Jump to content

The 40 Hour Work Week Hurts The Lowest Wages


Recommended Posts

Thanks. Glad there are some on this site that are intelligent enough to understand.

 

So....factor in the cost of employment. Say it costs an employer 50% more on top of hourly wage to maintain an employee. For an $8 per hour job, that means straight time costs the employer $12 per hour, and overtime costs the employer $18 per hour.

 

Run the numbers.

Option 1. One employee, 40 hours of straight time and 20 hours of overtime.

(40 hours * $12 per hour) + (20 hours * $18 per hour)

$480 + $360

Total cost: $840

 

Option 2. Two employees, 60 hours of straight time

60 hours * $12 per hour

Total cost: $720

 

That's a difference of $120 per week. That's going to quickly overcome whatever cost was incurred to hire another employee, especially at the wage level we are talking about.

 

Of course, you are always free to prove me wrong.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

 

So....factor in the cost of employment. Say it costs an employer 50% more on top of hourly wage to maintain an employee. For an $8 per hour job, that means straight time costs the employer $12 per hour, and overtime costs the employer $18 per hour.

 

Made up numbers. You need to back up the "50% mor" figger - and you cannot.

 

Why not make an $8.00 employee cost 24 per hour, so you can then make overtime $36.00 per hour? :rolleyes:

 

I ran the math straight, and you cried. Then you present this cooked up, crooked crap based on ass-source assumptions and then defying us to prove a negative.

 

Let's take another cut, tard. Let's say I give a $10.00 per hour employee 10 hours of OT per week. That has him working 50 hours for 550 bucks. That's 11.00 per hour: A 10% bump in hourly wage. If the employer's labor cost at straight time is 25% of COGS, this raises it to 27.5% of COGS.

 

NOW, HERE IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT: If these employees are good enough to merite overtime, they are PROBABLY productive enough to offset that 2.5% bump in labor vs. COGS.

 

I've actually DONE this stuff, son. I've actually awarded OT based on productivity/merit. It pays for itself in espririt de corp, and it's actually cheaper than having a bunch of numnuts fouling your operation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One worker costs 80 bucks more, rather than assigning those hours to another at straight time. I used six workers in my example.

 

That's 480 bucks extra, per week.

 

Math. It isn't political.

 

Yes, I understand what you did. I detailed it quite thoroughly in my first response. The part you are leaving out is when you go on to conclude:

 

Now, if he had to hire three more guys to handle those 120 hours, it would have cost him 960 bucks.

 

The problem with your math is the equation is not balanced. You took out $8 per hour when calculating the overtime rate, leaving a rate of $4 per hour. You said as much in the post I'm responding to:

 

One worker costs 80 bucks more, rather than assigning those hours to another at straight time.

 

But you went ahead and proceeded to assign those hours to another at straight time anyway, claiming that hiring 3 more guys would cost $960 for the 120 remaining hours. That $960 has already been accounted for, by your own admission, by calculating the overtime rate at $4 per hour, instead of $12 per hour. You are underestimating costs at one end and not making an equal adjustment at the other. Sounds like last night, when I was 69-ing your mom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, obvious that very few here understand running a business. Now keep in mind as usual I didn't wade through 51 posts of this thread. OT is pretty damned simple, it actually has a name on the payroll side of the business. It is called EQST or Equivalent Straight Time. Ya know, like 10 hours of overtime is equal to 15 hours straight time.

 

In low skilled jobs it is cheaper for the employer to simply hire more and pay no overtime, in skilled positions is is more economical to pay overtime as required. On skilled positions you have much more to consider than just the wage, there are higher benefits associated also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I understand what you did. I detailed it quite thoroughly in my first response. The part you are leaving out is when you go on to conclude:

 

Now, if he had to hire three more guys to handle those 120 hours, it would have cost him 960 bucks.

 

The problem with your math is the equation is not balanced. You took out $8 per hour when calculating the overtime rate, leaving a rate of $4 per hour. You said as much in the post I'm responding to:

 

One worker costs 80 bucks more, rather than assigning those hours to another at straight time.

 

But you went ahead and proceeded to assign those hours to another at straight time anyway, claiming that hiring 3 more guys would cost $960 for the 120 remaining hours. That $960 has already been accounted for, by your own admission, by calculating the overtime rate at $4 per hour, instead of $12 per hour. You are underestimating costs at one end and not making an equal adjustment at the other. Sounds like last night, when I was 69-ing your mom.

 

No, I am not. You are delusional.

 

What you are saying occured manifestly did not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Made up numbers. You need to back up the "50% mor" figger - and you cannot.

 

Why not make an $8.00 employee cost 24 per hour, so you can then make overtime $36.00 per hour? :rolleyes:

 

I ran the math straight, and you cried. Then you present this cooked up, crooked crap based on ass-source assumptions and then defying us to prove a negative.

 

Let's take another cut, tard. Let's say I give a $10.00 per hour employee 10 hours of OT per week. That has him working 50 hours for 550 bucks. That's 11.00 per hour: A 10% bump in hourly wage. If the employer's labor cost at straight time is 25% of COGS, this raises it to 27.5% of COGS.

 

NOW, HERE IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT: If these employees are good enough to merite overtime, they are PROBABLY productive enough to offset that 2.5% bump in labor vs. COGS.

 

I've actually DONE this stuff, son. I've actually awarded OT based on productivity/merit. It pays for itself in espririt de corp, and it's actually cheaper than having a bunch of numnuts fouling your operation.

 

You're making my point. Overtime is "awarded" because it is special. If it was so much cheaper for the employer to pay overtime, why would he need to "award" it? It would be in his best interest to let everyone work as much as they wanted.

 

It's more expensive to pay overtime, which is why it's reserved as "awards" for productivity and/or merit, as you so eloquently explained. If there wasn't a mandated 40 hour work week and overtime pay, employers might be more likely to give hours to lesser skilled, and thus lower wage, workers. As a result, the 40 hour work week hurts the lowest wages the most. Thanks for proving that one for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Made up numbers. You need to back up the "50% mor" figger - and you cannot.

 

Why not make an $8.00 employee cost 24 per hour, so you can then make overtime $36.00 per hour? :rolleyes:

 

I ran the math straight, and you cried. Then you present this cooked up, crooked crap based on ass-source assumptions and then defying us to prove a negative.

 

Let's take another cut, tard. Let's say I give a $10.00 per hour employee 10 hours of OT per week. That has him working 50 hours for 550 bucks. That's 11.00 per hour: A 10% bump in hourly wage. If the employer's labor cost at straight time is 25% of COGS, this raises it to 27.5% of COGS.

 

NOW, HERE IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT: If these employees are good enough to merite overtime, they are PROBABLY productive enough to offset that 2.5% bump in labor vs. COGS.

 

I've actually DONE this stuff, son. I've actually awarded OT based on productivity/merit. It pays for itself in espririt de corp, and it's actually cheaper than having a bunch of numnuts fouling your operation.

 

What you've said makes sense, but people working at $8/hr don't get insurance, unemployment, and extensive training. They get minimal on the job training and nothing else. When you get to more skilled, higher paying jobs what you're saying applies because skill, experience, and costs other than wages come into play, but w'ere not talking about those types of jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, obvious that very few here understand running a business. Now keep in mind as usual I didn't wade through 51 posts of this thread. OT is pretty damned simple, it actually has a name on the payroll side of the business. It is called EQST or Equivalent Straight Time. Ya know, like 10 hours of overtime is equal to 15 hours straight time.

 

In low skilled jobs it is cheaper for the employer to simply hire more and pay no overtime, in skilled positions is is more economical to pay overtime as required. On skilled positions you have much more to consider than just the wage, there are higher benefits associated also.

 

This is not necessarily true at all. I ran pizza joints. I found it far more cost effective to work strong guys 20 hours per week at OT than to hire half again the staff and put up with bungling.

 

If I had hired enough guys to run a straight time operation, I would have been infested with clowns, AND I would not have kept my best workers. Getting high productivity at low wages means attracting and retaining staff that are worth their salt. Somehow, some way, folks like that have to make a decent living if you wanna keep em.

 

I ran 25% net labor (before fico feeco fucko) - that includes my line level cost and the cost of my management team. EVERYONE on my team made mad OT. Offering mad OT gave me a market efficiency: I had damned good, well motivated, cross-trained workers that I was able to retain in an industry notorious for turnover. I recommend OT to all of my patients who chew gum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You had the cradle to grave teat in the military, son - and all those 40 hour guys were picking up the tab.

 

You're welcome for my service, mother fucker. :)

 

Cradle to grave huh.....

 

Fortunately, I'm appreciative of your contributions to my college education, roughly a million dollars in training, buying trainers and F16's for us, and all the other associated goodies. It is sincerely appreciated. Of course I'm sure your butt wasn't in the drivers seat for thousands of hours flying multi-million dollar tax payer equipment and putting your ass on the line everytime you flipped the guard and hit the start button. Doubt you were out on training missions all over the world, getting shot at in two wars and a little skirmish in the Balkans, were you? Nope, you were riding the pine, playing Monday morning quarterback, and whining about how tough things are.

 

But, as it pertains to this OP - I've never experienced a 40 hour work week, and still do not to this day. Always viewed that as a break even point, in my experience, successful people always work more than that. Good or bad, it is what it is. Enjoy your 40, and thanks again for your contributions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're making my point. Overtime is "awarded" because it is special. If it was so much cheaper for the employer to pay overtime, why would he need to "award" it? It would be in his best interest to let everyone work as much as they wanted.

 

It's more expensive to pay overtime, which is why it's reserved as "awards" for productivity and/or merit, as you so eloquently explained. If there wasn't a mandated 40 hour work week and overtime pay, employers might be more likely to give hours to lesser skilled, and thus lower wage, workers. As a result, the 40 hour work week hurts the lowest wages the most. Thanks for proving that one for me.

 

And you are making my point. No one denies that half-again the wage is half-again the wage for over 40. What I am denying is that it "hurts workers," you koolaid-spewing snot nose.

 

You would have to be able to prove - or at least convincingly argue - that there are lots of employers withholding hours because of OT. You cannot. As I already showed, 10 hours of OT raises a worker's effective hourly wage by a mere 10%, which at 25% labor raises the labor against COGS 2.5%, AND THAT IS ONLY IF YOU IGNORE THE EFFICIENCIES BUILT INTO KEEPING BUSY HANDS BUSY. There are other factors that weight in favor of the employer being able to absorb OT better than being able to train and retain a bigger crew.

 

So you argument that "workers are hurt" is not only unproved - you haven't even started taking a crack at it. You're spewing think tank koolaid like an unoriginal hump.

 

 

But, as it pertains to this OP - I've never experienced a 40 hour work week, and still do not to this day. Always viewed that as a break even point, in my experience, successful people always work more than that. Good or bad, it is what it is. Enjoy your 40, and thanks again for your contributions.

 

 

 

Sorry, pal. I also do not work 40. Wish I could.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannonpointer: You suck at math. DrNo's math is correct and it is cheaper to have an extra employee in the given scenario.

 

Shintao: You calling anyone else a "Lard Ass" is the epitome of Irony. Thanks for the Chuckle

 

LisaB: Please just stop posting, I know I said you weren't but you are in fact a moron. Child Molesters are useless and would be better off being killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, obvious that very few here understand running a business. Now keep in mind as usual I didn't wade through 51 posts of this thread. OT is pretty damned simple, it actually has a name on the payroll side of the business. It is called EQST or Equivalent Straight Time. Ya know, like 10 hours of overtime is equal to 15 hours straight time.

 

In low skilled jobs it is cheaper for the employer to simply hire more and pay no overtime, in skilled positions is is more economical to pay overtime as required. On skilled positions you have much more to consider than just the wage, there are higher benefits associated also.

 

Yes...that is my point. Low skilled, low wage jobs suffer most as a result of the 40 hour work week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannonpointer: You suck at math. DrNo's math is correct and it is cheaper to have an extra employee in the given scenario.

 

Are you illiterate?

 

How the fuck would it not be cheaper to pay straight time - derr. That is not our disagreement. Try actually reading, because you suck at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes...that is my point. Low skilled, low wage jobs suffer most as a result of the 40 hour work week.

But what is your point beyond that? Are you saying we should do something, because all that really means is that they either are young and hopefully working on getting a better career or are old and fucked up somewhere and don't deserve the help. Life when it comes to a career is simple and everyone is already given so many chances to try and try again. Community college is reasonably cheap, and there is so much assistance even if you can't afford it there is no reason that people can't get at least an AA. They just pick a stupid subject to get it in therefore repeating their own cycle.

 

 

Are you illiterate?

 

How the fuck would it not be cheaper to pay straight time - derr. That is not our disagreement. Try actually reading, because you suck at that.

Are you illiterate then? That's not what DrNo was arguing and not what the OT was about. Your math and the way you tried to explain it was fucking wrong. Just admit you screwed up loser.

 

Try reading you stupid fat fuck. I don't have time to hold your hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I hate to tell ya this but low skilled workers are always gonna have shit jobs, they are never gonna make shit, and they will always lead shitty lives.

 

There is a price to pay for being stupid and/or lazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you illiterate then? That's not what DrNo was arguing and not what the OT was about. Your math and the way you tried to explain it was fucking wrong. Just admit you screwed up loser.

 

Try reading you stupid fat fuck. I don't have time to hold your hand.

 

Son, two things:

 

1. If you think I claimed that 15 is less than 10, you're retarded.

2. The argument is not whether 15 is more than 10. The argument is whether low wage workers are hurt more than helped by OT laws. Your girlfriend has not even TRIED to sustain her argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And you are making my point. No one denies that half-again the wage is half-again the wage for over 40. What I am denying is that it "hurts workers," you koolaid-spewing snot nose.

 

You would have to be able to prove - or at least convincingly argue - that there are lots of employers withholding hours because of OT. You cannot. As I already showed, 10 hours of OT raises a worker's effective hourly wage by a mere 10%, which at 25% labor raises the labor against COGS 2.5%, AND THAT IS ONLY IF YOU IGNORE THE EFFICIENCIES BUILT INTO KEEPING BUSY HANDS BUSY. There are other factors that weight in favor of the employer being able to absorb OT better than being able to train and retain a bigger crew.

 

So you argument that "workers are hurt" is not only unproved - you haven't even started taking a crack at it. You're spewing think tank koolaid like an unoriginal hump.

 

My argument isn't actually "workers are hurt."

 

My argument is low wage, low skill workers are hurt by the 40 hour work week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I hate to tell ya this but low skilled workers are always gonna have shit jobs, they are never gonna make shit, and they will always lead shitty lives.

 

There is a price to pay for being stupid and/or lazy.

 

A corrollary: If you want good people to work those shiit jobs, you gotta give em some OT to keep em on. Otherwise, you are only gonna attract riff raff. If you wanna compete with Mickey Dees for workers, refuse OT.

 

 

My argument isn't actually "workers are hurt."

 

My argument is low wage, low skill workers are hurt by the 40 hour work week.

 

That is your CLAIM. You have made no argument in favor of it, other than pointing out that 15 is more than 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life, they are hurt. Ask Julio down by the schoolyard if he would rather have 42 hours which pays 43 EQST or would he rather have 50 straight time hours.

 

Now you gotta ask Julio, don't bother with Travonique.



 

A corrollary: If you want good people to work those shiit jobs, you gotta give em some OT to keep em on. Otherwise, you are only gonna attract riff raff. If you wanna compete with Mickey Dees for workers, refuse OT.

 

Not as long as we are overrun by mesicans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life, they are hurt. Ask Julio down by the schoolyard if he would rather have 42 hours which pays 43 EQST or would he rather have 50 straight time hours.

 

Now you gotta ask Julio, don't bother with Travonique.

 

This is loaded down with an unproved assumption. I already gave a real life example that refutes it. Your shiit is made up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Son, two things:

 

1. If you think I claimed that 15 is less than 10, you're retarded.

2. The argument is not whether 15 is more than 10. The argument is whether low wage workers are hurt more than helped by OT laws. Your girlfriend has not even TRIED to sustain her argument.

First thing that tells me if a man is an idiot or not. He refers to people younger than himself as "son" because of some ass backwards way of thinking that it makes him sound wise.

 

1. Where did I say that? All I claimed is you did simple arithmetic wrong.

2. You really can't read for shit. Also your insults suck, this isn't 2001 when calling someone a f@ggot on the internet actually gets a rise out of someone. Join the times gramps because again I don't have the time nor patience to guide you through the nuances of modern flame wars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing that tells me if a man is an idiot or not. He refers to people younger than himself as "son" because of some ass backwards way of thinking that it makes him sound wise.

 

1. Where did I say that? All I claimed is you did simple arithmetic wrong.

2. You really can't read for shit. Also your insults suck, this isn't 2001 when calling someone a f@ggot on the internet actually gets a rise out of someone. Join the times gramps because again I don't have the time nor patience to guide you through the nuances of modern flame wars.

 

Son, I don't call you "son" to sound wise. I actually fucked your whore mother, son.

 

1. I did arithmetic right, which is why you never hit "reply" on anything I actually said, you retarded fucknuts. :)

2. Faggot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is loaded down with an unproved assumption. I already gave a real life example that refutes it. Your shiit is made up.

 

 

come on now, working in a pizza joint does not require high skill, therefore, labor is plentiful. Ask John Schnatter.

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...