Jump to content

The 40 Hour Work Week Hurts The Lowest Wages


Recommended Posts

The 40 hour work week is an arbitrary line in the sand. After 40 hours in a week, working for the same employer, an employee earns 50% more per hour. This policy hurts the lowest wage earners the most because employers are least likely to give the lowest skilled workers overtime. In fact, an intelligent employer will attempt to eliminate overtime altogether. Why on earth would an employer accept a 50% increase in the cost of labor if it could be avoided? Let's say Turd Furgeson needs 224 hours of dishwashing in his restaurant per week. For the sake of simplicity, all dishwashers make $12 per hour in this example. Also, for the sake of simplicity, people can be fractions.

 

Does it make more sense for Turd to hire 3.73 dishwashers and give them 60 hours per week, or does it make more sense for Turd to hire 5.6 dishwashers and give them 40 hours a week?

 

A. (3.73 dishwashers * 40 hours * $12 per hour) + (3.73 dishwashers * 20 hours * $18 per hour)

($1,790.40) + ($1,342.80)

$3,133.20

 

B. 5.6 dishwashers * 40 hours * $12 per hour

 

$2,688

 

Turd Furgeson is going to choose Option B, if he's smart. It's cheaper and it employs more people, so what's the problem?

 

Let's look at this another way: suppose Jose (racist!) is a dishwasher who makes $10 per hour. He gets 40 hours a week. For all you Al Gore fans out there, that's $400 a week (we're imagining that mythical Republican utopia where there are no taxes). Suppose Jose actually needs to make $600 a week to support his family. Turd Furgeson is a penny-pinching asshat and won't give Jose overtime, so Jose must go find another job. Now he must travel, spend additional money on gas or fares, spend additional time away from his family, just to work another 20 hours that he couldn't just work at his original job because of the 40 hour work week.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The 40 hour work week is an arbitrary line in the sand. After 40 hours in a week, working for the same employer, an employee earns 50% more per hour. This policy hurts the lowest wage earners the most because employers are least likely to give the lowest skilled workers overtime. In fact, an intelligent employer will attempt to eliminate overtime altogether. Why on earth would an employer accept a 50% increase in the cost of labor if it could be avoided? Let's say Turd Furgeson needs 224 hours of dishwashing in his restaurant per week. For the sake of simplicity, all dishwashers make $12 per hour in this example. Also, for the sake of simplicity, people can be fractions.

 

Does it make more sense for Turd to hire 3.73 dishwashers and give them 60 hours per week, or does it make more sense for Turd to hire 5.6 dishwashers and give them 40 hours a week?

 

A. (3.73 dishwashers * 40 hours * $12 per hour) + (3.73 dishwashers * 20 hours * $18 per hour)

($1,790.40) + ($1,342.80)

$3,133.20

 

B. 5.6 dishwashers * 40 hours * $12 per hour

 

$2,688

 

Turd Furgeson is going to choose Option B, if he's smart. It's cheaper and it employs more people, so what's the problem?

 

Let's look at this another way: suppose Jose (racist!) is a dishwasher who makes $10 per hour. He gets 40 hours a week. For all you Al Gore fans out there, that's $400 a week (we're imagining that mythical Republican utopia where there are no taxes). Suppose Jose actually needs to make $600 a week to support his family. Turd Furgeson is a penny-pinching asshat and won't give Jose overtime, so Jose must go find another job. Now he must travel, spend additional money on gas or fares, spend additional time away from his family, just to work another 20 hours that he couldn't just work at his original job because of the 40 hour work week.

 

 

Ughh! So we are pretending there is no payroll tax an health insurance right? Oh look at the pretty unicorn.

 

Get you head into the real world please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my day dishwashers were teenagers in high school, seeking some pocket money and not old Modern Liberals.

 

Times change. :lol:

 

I'm glad my employer doesn't care about overtime cause I got 62.5 hours in last week. :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Times change. :lol:

 

I'm glad my employer doesn't care about overtime cause I got 62.5 hours in last week. :ph34r:

I am exempt and not on an hourly wage yet can't help thinking that progressives want the minimum working age for their children to be 25 if you aren't an undocumented worker. Families would force their kids to work if not for easy food stamps Obama is promoting the heck out of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am exempt and not on an hourly wage yet can't help thinking that progressives want the minimum working age for their children to be 25 if you aren't an undocumented worker. Families would force their kids to work if not for easy food stamps Obama is promoting the heck out of.

 

I spent 15 years exempt in management. :lol: Now it's OVERTIME!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 40 hour work week is an arbitrary line in the sand. After 40 hours in a week, working for the same employer, an employee earns 50% more per hour. This policy hurts the lowest wage earners the most because employers are least likely to give the lowest skilled workers overtime. In fact, an intelligent employer will attempt to eliminate overtime altogether. Why on earth would an employer accept a 50% increase in the cost of labor if it could be avoided? Let's say Turd Furgeson needs 224 hours of dishwashing in his restaurant per week. For the sake of simplicity, all dishwashers make $12 per hour in this example. Also, for the sake of simplicity, people can be fractions.

 

Does it make more sense for Turd to hire 3.73 dishwashers and give them 60 hours per week, or does it make more sense for Turd to hire 5.6 dishwashers and give them 40 hours a week?

 

A. (3.73 dishwashers * 40 hours * $12 per hour) + (3.73 dishwashers * 20 hours * $18 per hour)

($1,790.40) + ($1,342.80)

$3,133.20

 

B. 5.6 dishwashers * 40 hours * $12 per hour

 

$2,688

 

Turd Furgeson is going to choose Option B, if he's smart. It's cheaper and it employs more people, so what's the problem?

 

Let's look at this another way: suppose Jose (racist!) is a dishwasher who makes $10 per hour. He gets 40 hours a week. For all you Al Gore fans out there, that's $400 a week (we're imagining that mythical Republican utopia where there are no taxes). Suppose Jose actually needs to make $600 a week to support his family. Turd Furgeson is a penny-pinching asshat and won't give Jose overtime, so Jose must go find another job. Now he must travel, spend additional money on gas or fares, spend additional time away from his family, just to work another 20 hours that he couldn't just work at his original job because of the 40 hour work week.

 

 

 

 

Except that's not the way it used to be.

 

A long time ago, in the real America I grew up in, not the selfish to-hell-with-you-and-I-get-everything-no-matter-whom-I-hurt America of today, 40 hours was standard, along with overtime, and no employer I ever heard of cut hours to avoid overtime. It wasn't done. That's because employers and employees repsected one another.

 

When you respect someone then ask him to do something for you, he will do his level best. In the case where that refers to hiring someone, you show your hire that he is important to you, that his work is important, and he'll put everything he has into doing well for you. But if you show him that you wish you didn't have to have employees in the first place, he's not going to do anything approaching his best. Maybe cons will learn this one day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no the bottom line is king. no matter who you hurt. just look at walmart always low wages. yeah they have good bargains. but at the employees expense.

 

and most of walmart workers are on public help.

 

employees used to be respected. not anymore. they are a means to an end now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Working 40 hours a week is easy if you have no family to care for. No spouse, no children. But if you do, Then it gets a good deal harder.

What???? :lol:

 

no the bottom line is king. no matter who you hurt. just look at walmart always low wages. yeah they have good bargains. but at the employees expense.

 

and most of walmart workers are on public help.

 

employees used to be respected. not anymore. they are a means to an end now.

You should be GRATEFUL profit is the bottom line because it makes for the most efficient use of resources... Something dopey progressives have forgetten about ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. :lol:

 

^^^^^Inefficiency is part of the reason why centralized economies FAIL every time BTW....

Link to post
Share on other sites

your just another worker bee just like me. working for the queen of our hives.

I have no issue with that. After 15 years in management including 9 as a GM, I'm enoying just clocking in and out and actually getting paid for every hour I work. :lol:

 

If I wanted to start a business I would have invested that 70K cash I paid on my education.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 40 hour work week is an arbitrary line in the sand.

Oh, look. Someone is spewing think tank koolaid, and thinking himself clever for having read and passed on a HALF clever lie.

 

If you look at what it costs extra per hour to pay HALF of minimum wage, you're looking at less than 4 bucks. Let's just use 8 bucks an hour as the minimum, for simplicity. If an employer needs his workers to put in more than 60 hours per week, then he'll almost certainly hire more workers.

 

So let's say we have an employer who wants 60 hours from his minimum wage employees. This is VERY rare, but let's just say it. Those extra 20 hours are gonna cost him 80 stinking bucks. 80 bucks. Let's say he has 6 crew members. That's 480 bucks extra, per week.

 

Now, if he had to hire three more guys to handle those 120 hours, it would have cost him 960 bucks. Letting his six guys handle it at OT costs him 1380. But he also has insurance on three more guys. He also has the upfront expense of training them. He also is liable for more peoples' actions. His unemployment goes up.

 

If you think that OT prevents minimum wage employers from letting their guys get extra time, you have never managed crews, son. Smart guys build a business to be profitable, not so marginal that a minimum wage worker getting OT is gonna make em bleed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issue with that. After 15 years in management including 9 as a GM, I'm enoying just clocking in and out and actually getting paid for every hour I work. :lol:good point.

 

If I wanted to start a business I would have invested that 70K cash I paid on my education.

 

good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good point.

I essentially ran a business for 9 years. I KNOW how to get it started and grow it. I also KNOW how much work it takes and with a nice 25 foot pool in the back yard and a hot tub on the deck, life is too short. :lol:

 

 

That's starting to be your little catch phrase.

 

When you find yourself using catch phrases, you are starting to sound like goofy.

I think it fits. Sometimes it's obvious when people are heavy drug users and sometimes not. Progressives are always easy to spot because they start out with a brain deficiency to start out with.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it fits. Sometimes it's obvious when people are heavy drug users and sometimes not. Progressives are always easy to spot because they start out with a brain deficiency to start out with.

 

Fine. Just seems a little lazy and repetitive - also smacks of pattern, of ideology. Throw out a label, throw out a canned critique, phone it in, phone it in...

 

It has a real strawman feel to it. It's generic, and refering to no one in particular, just some "camp" that you don't like. Doesn't take much thought. "Here is my side's position, and your side's position," that sort of thing.

 

You don't feel a little lazy, posting that way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a job and a wife with kids isn't a walk in the park. Sorry, I thought you understood that.

Oh man.... You think the government should just hand you a check since it's such "hard" work? I mean ya... husband, father AND have to work 40 hours a week? How does anyone do it? :huh:

 

 

Fine. Just seems a little lazy and repetitive - also smacks of pattern, of ideology. Throw out a label, throw out a canned critique, phone it in, phone it in...

 

It has a real strawman feel to it. It's generic, and refering to no one in particular, just some "camp" that you don't like. Doesn't take much thought. "Here is my side's position, and your side's position," that sort of thing.

 

You don't feel a little lazy, posting that way?

Whatever dopey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man.... You think the government should just hand you a check since it's such "hard" work? I mean ya... husband, father AND have to work 40 hours a week? How does anyone do it? :huh:

Oh, I see. You DO strawman, all the time. And being called on it bugs you.

 

Okay, I get it. How could I forget your pathetic style - you cannot answer actual posts at al. You just answer the strawmen in your head.

 

You would cause less confusion if you just posted your irrelevant spam without hitting "reply" to posts you do not actually even address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. You DO strawman, all the time. And being called on it bugs you.

 

Okay, I get it. How could I forget your pathetic style - you cannot answer actual posts at al. You just answer the strawmen in your head.

 

You would cause less confusion if you just posted your irrelevant spam without hitting "reply" to posts you do not actually even address.

Ya... I mean it's hard work being a husband, father AND work 40 hours a week. I think we should have some type of government program so fathers/husbands won't have to work!

 

Hell, work is hard regardless. I think the government should just print money and hand it to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya... I mean it's hard work being a husband, father AND work 40 hours a week. I think we should have some type of government program so fathers/husbands won't have to work!

If that is what YOU think, strawboy, fine.

 

Just don't project it onto others.

 

THIS is what the fellow you "replied" to actually SAID, strawboy:

 

Having a job and a wife with kids isn't a walk in the park. Sorry, I thought you understood that.

Now, show us where he said the government should cut him a check, you preposterous and transparent partisan hack fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is what YOU think, strawboy, fine.

 

Just don't project it onto others.

 

THIS is what the fellow you "replied" to actually SAID, strawboy:

 

 

Now, show us where he said the government should cut him a check, you preposterous and transparent partisan hack fraud.

Isn't that the dopey progressive solution ot EVERYTHING? :huh: Just thought I'd beat him to the chase.....

 

Life sure is hard. I need some government relief.... :lol:

 

The funny part is.....father=voluntaryhusband=voluntarywork=voluntary:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...