So...it just sounds like they are not salaried workers anymore.

"Should they have been salaried in the first place? Or were they just put on salary as a way to avoid overtime pay?"

That's where I'm, confused.

I'm a salaried employee. I fill out a timesheet that states I work 8 hours a day, five days a week. In reality, I work when and where work needs to be done. It's kinda silly.

I think it's more of an HR/Payroll convenience thing than anything.

That said...why not just convert them over to an hourly rate? The GS employees I work with must accurately log every hour they spend in the office, which is how they account for hours worked. They go in even if there is no one else in the office, just because they are obligated to claim the hours. They will generally be sent home (or given comp time) before they are paid overtime.

For what I do, I'm a fan of the salary system. It's more effective. Requiring someone to be in a certain location for "n" number of hours may be desirable for some, but it would severely hamper my ability to do my job.

"It is good to see Pres Biden working to help those who make less than $45,000 per year."

I wonder if this will apply to the military?

An E-1 (on salary), makes just over $24k per year in income.

"This is a good thing for people like a shift manager at fast food or some other retail place who works 50+ hours a week for a low salary. Those people are being exploited a little bit."

If I felt I was being "exploited," I'd go find a different job.

Why wouldn't other people?

"Not every high school drop out joins the military. You were satisfied being a latrine digger."

A salaried latrine digger?

Should people in the military receive overtime when they work more than 40 hours per week.

Back when I first started in the military, 100-hour work weeks were not uncommon.

"You clearly don't understand the concept of exploitation"

That's because it's a subjective understanding.

It's hard to say you're being "exploited," when you choose to be in that position.

"I bet he doesn't think privilege exists either"

---- no.

"Privilege" is a term that is invoked by those trying to convince someone else that they are being robbed of something that is rightfully due to them, but for some reason being denied; or by someone looking for an excuse for their own failures.

"Right up there with saying the reason worker to CEO pay ratio has gone from 20:1 to 400:1 is because CEOs are worth 20x more than a half century ago."

I'm sorry...what?

I'll use median-but median CEO income is ~$836k per year. Median household income is ~$75k per year.

But...if you think that's bad, consider the NFL. In 1974, the highest paid player made ~$710k per year (2023$). Today, the annual income for the highest paid player is $55M.

That's more than 77x what the top player in the 1970s would have earned.

More reactionary bourgeoise capitalism at play?

"You do realize that not understanding exploitation is a form of privilege right?"

YOU do realize that privilege is not a real thing, right? It's a cute-sounding, handy excuse to pull out to explain away things you don't like or disagree with.

"To put it another way (and you have recognized that exploitation exists) you do realize that there are people who do not have the opportunity to "find another job"."

Exploitation is an aspirational goal on the part of progressives...they've just not been successful to this point. How do we take from those that create the wealth without being obligated to give them anything in return?

Also, walk me through the logic of these people who can't find another job. Like, they're legally prohibited from finding another job? I don't think that's it. Maybe physically prohibited? More likely, but still not even remotely common.

I've just never been in that position. Maybe you're referring to military people? They're under contract.

Are they the demographic you're focusing on?

"Girls who get raped at frat parties chose to go to frat parties."

Did they choose to get raped?

If so, it's not rape. It's consensual sex.

"What a dumb idea. The NFL is not representative of the labor market as a whole."

Yeah...it's dumb because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I'm going to throw you a bone. The reason for the massive increases for some professions is due to increased demand. But first, this-there is no connective tissue between the highest paid employee of a company and the lowest paid. I don't know how much the prez of my company makes. What I know beyond any shadow of a doubt is that it has no impact on my labor value. He could be making less than me for all I know.

CEO's are the pro athletes of the financial world. They make more because globalized markets are increasingly competitive, and shareholders are willing to pay a premium for decision makers who will increase their wealth. Pro Athletes make more because they generate more interest, which translates to higher revenues. Even airlines pilots are making what I would call a decent income nowadays...cal if $500k per year. Why? It's not because the airlines want to pay them that much, but rather because there is a greater demand for pilots than supply.

I have no doubt you will dismiss all of this as more ramblings from your favorite reactionary bourgeoise capitalist...I would expect nothing less!

"Legacy admissions at college really exist."

So do racial considerations.

The University of Michigan used a 150 point system as part of their admissions process. 100 points guaranteed admission.

"People of color" received 20 points just for being people of color.

This is an example of privilege, right?

"Even you don't believe that."

Highly unlikely...but not impossible.

"Either work unpaid overtime or you're fired. Happens all the time."

ALL the time.... because employers would prefer to risk their businesses rather than pay overtime.

"Alternative jobs often simply don't exist"

What is an "alternative" job?

As I understand it, the demand for jobs right now is currently outpacing the supply of labor.

An example would be helpful.

"Why would it be privilege? People who choose to apply choose to play by those rules."

Yup.

NO different than with legacy applicants getting points, amiright?

"I lasted all of two weeks."

And you're still unemployed after all that time? Never able to find another job?

"LOL. Most CEOs don't even work in finance."

Fo-give me sir. The business world would have been a more accurate term.

"Google wage theft son"

Dude. I did that.

Turns out, wage theft is illegal. Just like it illegal to not pay any bills for any factors of production.

Just like you, I am against wage theft and all other types of theft.

Although...I'm guessing you're maybe kinda OK with capital and land theft.

"Read #35 as often as it takes."

Totally read it. Totally doesn't make sense.

If you are unable to afford relocation, then staying where you are and earning less is the best option. In this case, the surplus of labor would drive down wages. That's economics 101. It would only change if the demand or the supply changed.

Given that labor is not tied to one geographic location (your notion it is, is a fallacy), as the local supply decreased, wages would increase. Furthermore, low labor costs would attract outside interest, which would increase demand relative to supply and drive up labor costs to the point where it would no longer be advantageous for new firms to set up shop there, all other things being equal.

"So, did it rob you when black people got 20 points, and legacy students got 20 points, and you got 0 points?"

Did it rob anyone when legacy applicants got ten points?

Maybe you can re-itsplain "privilege" to me.

"Because it sure sounds like you're trying to convince us you got robbed."

And you sure seemed to be convinced that legacy admissions advantages were a function of privilege.