Pay threshold for managers to rise to 50K

[MisterCreosote]

The raping of part-time employees predates Obamacare.

Companies have been hiring part-timers to avoid paying benefits for a long, long time.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Part-time workers who wish they were working full time are a function of a broken economy. We have not had a recovery. That broken economy has been largely caused by endless regulations over the years that hamstring the ability of businesses to operate. Indeed, Obamacare was not the first, or only such regulation that has hurt people in practice. We have created a HUGE mess of senseless interferences in our lives that goes way beyond Obamacare. Which was why I pointed out that the a simplistic X caused Y or X didn't cause Y kind of post is vapid.

What I would say is that if correlation did imply causation, though. ... as the U-3 employment number has gotten better during Obamacare's implementation, the number of part-time workers in the U-6 number (which, for the record, suggests that the real unemployment rate in this country is well into double digits) -- has increased dramatically -- just over that time. Was it Obamacare that has caused that number (people who are stuck in part-time jobs) to increase by several percentage points each of the last 2 years?

I am sure there are people eager to argue that Obamacare had zero to do with it. ... with a million reasons why. Just as there are people who delude themselves into thinking you can mandate that employers have to pay their workers something (via a price-fixed wage or overtime pay), and not expect it to have the effect of businesses either having to go out of business or make up the increase in their input costs by hiring fewer people or employing people in a way that skirts around the thresholds for regulation.

 

[cranberry]

The reason wages have stagnated and have not kept up with the increases in productivity has little, if anything, to do with regulation and nothing to do with ObamaCare, but it sure gives you another opportunity to rant the Ragu rant. The biggest reason was the emergence of a global economy (increased competition), but I wonder what kind of policies we began enacting around 1980 that might have led to wages flat-lining despite increased productivity?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I am sure there are people eager to argue that Obamacare had zero to do with it. ... with a million reasons why. Just as there are people who delude themselves into thinking you can mandate that employers have to pay their workers something (via a price-fixed wage or overtime pay), and not expect it to have the effect of businesses either having to go out of business or make up the increase in their input costs by hiring fewer people or employing people in a way that skirts around the thresholds for regulation.

When the regulation was implemented in the 70s, the threshold was $20-somethingK. Had it kept up with inflation, it would be in the mid-$50Ks now. It was meant for white-collar professional workers, like doctors, lawyers, and yes, even teachers (hi YF!). It wasn't meant for the assistant manager of the Kwik-E-Mart.

These businesses have been profiting off of this for the last 40 years, even though they really shouldn't be.

 

[Ace]

Part-time workers who wish they were working full time are a function of a broken economy. We have not had a recovery. That broken economy has been largely caused by endless regulations over the years that hamstring the ability of businesses to operate. Indeed, Obamacare was not the first, or only such regulation that has hurt people in practice. We have created a HUGE mess of senseless interferences in our lives that goes way beyond Obamacare. Which was why I pointed out that the a simplistic X caused Y or X didn't cause Y kind of post is vapid.

What I would say is that if correlation did imply causation, though. ... as the U-3 employment number has gotten better during Obamacare's implementation, the number of part-time workers in the U-6 number (which, for the record, suggests that the real unemployment rate in this country is well into double digits) -- has increased dramatically -- just over that time. Was it Obamacare that has caused that number (people who are stuck in part-time jobs) to increase by several percentage points each of the last 2 years?

I am sure there are people eager to argue that Obamacare had zero to do with it. ... with a million reasons why. Just as there are people who delude themselves into thinking you can mandate that employers have to pay their workers something (via a price-fixed wage or overtime pay), and not expect it to have the effect of businesses either having to go out of business or make up the increase in their input costs by hiring fewer people or employing people in a way that skirts around the thresholds for regulation.

Your zero regulated world would be great, Rags. Only problem is that money seems to have a strange effect on people that makes them want to keep as much for themselves as possible.

But as long as you have a castle and some fields for the serfs to work, it would probably be a heavenly departure from government regulation.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Cran,
1) Posting about realities you don't like doesn't constitute "ranting."
2) You are all over the place. I didn't post anything about wages or wage growth or productivity gains. You are responding to something, but it isn't to anything I posted.
3) In any case. ... Think about the chart you just posted. And put it into the context most people do who aren't trying to write bullshirt narratives that create villains and more reasons to centrally plan the world to their liking. ... namely that globalization and technology advances have made the world a much more competitive place. Trying to stand in the way of that (which comes with more benefits in the aggregate than temporary displacements if we would get out of the way of ourselves) with price fixing schemes (for wages) or protectionist policies doesn't change reality.

 

[cranberry]

Absolutely. I edited in the global economy while you were posting but there was more to it than that domestically and it wasn't increased regulation.

 

[doctorquant]

what kind of policies we began enacting around 1980 that might have led to wages flat-lining despite increased productivity?

Can you suggest a few of the policies that you believe decoupled productivity and wages? And, if one of these policies is "tax cuts", can you explain how it is that cutting marginal tax rates leads to there being a gap between wage growth and productivity growth?

 

[doctorquant]

Also, I noticed that your figure shows the gap widening a bit in the 1990s. Don't I recall you referring to those years as a time of prosperity? Indeed, as a time you're longing to recreate politically? Or is the productivity-wages gap informative only in certain time (i.e., political) periods?

 

[cranberry]

Can you suggest a few of the policies that you believe decoupled productivity and wages? And, if one of these policies is "tax cuts", can you explain how it is that cutting marginal tax rates leads to there being a gap between wage growth and productivity growth?

I'm thinking more in terms of a 40-plus-year assault on labor (not just organized) that has been championed during that period by each successive administration, including Clinton's and, even to a certain extent, Obama's.

 

[YankeeFan]

Your zero regulated world would be great, Rags. Only problem is that money seems to have a strange effect on people that makes them want to keep as much for themselves as possible.

Do you think wealth is more evenly divided in heavily regulated economies?

 

[Ace]

Do you think wealth is more evenly divided in heavily regulated economies?

I don't really care if wealth is evenly divided as long as people are treated fairly.

I think it's clear that the less developed (and therefore less regulated) a country is the worse off the majority of the citizens are, even though a few may be very well off.