Pay threshold for managers to rise to 50K

[JackReacher]

Do some of you pat yourselves on the back after posting? I bet you do.

 

[doctorquant]

Do some of you pat yourselves on the back after posting? I bet you do.

Baron does if he's on the clock ...

 

[The Big Ragu]

It has to do with way more than Obamacare. But that mealy generalized argument isn't even a good argument. The U.S. economy isn't doing very well. Even using their own bullshirt PCE inflator to boost the official GDP number and make it greater than the reality of what the economy is doing. ... our economy shrunk last quarter. ... using the OFFICIAL bullshirt measure. We may be in a recession. We are certainly still in a depression.

And the employment situation in the U.S. is not very good. The U-3 number that makes headlines is meaningless to all of the people who have given up looking, are out of work or are working part-time jobs. 93 million American adults are NOT working -- and millions more are working part-time.

Again, there are way too many things forking up our economy to attribute this simply to "Obamacare" or "not Obamacare." ... but the number of part-time employees -- who are considered "employed" when you read the U-3 number, has increased dramatically during the time of Obamacare's implementation. It's a number that keeps rising. That would certainly be logically consistent with an effect you'd expect that law to have.

I won't make a causal relationship. There are way too many factors that affect employment levels to do that. But at the same time, I don't see how anyone -- given the state of the U.S. economy and how many people can't find work or enough work -- can sarcastically suggest that economically Obamacare hasn't hurt anyone! People are hurting. To what extent that particular regulation is hurting people in the aggregate is still working its way through, relative to other things that have hurt people.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

Having worked in retail, I'm with cranberry. National companies that ask for 60 hour work weeks because their management teams are so crucial ought to be able to pay those mangers $50K. It's not that much money, these aren't small businesses crippled by regulation, these are big companies trying to abuse the manager rule to avoid paying OT. As long as the 40-hour week is law, they shouldn't be able to do that. If this position isn't crucial, pay it accordingly. If its so key to your operation that you need it more than the normal 40 hours, pay it accordingly.

 

[JayFarrar]

GF makes just a little under the threshold and is salaried.

Was told today that if the COLA doesn't have her past the mark, she'll get a bump to get her over the overtime/no overtime hump.

So that's one anecdotal example of a person getting a raise. Thanks Obama!

 

[Ace]

Do some of you pat yourselves on the back after posting? I bet you do.

I had to stop. Too much back bruising.

 

[amraeder]

I had to stop. Too much back bruising.

Outing alert: Ace is Alexei Nikolaevich

 

[cjericho]

If managers at McD's are going to get 50k, how many will leave their shop and head to the golden arches?

 

[Twirling Time]

Basically, what this means for me is I'll have to punch a time card for the first time in more than 16 years. I had to do that as a salaried assistant manager at a restaurant because in the state I was working in, if your base salary divided by hours worked came out to less than minimum wage, the difference had to be made up to bring the pay to meet minimum wage.

If I go over 40 hours (and I will), I will get overtime. heck, if I'm right at 40, I'll feel like I'm slacking.

 

[britwrit]

I don't quite understand the math on that. In this theoretical situation, you have your choice of paying one person $30K or two people each $15K. Why is one "more expensive," somehow, than the other?

This is an easy one, if we're talking about a retail or a fast-food restaurant type of place.

For $30,000 a year, you can get someone who'll be a one-man (or gal) band. Someone who can perform managerial duties and hop behind the grill, register, whatever, as well. Or you can get two flaky part-timers who'll still need someone to supervise them.

 

[steveu]

It has to do with way more than Obamacare. But that mealy generalized argument isn't even a good argument. The U.S. economy isn't doing very well. Even using their own bullshirt PCE inflator to boost the official GDP number and make it greater than the reality of what the economy is doing. ... our economy shrunk last quarter. ... using the OFFICIAL bullshirt measure. We may be in a recession. We are certainly still in a depression.

And the employment situation in the U.S. is not very good. The U-3 number that makes headlines is meaningless to all of the people who have given up looking, are out of work or are working part-time jobs. 93 million American adults are NOT working -- and millions more are working part-time.

Again, there are way too many things forking up our economy to attribute this simply to "Obamacare" or "not Obamacare." ... but the number of part-time employees -- who are considered "employed" when you read the U-3 number, has increased dramatically during the time of Obamacare's implementation. It's a number that keeps rising. That would certainly be logically consistent with an effect you'd expect that law to have.

I won't make a causal relationship. There are way too many factors that affect employment levels to do that. But at the same time, I don't see how anyone -- given the state of the U.S. economy and how many people can't find work or enough work -- can sarcastically suggest that economically Obamacare hasn't hurt anyone! People are hurting. To what extent that particular regulation is hurting people in the aggregate is still working its way through, relative to other things that have hurt people.

In my shop I'm considered part-time. We have waaaaaay too many part-time jobs. Of course, we also offer bennies to full and part-timers, but I can't help wondering if Obamacare and its regulations are preventing our shop from converting some PT workers to FT. Of course, I won't ASK the higher-ups that question.

Otherwise, I agree with you on the U-3 number. That's bullshirt. The U-6 number is the one that needs to be watched.

To me, the economy won't be truly healthy until more workers go to FT status. You can't just say "We created 10 million new jobs" if 9 million of those jobs are PT. The jobs have to have some substance to them.

 

[cranberry]

No question the labor market remains soft. I'd like to see Janet Yellen hold off on raising interest rates a bit longer.