"Whatever Happened to Overtime?", a piece written by a Job Creator

[CountDeMoney]

Not quite.

You should know me better than that by now.  Leave me to my terse and sweeping flippancy, dammit.

[garbon]

Not quite.

You should know me better than that by now.  Leave me to my terse and sweeping flippancy, dammit.

I think there is still hope that you will...evolve past your current style.

[Tamas]

  There was a big article somewhere not too long ago how modern states are being buried under complicated laws and regulations. You can see it in practice in this thread.

[crazy canuck]

Not quite.

You should know me better than that by now.  Leave me to my terse and sweeping flippancy, dammit.

[crazy canuck]

There was a big article somewhere not too long ago how modern states are being buried under complicated laws and regulations. You can see it in practice in this thread.

This thread is a good example of words being given meaning that is not accurate.  ie salaried does not equal management.  Once that is clarified the rest is pretty straight forward.

[Grey Fox]

I guess I'm with CC and don't see the difference between full time by the hour and salaried employee then.

Full-time hourly = we're not going to allow you to work overtime. 
Full-time salaried = we're not going to pay you any overtime, ever.

Not quite.  Now that the issue has been clarified the circumstance in the US is similar to Canada in that being salaried doesnt decide the issue.  The question is whether the position is exempt from the requirement to pay overtime (normally because it is in the nature of a management position but there are other exemptions).

What about my position?

I am salaried but I accrue overtime hours. They never get pay out, they accumulate into vacation time.

Is hat artificial & not from a statute?

[crazy canuck]

I guess I'm with CC and don't see the difference between full time by the hour and salaried employee then.

Full-time hourly = we're not going to allow you to work overtime. 
Full-time salaried = we're not going to pay you any overtime, ever.

Not quite.  Now that the issue has been clarified the circumstance in the US is similar to Canada in that being salaried doesnt decide the issue.  The question is whether the position is exempt from the requirement to pay overtime (normally because it is in the nature of a management position but there are other exemptions).

What about my position?

I am salaried but I accrue overtime hours. They never get pay out, they accumulate into vacation time.

Is hat artificial & not from a statute?

Not sure what the law is in Quebec.  In most provinces overtime hours can be converted into additional paid vacation time.

[Admiral Yi]

If you keep inflation artifically low (or allow it to go into deflation), you are redistributing wealth from providers of labor to holders of capital - high inflation does the opposite.

I don't see how you got this.

[crazy canuck]

If you keep inflation artifically low (or allow it to go into deflation), you are redistributing wealth from providers of labor to holders of capital - high inflation does the opposite.

I don't see how you got this.

I am not sure about redistribution but it does help to reduce income inequality. 

[MadImmortalMan]

Marty is maybe mistaking wealth for money?


High inflation concentrates money in higher proportion to the rich, so maybe I'm guessing wrong.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you keep inflation artifically low (or allow it to go into deflation), you are redistributing wealth from providers of labor to holders of capital - high inflation does the opposite.

Read further into Picketty, starting on page 452. 
Conclusion: "even though the effect of inflation are complex and multidimensional, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the redistribution induced by inflation is mainly to the detriment of least wealthy and to the benefit of the wealthiest . . ."

[Habbaku]

Joan, I haven't had time to jump into reading Piketty like I want to.  I'll probably be reading him soon.  Does he elaborate on what his conclusions about why inflation has those causes?

My own reading has always leaned towards (and this is simplifying, obviously) the wealthiest having "first-access" to the newly-minted/inflated currency, leading to a sort of perverse trickle-down in which those with first-access are able to use inflated currency to purchase goods at the old, pre-inflation prices.  Those at the bottom of the pecking order (IE, wage-earners) are typically the last to receive any benefit, assuming there's any at all left by that time.

[The Minsky Moment]

Piketty's argument is that the rich are in a better position to insure their portfolios against inflation risks (or indeed other kinds of risks).

More broadly, if inflation is anticipated it should really have no effect, except on those who for whatever reason are powerless to take steps to protect themselves or are so lacking in information they don't know what is coming.  That is more likely to be the poor in both cases.  If inflation is unanticipated then the winners (relatively) will be those who either insured their portfolios against the risk (as per Piketty) or just happened to have more assets in inflation friendly investments, like real estate, commodities, alternative investment funds, etc., which TP also argues favors the rich.

[Martinus]

If you keep inflation artifically low (or allow it to go into deflation), you are redistributing wealth from providers of labor to holders of capital - high inflation does the opposite.

Read further into Picketty, starting on page 452. 
Conclusion: "even though the effect of inflation are complex and multidimensional, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the redistribution induced by inflation is mainly to the detriment of least wealthy and to the benefit of the wealthiest . . ."

Well, I said before that inflation hurts the upper middle class/lower upper class the most, so this is consistent. The rich always get away.

[Habbaku]

How is that consistent at all?  The "upper middle class/lower upper class" are not "the least wealthy."