4 million lose overtime pay and Republicans rejoice the ‘victory’ for small business

[Hiricine]

If you're making 20 $ an hour, and you and your boss want you to work 60 hours in a week but your boss can't afford to pay you 30$ for the last 20, then this was just a ban against your choice to work for that amount.

[Elegiac]

If you're making 20 $ an hour, and you and your boss want you to work 60 hours in a week but your boss can't afford to pay you 30$ for the last 20, then this was just a ban against your choice to work for that amount.

As long as people cannot opt out of the workforce then the negotiating position is always going to be in the employer's favor.

[Nemrod]

So, if this were to have passed, the theory is that millions of workers who negotiated salaries based on overtime, would have seen huge increases in pay over what they agreed to.

However, this obviously would not have resulted in workers making a cent more. It would have resulted in workers working less than what they agreed to, and then a pay cut to follow shortly. (overtime laws are actually indented to shorten the work week, not increase the pay)

You negotiate your wages for 40 hours (or 38.5) per week, and if you work more you either get paid more or can take days off. You never work less, I have never heard of a case where you earn less and less every year. Unions negotiate salary raises every year according to inflation that's from like 1% to 3% more every year.

Why should I not be paid for working overtime. My salary is for 40 hours. My contract is for 40 hours. If my boss tells me to work for 42 hours this week why should I not getting paid for the additional two hours? We actually don't do this on a weekly basis but on a monthly, so if I work this week for 42 and the next for 38 it evens out, but if I have worked an additional five hours at the end of the month I either get paid more or have five bonus hours for next month for which I could take a friday off for example.

[Orlong]

As long as people cannot opt out of the workforce then the negotiating position is always going to be in the employer's favor.

That would make the assumption that there is only one employer. If youre a good worker employers will pay more to keep you from leaving for another employer offering more

[Aggrophobic]

Well, the goal is to move chinese sweatshops to the US though, isn't it?
You can't expect to get payed much more than the chinese workers after all.

Have fun with that.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

No. The amount they can make is finite. Its ruled by the laws of economics. You have a limits on everything used to make such wealth from capital to labor.

Mr Jobs is a great example. He's creating zero wealth as he's dead. At some point in time something will replace the PC and no long will the wealth created by the PC be made.

Hell. If wealth is so infinite. Why don't we just print everyone 5 million bucks in the USA and make everyone wealthy?

You are conflating wealth and money. They are not the same thing. Money, is a representation of wealth, not it's creator. In order for money to have value, it must be representative of wealth that has been created. Steve Jobs did not create wealth by asking the treasury to print money. He created wealth by creating a product, that generated demand, and caused economic activity.

As to the rest of your comment, you're rambling, and in no way are addressing the point. Simple fact is innovation and trade create wealth where it did not exist before. It did not take it from hands it was previously in, but rather generated it from nothing. If wealth was finite, we would never have progressed from the stone age.