New salary overtime regulations

[hjffkj]

Have you read up on the changes for salaried employees and overtime eligibility? If so, what do you think about it? I don't know whether to be excited or worried. The new regulations will affect dh.

 

How things will change is unclear since his employer has many options. Him getting a raise to meet the minimum required for the exemption would be awesome. Even getting overtime if he worked over 40 hrs would be awesome. But the most likely outcome is he'll be put on hourly and lose some of the freedom he has being salaried.

 

Theoretically, I think the changes are good and should help a lot of employees who work way too many hours regularly, mostly managers in the service industry. In reality, I'm very happy with dh's job arrangement now since he doesn't work those ridiculous hours often and i fear what this change will do to our family.

[Guest]

Can you link please?

[hjffkj]

https://blog.dol.gov/2016/05/18/who-benefits-from-the-new-overtime-rule/

 

I think the current minimum pay is a little over $23,000 for certain positions,like managers for you to not be eligible for overtime. The new minimum is a bit over $47,000 which goes in effect in December. I think the current minimum is too low but the quick change, only giving employers a few months to figure things out, seems irresponsible

[SparklyUnicorn]

Heck I think the threshold should be even higher than that.  The salaried thing, I thought, was supposed to pertain mostly to upper management.  A lot of companies use it IMO as a way to pay less. 

 

My DH is salaried and not in upper management.  It works out and I think for the most part the company is fair.  Emphasis on "for the most part" because once they were asking them to work 14 hour days.  I was beyond angry about this.  They did give them a bonus in the end.  Luckily that is rare.  But with the whole salaried thing there isn't much stopping them from doing that regularly.  On the flip side his bosses have been flexible with him regarding taking time off here or there.  There isn't an official policy regarding that though.  So basically they can pay you the same amount if you work a lot more than 40 hours, but don't really allow for the opposite of working less than 40 hours. 

 

I understand your concern though.

[Tenaj]

https://blog.dol.gov/2016/05/18/who-benefits-from-the-new-overtime-rule/

 

I think the current minimum pay is a little over $23,000 for certain positions,like managers for you to not be eligible for overtime. The new minimum is a bit over $47,000 which goes in effect in December. I think the current minimum is too low but the quick change, only giving employers a few months to figure things out, seems irresponsible

 

My dh has been working hard on this as the assistant CIO at his workplace.  He said that the regulations originally came from the 1950's and it was obvious that it was time for it to be adjusted.  One the other hand, one of the unseen changes at his place of business is that there are different policies for vacation time for hourly vs. salaried with the salaried being more generous so now that this has been adjusted, more people are being changed to hourly and therefore are losing vacation time at the same time.  That's hard to swallow but if they change the vacation  policy it would be cost prohibitive.  I'm not sure what they decided to do for those falling in the middle of this change.  

 

At his place of work, it seems that the most apparent change will be a loss of flexibility for whose that will be changed from salaried to hourly.

 

Like anything, I'm sure for some it will improve life, for others it will be a disappointment.

[Katy]

Six months is more than enough time, and frankly I think the amount should still be doubled.  No one is in upper management of anything at less than $50k/yr.  You can't even be a regional manager of a retail store and make that little.

[hjffkj]

Heck I think the threshold should be even higher than that. The salaried thing, I thought, was supposed to pertain mostly to upper management. A lot of companies use it IMO as a way to pay less.

 

My DH is salaried and not in upper management. It works out and I think for the most part the company is fair. Emphasis on "for the most part" because once they were asking them to work 14 hour days. I was beyond angry about this. They did give them a bonus in the end. Luckily that is rare. But with the whole salaried thing there isn't much stopping them from doing that regularly. On the flip side his bosses have been flexible with him regarding taking time off here or there. There isn't an official policy regarding that though. So basically they can pay you the same amount if you work a lot more than 40 hours, but don't really allow for the opposite of working less than 40 hours.

 

I understand your concern though.

Oh I think it should be higher as well. And I know a lot of companies take advantage of their employees because of how low it is, especially in the service/retail industries. But when that plays out for my family in our current situation it is nerve wracking. We feel his perks as a salaried employee are great. And while I'd love the few extra thousand a year I'm scared they simply won't be able to make that work and we'll end up with a worst situation.

 

But the quick jump in the minimum is what's really shocking to me.

[Katy]

$27k in 1957 dollars is $231,383.15 in 2016 dollars.

 

http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=27000&year=1957

Edited May 27, 2016 by Katy

[Lanny]

Many years ago, one of the reasons I decided to work as a Contractor, on "Temporary" job assignments, which occasionally are very long term, and not work as a "Direct" (Permanent) employee, was that Engineers were expected to work a lot of overtime, without getting paid for it.  I expect that, for an Officer of a Corporation, but for low level employees, I think it is taking advantage of the employees.

 

How this will work out remains to be seen.

 

The other issue is a huge increase in the Minimum Wage. If that happens, I believe a lot of very poorly educated people will find themselves unemployed. McDonalds and other corporations have made it clear that it will be less expensive for them to purchase Robots that cost USD$35K than to pay unskilled entry level workers $15 per hour to make French Fries.   Entry level jobs should be the first step, not for a career in the same entry level position.   

 

All of the above is extremely complex and how it will work out will be seen over the next 10 or 20 years. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Does he work overtime regularly?  If he doesn't then probably not much will change.  If he does, then I'd think they would bump him up if they don't want to deal.

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

The other issue is a huge increase in the Minimum Wage. If that happens, I believe a lot of very poorly educated people will find themselves unemployed. McDonalds and other corporations have made it clear that it will be less expensive for them to purchase Robots that cost USD$35K than to pay unskilled entry level workers $15 per hour to make French Fries.   Entry level jobs should be the first step, not for a career in the same entry level position.   

 

 

 

This puts me in a rage.  Seriously this is so freaking effed up.  What McDs essentially expects is for everyone to subsidize their business and large profits.  They pay their employees so little that they likely need assistance in one area or another and we are all paying for that so McDs can pocket more money.

 

NY is working on upping the minimum significantly.  They will phase it in slowly (too slowly IMO, but hopefully that avoids some of this crap).  I mean really, is it a stretch for McDs in NYC to pay $15 an hour?  I hardly think so. 

Edited May 27, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[73349]

I don't love the idea that at *any* salary, a company can make employees work constantly. I live in an area with a fair number of tech companies, and I know that some of them take advantage.

[poppy]

A million admin assistants just got a raise. That is good.

[Guest]

A million admin assistants just got a raise. That is good.

No it doesn't mean that. It means now two will be hired and both will have less hours and likely less pay to compensate. This is the real world, where people exercise behavioral economics in response to government edicts.

 

Companies will find a workaround, and it will likely decrease the pay while increasing the cost of their services of products. Goody.

[FaithManor]

Dh, in IT, has for the last 12 years worked 60-70 hours per week for little to no pay raises or bonuses the threat being that anyone who didn't would lose their jobs. Due to exemptions that IBM, EDS, HP, Lockheed, Microsoft, and others lobbied for in the NAFTA treaty, IT workers became exempt from fair labor laws. In short, legally about the only thing they can't do is lock them in the building.

 

He has left the regular IT industry and works for a large corporation that decided to move their IT in house and not outsource to a service provider. This company has treated him a lot better. He gets a little comp time here and there, and now gets a generous bonus each year. The work hours are still long, and of course the bonus and comp time gets no where near equal. But it is still a lot better than the previous decade.

 

There has been a LOT of abuse of IT workers. However, given the explicit exemptions in NAFTA I don't know if these new rules will even apply to those workers of if yet again, they will receive no protection.

[EmseB]

Just make businesses pay more, then we'll all have more money! That's how economics works, right?

[hjffkj]

Six months is more than enough time, and frankly I think the amount should still be doubled. No one is in upper management of anything at less than $50k/yr. You can't even be a regional manager of a retail store and make that little.

Well it is not just management. My dh would fall under the creative professional category. And I don't think 6 months is enough time for a small business thatwould rather keep a person salaried than bump them down to hourly. I think for bigger companies it will be much easier.

[LucyStoner]

No it doesn't mean that. It means now two will be hired and both will have less hours and likely less pay to compensate. This is the real world, where people exercise behavioral economics in response to government edicts.

 

Companies will find a workaround, and it will likely decrease the pay while increasing the cost of their services of products. Goody.

 

At my husband's job adding an employee that works 24 or more hours a week costs a clean $25k BEFORE any wages are paid. One reason non-managerial or manager in name only people in the American economy have been working longer hours is partly because adding a second employee costs so much besides merely wages/salary. It's cheaper to bump up the salary or pay a little OT to one employee until that exceeds the marginal cost of adding an employee.

 

While I am well versed in economics (economics majors of the world unite) and unintended consequences, employers should not be able to demand unlimited unpaid overtime to employees performing work with close direction by calling the janitor or secretary or call center rep a manager or supervisor. In many cases it's not just violating OT laws, it's violating minimum wage laws.

 

We have tougher standards in my state for what is necessary to put someone on salary and the results you anticipated? They have not, in many years, come to pass.

[hjffkj]

Does he work overtime regularly? If he doesn't then probably not much will change. If he does, then I'd think they would bump him up if they don't want to deal.

Yes, he regularly works 45 hours a week. It used to be a lot more when the recession hit bad. In reality they should have closed down but they stayed open and fired their other salaried employees just so dh could have a job because we were just starting our family. They went years without a paycheck with dh running everything just so we wouldn't be unemployed with 2 young kids. Now that the business has recovered and is starting to be profitable for everyone his hours have slowly gotten better and his pay slowly increases. The idea is to get him to 40 hours with a much better salary but that takes time.

 

This regulation change is great as a whole. But again fear of the unknown. I know his employers will bump his pay to keep him salaried if they can but they may have not recovered enough from the recession to be able to. Time will tell.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Just make businesses pay more, then we'll all have more money! That's how economics works, right?

 

No I think they just aim to keep us desperate and minimally happy enough to make a handful of people very rich.

 

Sure feels that way sometimes.

[EmseB]

No I think they just aim to keep us desperate and minimally happy enough to make a handful of people very rich.

 

Sure feels that way sometimes.

Except I don't think this new rule, or any rule, is going to take that handful of people down a notch. But I guess we can sure try.

 

People talk about McD's, but there's a reaon their food is so cheap. And to say they must employ people at a certain wage instead of using ipads...what are we, Luddites? The amount of magical thinking that says if we just demand businesses pay people more and everyone will be better off is astounding to me at times. Where do people think money comes from? If a McD's franchise has the kind of profit margin that everyone here is alluding to, that they can absorb a $6-7 raise for everyone on their payroll and still make enough to pay themselves for going to the trouble of managing a store, then, heck, I'm gonna open one!

[SparklyUnicorn]

Except I don't think this new rule, or any rule, is going to take that handful of people down a notch. But I guess we can sure try.

 

People talk about McD's, but there's a reaon their food is so cheap. And to say they must employ people at a certain wage instead of using ipads...what are we, Luddites? The amount of magical thinking that says if we just demand businesses pay people more and everyone will be better off is astounding to me at times. Where do people think money comes from? If a McD's franchise has the kind of profit margin that everyone here is alluding to, that they can absorb a $6-7 raise for everyone on their payroll and still make enough to pay themselves for going to the trouble of managing a store, then, heck, I'm gonna open one!

 

I don't even think their food is that cheap.  I mean sure it's cheaper than going to a nicer sit down restaurant, but you aren't getting any of that when you go to McDs. 

[Arcadia]

As a former project manager, I could and have to rearrange manpower in one evening to minimise headcount costs. Basically resorting to vendors/contractors and temps for high work period and keeping a skeletal workforce most of the time. The skeletal workforce get bonus as overtime pay.

 

. McDonalds and other corporations have made it clear that it will be less expensive for them to purchase Robots that cost USD$35K than to pay unskilled entry level workers $15 per hour to make French Fries.

The Robots cost $20k according to the news. It is not only McDonalds, Pizza Hut has talking robots to take orders and accepy payments by Mastercard.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Except I don't think this new rule, or any rule, is going to take that handful of people down a notch. But I guess we can sure try.

 

People talk about McD's, but there's a reaon their food is so cheap. And to say they must employ people at a certain wage instead of using ipads...what are we, Luddites? The amount of magical thinking that says if we just demand businesses pay people more and everyone will be better off is astounding to me at times. Where do people think money comes from? If a McD's franchise has the kind of profit margin that everyone here is alluding to, that they can absorb a $6-7 raise for everyone on their payroll and still make enough to pay themselves for going to the trouble of managing a store, then, heck, I'm gonna open one!

 

I get it.  These are businesses and not charities, but if you think about it, this is kinda worse than slavery.  At least slave owners probably fed and housed their slaves.  If there was no such thing as any public assistance, what would it be like for some of their employees.  McDs makes billions of dollars in profits.  This is not a small amount of money we are talking.  Of course there is some variation in terms of franchise vs corporate. 

 

This is nothing like small day care centers or nursing homes where many employees aren't paid enough, but the business is often not raking in the dough either. 

[lauraw4321]

Found an article of a NZ McDonald's owner who took home $600K as profits...

 

You don't think there's any way they could raise their wages? Do you think he'd be willing to invest in McDonald's and run his business for only $550K? $400K? $300K?

[FaithManor]

Hope they find a way to tax the heck out of robots because continuing to put people out of work is a good way to bankrupt the country and if the citizenry doesn't work they don't buy all the crap busineses have to sell. Hmmm...I wonder if pizza hut robots buy pizzas.

[Greta]

Except I don't think this new rule, or any rule, is going to take that handful of people down a notch. But I guess we can sure try.

 

People talk about McD's, but there's a reaon their food is so cheap. And to say they must employ people at a certain wage instead of using ipads...what are we, Luddites? The amount of magical thinking that says if we just demand businesses pay people more and everyone will be better off is astounding to me at times. Where do people think money comes from? If a McD's franchise has the kind of profit margin that everyone here is alluding to, that they can absorb a $6-7 raise for everyone on their payroll and still make enough to pay themselves for going to the trouble of managing a store, then, heck, I'm gonna open one!

 

Well the money is either going to have to come from the revenues of the business, or it's going to continue to come from the taxpayers.  That's the reality we're dealing with.  When companies don't pay their employees a livable wage, the taxpayers have to make up the difference in the form of public assistance programs such as food stamps, medicaid, subsidized housing, etc.  

 

Personally, even though I'm an avid supporter of public assistance programs, I would rather see the businesses paying their workforce a livable wage.  Because I tend toward the belief that any business model that depends on unfair compensation for its workforce, isn't really a business model that deserves to exist.

[Guest]

I wonder how/if this will affect the military.

Ha! My thoughts exactly. Im sure they are exempt.

 

I was thinking hmmmmmm unlimited demands on his time?

[FaithManor]

 

 

Personally, even though I'm an avid supporter of public assistance programs, I would rather see the businesses paying their workforce a livable wage. Because I tend toward the belief that any business model that depends on unfair compensation for its workforce, isn't really a business model that deserves to exist.

EXACTLY THIS!

[EmilyGF]

My husband brings up the issue of post PhD researchers. They have an incentive to work crazy hours because their career depends on it, but often they are paid less than $50K (though not in my husband's field). This is especially true in biology, and biologists are ones who need to work weird hours due to experiments.

 

Emily

[FaithManor]

My husband brings up the issue of post PhD researchers. They have an incentive to work crazy hours because their career depends on it, but often they are paid less than $50K (though not in my husband's field). This is especially true in biology, and biologists are ones who need to work weird hours due to experiments.

 

Emily

Very true. My cousin, and aquatic environmental scientist/biologist/researcher, works insane hours and rarely makes more than $50,000.00

 

She loves the work but ouch!

[Lanny]

This puts me in a rage.  Seriously this is so freaking effed up.  What McDs essentially expects is for everyone to subsidize their business and large profits.  They pay their employees so little that they likely need assistance in one area or another and we are all paying for that so McDs can pocket more money.

 

NY is working on upping the minimum significantly.  They will phase it in slowly (too slowly IMO, but hopefully that avoids some of this crap).  I mean really, is it a stretch for McDs in NYC to pay $15 an hour?  I hardly think so. 

 

In an interview I watched, 2 or 3 days ago, the man said that most (?) McDonalds are owned by people who purchase a Franchise to operate a restaurant.  I believe they operate (like many businesses) on a very low profit margin.  Lots of sales, but not huge profits on each sale. 

 

I think he had been C.E.O. or something of McDonalds, in the past.  What he said about unemployment of Black Males, in Chicago, for example, I think McDonalds is based there, is that the unemployment rate is about 50% among Black Males in Chicago.  If an employer hires people who are extremely poorly educated, into entry level jobs, I liked what he said. The goal should be to begin in a Minimum Wage job, and 35 years later, to be C.E.O.    That people are trapped, in the same Minimum Wage job,  for years, because they lack the Education/Skills/Knowledge/Experience to move up, is very sad and apparently very common now.  

 

I remember being in a McDonalds in Texas in 1994.  The lady who was cleaning tables near where I was sitting did not seem to be your typical McDonalds employee.  I asked her if she was the Owner of the Franchise and she told me yes.  I doubt that she was getting rich. She had invested her savings in the restaurant and was trying to make a living from her investment.

 

Living on $15 an hour in NYC (and many other high COL areas) would be extremely difficult. It would be existing, rather than living.    But businesses must look at how to minimize their costs and employees are their largest expense, so if businesses can replace some of their workers with Robots, if it is cost effective, they will look into that.

 

The Robots will require people who are Educated and have Skills to work with them, to repair them,  teach them, etc., and those positions will pay far more than Minimum Wage.

 

These issues are very complex and there are no simple solutions to complex problems.

[Ravin]

I get it. These are businesses and not charities, but if you think about it, this is kinda worse than slavery. At least slave owners probably fed and housed their slaves. If there was no such thing as any public assistance, what would it be like for some of their employees. McDs makes billions of dollars in profits. This is not a small amount of money we are talking. Of course there is some variation in terms of franchise vs corporate.

 

This is nothing like small day care centers or nursing homes where many employees aren't paid enough, but the business is often not raking in the dough either.

This is not a reasonable analogy. No matter how measly the pay, one can quit a paid job and leave, and your boss can't literally beat you for job performance (or for the heck of it, or rape you with impunity).

[regentrude]

Hope they find a way to tax the heck out of robots because continuing to put people out of work is a good way to bankrupt the country and if the citizenry doesn't work they don't buy all the crap busineses have to sell. Hmmm...I wonder if pizza hut robots buy pizzas.

 

This is the same situation that occurred in history when the mechanical loom or the spinning jenny were invented: people complained that new technologies would put people out of work.

People have found new and different work - jobs exist now that people a hundred years ago could not even have imagined.

 

We don't hoe fields by hand anymore instead of using a tractor or have one hundred accountants at the bank adding numbers by hand all day instead of using a computer. If labor saving technology makes it cheaper to manufacture things, it means people have to spend a smaller portion of their incomes on things and have more left over to pay for services/experiences.

There will be jobs but they will be new and different. There are entire industries now that did not exist when I was a child. I don't think taxing machines that can do a job more efficiently than humans is a sensible way to go.

The future of the country has to be in more innovation - instead of trying to make labor intensive low tech stuff at US wages that other countries can do much cheaper, we should strive to make stuff others cannot.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by regentrude

[Lanny]

This article was in the news on May 26, 2016.  Foxconn manufacturers components and products for Apple and other companies. Robots are not something for the future, they are quite capable now, in 2016.  Entry Level positions should be filled with people making Minimum Wage. Entry Level positions should be (IMO), the first step of a career, where the worker can learn and progress.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/foxconn-replaces-60000-humans-with-robots-in-china-2016-05-25

[Tap]

What a lot of people don't stop to think about is that companies have labor budgets.

 

They will say there is a budget of $300,000 for this department.  If there are 10 employees, and each person makes $30,000 that is fine.  If the company is forced to give raises, then the department will move down to 9 employees, or 8 employees.  The company isn't going take less profits.  They will just pile more work on the employees that are there.  I work for a large corporate company, so does dh.  It has always been this way.  When ever situations come up that causes the company to loose money....the easiest thing for them to affect is hourly employees and hiring new employees.  It doesn't matter if the employees can do the work with fewer employees or not.  The important work will get done and the rest will be done to subpar standards.  

 

I work in pharmacy and we run shifts with an entire person missing all the time.  We need that person but the company won''t provide us with one.  More mistakes happen when we are overworked like this, but our company won't hire new float employees to cover for people being out sick, so we just have to do without. We have one of the lowest ratios of staff in the industry as it is.  It is downright dangerous for us to run without the needed staff. But, we do, because we can't close the pharmacy. Whenever minimum wage goes up, we get fewer hours in our department.  While pharmacy employees don't get paid minimum wage, other workers in the store do, so every department gets cut hours.  That prescription that used to take the pharmacy 10-15 minutes to complete, now takes 30 minutes due to available labor. 

 

So, oddly enough....

higher minimum wage=longer wait times in the pharmacy

 

As minimum wages go up, you will see odd correlations like this.  Customer service will go down, and there will be fewer well trained/experience employees.  A person will stay working at a job if they make a couple of dollars over minimum wage, but if they can make the same wage anywhere, then there is more job hopping going on. 

[SKL]

Hmm, I don't know, I think people should be allowed to negotiate for a salaried position of say $40,000 without worrying about this.  I would be more comfortable with a threshold of maybe $32,000.

 

When I was a college student, it was a lot of stress to worry about clocking in and out when I worked for a unionized grocery store.  Technically I wasn't allowed to do my work after closing time, but try washing 2 meat-cutter machines and sanitizing a kitchen in less than a minute.  So either I stopped serving a wee bit early (which got me in trouble even though my boss told me to do it), or I worked after punching out (which I was informed would get me fired), or I punched out late (which didn't make anyone happy either).  I would have rather had 5 or 10 minutes to finish my damn job without extra pay.  (That job lasted about 4 weeks.)

 

Similarly in the salaried world (which I was in for many years), I'd rather have the flexibility to take a little longer on some things, to ramp up my learning curve (which is an investment in my career), to not log every second of my personal breaks, to help/mentor/support another employee without worrying about going over my hours limit.  I don't want to be worrying about the minutes when I'm working on something that needs to be done right the first time.

 

I know it can be abused, btdt, but an adult in the workforce can negotiate, say no, file a grievance, find another job.  We are not helpless children.  It's part of being a mature adult.

Edited May 28, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

I also wonder how this would work for the many people who prefer to telecommute.  Do I have to punch in when I'm on my laptop at home?  Do I punch out every time my kid or my biology interrupts me?  Or when I check my personal emails?  It sounds like it will add a lot of extra work and stress if it's even feasible at all.

[OnMyOwn]

Many years ago, one of the reasons I decided to work as a Contractor, on "Temporary" job assignments, which occasionally are very long term, and not work as a "Direct" (Permanent) employee, was that Engineers were expected to work a lot of overtime, without getting paid for it. I expect that, for an Officer of a Corporation, but for low level employees, I think it is taking advantage of the employees.

 

How this will work out remains to be seen.

 

The other issue is a huge increase in the Minimum Wage. If that happens, I believe a lot of very poorly educated people will find themselves unemployed. McDonalds and other corporations have made it clear that it will be less expensive for them to purchase Robots that cost USD$35K than to pay unskilled entry level workers $15 per hour to make French Fries. Entry level jobs should be the first step, not for a career in the same entry level position.

 

All of the above is extremely complex and how it will work out will be seen over the next 10 or 20 years.

I think McDonald's (as well as every other retailer out there) is going to move to automated technology no matter what the wage is. The proposed increase in the minimum wage is just a good excuse for them to do it.

[OnMyOwn]

I'm mostly for employers being required to pay overtime, though I can see a downside for slower workers. Workers who are slower will lose their jobs and replaced with people who are quicker rather than just being able to finish their work by putting in extra hours.

 Entry Level positions should be (IMO), the first step of a career, where the worker can learn and progress.

 

 

I hear people say things like this a lot, but it strikes me as an innumerate, 1950s world-view which has little in common with today's reality.

 

If you believe that employees should be able to start at a minimum wage job, and work their way up to a middle-class job that they hold on to for the majority of their careers, the math just doesn't work out.  This requires that the majority of jobs at any company an employee would be these good middle class jobs that someone can work their way into.

 

Take a McDonalds franchise, as we've been talking about.  Ignoring the owner, who must be wealthy to even buy in, each store has basically one title(Store Manager) that is at least close to middle class, and there are usually only 3 or 4 store managers per store.  These managers may have 100s of hourly employees below them who are no where near middle class.  So, the math just doesn't work out -- no matter how hard you work at McDonalds, only a small percentage of people can be promoted into what is then maybe a $40k/year job.

 

Or, look at it the other way -- the coveted jobs people want to today are at places like Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft, where I'm sure the majority of jobs are the good, middle class ones.  I *guarantee* you that a vanishingly small percentage of Apple iphone developers started at Apple by sweeping the floors, and working their way up.

 

I'm sure there are exceptions out there, but these exceptions are rare and serve to prove the rule.  By and large, for the good jobs out there, employers want pre-trained, college-educated employees.  Today's work world is all about the short-term, and very few employers are willing to invest years in training employees.

This is the same situation that occurred in history when the mechanical loom or the spinning jenny were invented: people complained that new technologies would put people out of work.

People have found new and different work - jobs exist now that people a hundred years ago could not even have imagined.

 

 

While that may be true in the long run, it may not be true in the short run, or for individuals, especially as the rate of technological change is accelerating.   As a society, we need to make sure to take care of those left behind, or else suffer the consequences. 

 

 

At some point in the future, maybe not in my lifetime, long-haul truck drivers will be replaced by self-driving trucks.  When this happens, 3 million truck drivers will need to look for new employment.  The standard government response to this is "retraining", which I think is incredibly naive.  It will be very hard to retrain the majority of these truck drivers into careers with similar pay and similar skill sets. The fact that there will be some new jobs available in biotech won't matter for the majority of these ex-drivers.

[FaithManor]

The problem that we have with this whole thing now is that with a rapidly shrinking middle class more unemployment is a very bad deal. One cannot go from bagging groceries or flipping burgers to robotech repair guy without serious job retraining and education. So people will be unemployed for long periods of time which is of course a recipe for another recession.

 

In the good ole days whatever new job you got when automation hit your work place did not require four years and $100,000 degree to land it.

 

It is naive to think the outlook is so rosy with college and tech school costs outpacing wages by more than 400% alongside a dwindling middle class and ungodly sized national debt. Comparing the situation in 1950 to now is apples and oranges.

[poppy]

No it doesn't mean that. It means now two will be hired and both will have less hours and likely less pay to compensate. This is the real world, where people exercise behavioral economics in response to government edicts.

 

Companies will find a workaround, and it will likely decrease the pay while increasing the cost of their services of products. Goody.

I spent a decade in HR. I can only speak from a big corporate perspective. Paying for a salaried $40k worker is a pittance. In my office in Boston the per-cubicle real estate and support cost for two people instead of one wouldn't make any sense. You have to also consider lawsuits that would be factored into decision making it a number of long term employees got a reduction in hours following new federal regulations. That's why I brought up admin assistants.

 

But I can't speak to how this will play out in an fairly level office of people making this range (like ... I don't know, entry level insurance clerks?). Or a small office like say a regional car dealership. I don't know how many of those employees are salaried anyway.

[angiew26]

This is a tough ruling for charities who can't afford to pay large salaries or split jobs and hire extra people but like everything else in life, we all learn to live with it somehow.

[Murphy101]

While that may be true in the long run, it may not be true in the short run, or for individuals, especially as the rate of technological change is accelerating. As a society, we need to make sure to take care of those left behind, or else suffer the consequences.

 

 

At some point in the future, maybe not in my lifetime, long-haul truck drivers will be replaced by self-driving trucks. When this happens, 3 million truck drivers will need to look for new employment. The standard government response to this is "retraining", which I think is incredibly naive. It will be very hard to retrain the majority of these truck drivers into careers with similar pay and similar skill sets. The fact that there will be some new jobs available in biotech won't matter for the majority of these ex-drivers.

Also, there is a price to that that isn't seen for a generation or two.

 

Take textiles. America has almost none left. And it isn't because all the people who collect and make fibers and turn them into things we all need and use are being paid better. They are being paid less and it's okay as long as it isn't in America. But it also makes our country dependent on those other countries for a basic commodity.

 

Everyone wants to buy "Made in USA" at Indonesia prices. The cost difference doesn't have to be as much as people think, but there is a price to be paid for it in multiple facets.

[Arcadia]

As for how some employers avoid overtime pay, instead of a person doing 12 hours shift, they have two doing 6 hours shift. So for example my mom might prefer a 7am to 7pm workshift which gives overtime pay and then alternate days off. Instead, the supervisor would put someone for 7am to 1pm which means no lunch break, but has short tea break, then someone else go 1pm to 7pm.

 

At some point in the future, maybe not in my lifetime, long-haul truck drivers will be replaced by self-driving trucks.

"Otto is aiming to equip trucks with software, sensors, lasers and cameras so they eventually will be able to navigate the more than 220,000 miles of U.S. highways on their own, while a human driver naps in the back of the cab or handles other tasks.

 

For now, the robot truckers would only take control on the highways, leaving humans to handle the tougher task of wending through city streets. The idea is similar to the automated pilots that fly jets at high altitudes while leaving the takeoffs and landings to humans."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/startup-wants-to-put-self-driving-big-rigs-on-highways/

 

 

This link is about Pepper, the mastercard fast food robot http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b78d806-20f2-11e6-aa98-db1e01fabc0c.html#ixzz4A0FPKu5v

 

"In theory, the development could eliminate the need for real-life pizza checkout boys and girls. Even MasterCard played down that notion, however.

“We’re not trying to replace anything,†said John Sheldon, head of the company’s innovation management. “There will be human staff.â€

Still, he added: “There’s an opportunity for operational efficiencies . . . The bigger opportunity is in migrating them [employees] to higher value, experience-based activities.â€"

[Danestress]

The problem that we have with this whole thing now is that with a rapidly shrinking middle class more unemployment is a very bad deal. One cannot go from bagging groceries or flipping burgers to robotech repair guy without serious job retraining and education. So people will be unemployed for long periods of time which is of course a recipe for another recession.

 

.

But grocery baggers and burger flippers are generally hourly wage earners, so this will not affect them, if I understand correctly. And companies try hard not to let such workers work enough hours to earn overtime.

[FaithManor]

But grocery baggers and burger flippers are generally hourly wage earners, so this will not affect them, if I understand correctly. And companies try hard not to let such workers work enough hours to earn overtime.

I wasn't referring to the overtime, but the move to robots to avoid the higher minimum wage.

[poppy]

This is a tough ruling for charities who can't afford to pay large salaries or split jobs and hire extra people but like everything else in life, we all learn to live with it somehow.

It is not a salary change. Just less unpaid overtime among low level salaried employee.