It's understood when the position is accepted. If all positions, professional, management, laborer, were to be treated equally as far as requiring overtime pay, then the whole economy for the country would be in a lot more trouble than it is now, and it probably would have been in dire straits a long time ago. Normally, exempt positions carry more responsibility and more pay, and if overtime hours are needed all the time to get the work done, then there is something wrong with the definition of that position, and, indeed, someone is taking advantage of the exempt employee, and that's why many employees in that kind of position tend to move on to other positions elsewhere. It's incumbent upon the employer to find the problems with the workforce and the staff and the positions, and fix them.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Don't think many companies would work out if they had to pay overtime to the people who make it all come together. That was a very well-crafted post, if you don't mind me saying so. But then, how do you see companies being forced to hire more people due to more positions being exempt from OT? Wouldn't it actually be that it lets companies stretch their resources better, and have better capacities for handling peak loads, since there's no economic drawback to throwing OT at the problems? (Let's disregard the fact that the bill in question probably only simplifies existing codes, and so probably doesn't expand the exemption from OT)

adornoe
adornoe

because, most of my working career, I've been exempt from overtime, and I probably worked more unpaid hours than anyone in IT. Even when I was getting paid $14,000 per year as "just" a programmer, I was called "management" and therefore, exempt from overtime pay. Didn't like it, but, accepted it. At the time, that salary was considered pretty good. Now, when I worked for major banks and for major insurance companies and for a TV shopping network, I never got overtime, even though I probably worked an average of 15 or more hours overtime. In fact, at the TV shopping network, my average day was for between 12 and 16 hours, and was on call 24 hrs a day. When called in, I never got compensated for it, and neither did I get time off as compensation. I would probably be exhibit 1 for the legislation in Washington. But, I also enjoyed what I did and didn't mind putting in the hours, even when it personally interfered with my personal life. I'm beyond that now, but I don't regret not getting paid for that overtime. I was appreciated, and I appreciated that they needed and trusted me with the responsibilities I had. Some of those positions were in management, and many of them were as a "grunt" or as programmer, or programmer/analyst or software architect or as project and department manager. No matter what the title, I haven't had overtime pay for over 30 years, but, I no doubt, put in many thousands of overtime hours with no pay. If I had gotten that overtime pay, my bank account would reflect wealth comparable to a millionaire. So, don't make assumptions, and I know pretty well what I'm talking about. I didn't end rich, and I didn't expect to end up rich. I was happy doing what I did, and I would likely do it again, and still without the requirement of overtime pay.

adornoe
adornoe

point? FOX itself, has many liberals working there, and one of them is actually in very high management, but they do have a lot of personalities reporting and reading the news, who are liberals. But, as a whole, FOX is not as progressive or liberal as the many other mainstream media. Now, can you identify any cable or regular broadcast network which is not heavily liberal in their reporting? How many other news sources can you name that are not liberal? The fact is that, when it comes to news sources, most reporters and news readers and writers, are liberal, admittedly so. They've been polled, and those polls show that, the media is mostly liberal, to the tune of around 90%, as opposed to around 10% or less NOT liberal. The facts are plain to see if people would just pay attention.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Or maybe it's that you don't have enough responsibility, or one of the other parameters. Anyway, if you knew how it works, by being exempt from OT yourself, you'd know that being exempt means doing the OT without compensation. There's no clause in the law prohibiting the company from assigning an exempt person tasks which will take them over normal work hours. In fact, being exempt from OT means that it's an accepted part of the job that sometimes there will be overtime, and that it goes with the territory. The regulations limiting the maximum work hours a person is allowed to take on still apply though, but that cap was there before, too.

adornoe
adornoe

This is not about rationalization or justifications. It's about facts, and conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from those facts. When the reasoning for certain actions aren't specifically spelled out for you, would you suppose that, the legislation was simply drawn to help the little abused laborer who slaves for more than 40 hours without "due" compensation? Why would legislators propose anything if there wasn't an underlying goal to be attained, sooner or later? Did you know that, there are people who are proposing that, farmers not be allowed to have their children assist in performing work around their farms? Obama and the democrats have been talking about that. Why would they even propose that farmers and their families not do business the way they've been doing it for centuries or forever?

adornoe
adornoe

If a bill is binding to all corporations, and there are people not getting compensated for overtime hours, those overtime hours "might" have to be converted into other "paid" positions, which means "new" jobs. That's what would make politicians look good, by "creating" jobs where there used to be none. No company can be forced to turn that overtime into a new paid positions, but, if they really needed those hours of work, then they would've created those new positions. If they are forced to cut that overtime, and people will only work the regular hours (40), then it's possible that production will take a hit. Putting conditions on how overtime will work (or not), is just, like I've said before, a crack in the doorway towards "enhancements" or "additional regulations" to give the legislation stronger enforcement rules which would force companies to eliminate unpaid overtime, and hopefully result in more paid positions. There have been many bills which congress has passed which might seem "innocent" and "well-meaning" in the beginning. But, those bills are entryways towards regulations which do a lot more than originally intended. That's what happened with banking regulations which gave us the CRA and its later enforcement rules, and that's what's happening with the EPA and it's unending number of regulations. Passing labor bills is just a means towards an end, and the end is oftentimes unstated and obscure.

adornoe
adornoe

"Your stuff usually only makes sense to people who watch Faux News' "the Hate Report" 24/7." Then, perhaps it's time that you actually start paying attention to FOX news, because, you apparently are not doing so. Getting news from the liberal mainstream media, and from the liberal talking points, is going to keep you ignorant and away from reality. "Anyone with a horizon wider than a single point will have severe trouble seeing eye to eye with you, man. You'll save yourself a lot of aggravation if you can just accept that." You sound like you've been reading the talking points memos of Obama and the democratic party's leadership committee, which, for the most part, sound just like the policy agenda of the old communist party of the old Soviet Union. Seeing eye-to-eye with that kind of agenda is not on my horizon, so, I will never be accepting of that stupidity. "We may be freaks," Glad you recognize how unlike normal people you are, but, perhaps you need to start speaking for yourself. "but you're not even wrong." I've been known to be wrong in the past, but on issues regarding economic matters, I'm hardly ever wrong. However, I'll never be wrong as often as you have been. Perhaps you need to stick to discussing IT matters and stay away from anything else.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

With or without pay? All the bill proposes is to modify [b]existing law[/b] that establishes the requirements a company must meet before it can require somebody to work overtime without additional compensation.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

usually only makes sense to people who watch Faux News' "the Hate Report" 24/7. Anyone with a horizon wider than a single point will have severe trouble seeing eye to eye with you, man. You'll save yourself a lot of aggravation if you can just accept that. We may be freaks, but you're not even wrong.

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

He is a rationalizing animal" R.A.H. This is based on your assertion that there aren't any assumptions or interpretations on your part.

adornoe
adornoe

reasonable conclusions that I draw from the legislation. If there is no cause, there is not effect. If the effect of the legislation was without cause, then the legislators would have been trying to fix a problem which never existed. The problem, to many legislators and Obama, is that, many companies are getting the benefits of people working overtime with no pay, which, if those extra hours were to be converted into paying jobs, then the unemployment figures would look better. The amount of work would probably not result in more productivity, because the number of hours worked would likely be the same, but, the number of jobs would be increased if those overtime hours were to result in actual "new" jobs. There is no doubt that there are many workers who were asked to produce more, with the same number of hours worked, or with additional hours required to get the work done. There are also many workers who "voluntarily" work longer hours just to try to keep their jobs, and keeping their jobs in this economy is of the utmost importance, because there is a huge lack of jobs out there and getting another one would be an almost impossible task to many. To legislators, especially the democrats and Obama, creating "new jobs" out of thin air, would be a big plus for their "resumes" going into the election season. That's why the "artificial number" of 8.6% unemployment was touted so much by Obama as being great news. Legislators are more into perception than reality, and reality would keep them from being re-elected, with the reality being that, real unemployment is actually around 20% and perhaps more. So, creating "new" jobs where there actually weren't any, would be a step in the right direction, for those legislators who favor the bill mentioned above.

adornoe
adornoe

But perhaps you are. The idea, which you are apparently unable to understand, is that, by preventing people from working overtime hours with no pay, that, perhaps many companies would be forced to create new positions, WITH PAY, if they actually needed to have those additional hours of work in their companies.

adornoe
adornoe

and not really having anything useful to contribute to the conversation. BTW, the stuff that I did state, is something that, even a third-grader should be able to understand, and, if you can't, then it's obvious that, you shouldn't even be here reading any of this stuff.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

that's classified. Filed under "stuff everyone but Adornoe is too dumb to understand". ;)

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

How does a bill ostensibly making MORE people eligible for [b]unpaid[/b] overtime, thereby reducing costs, "force" a company to hire more people?

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

There are many assumptions and interpretations upon which your thesis is based and they have no corresponding mention in article or legislation. E.g. In the above you assume that jobs will be created, but I can assume existing non-exempt folks will be made exempt and work those extra hours unpaid w/o creation of jobs.