6 comments in reply to "A Bit More on the Misconstrued CBO Report"

  1. Larry Signor says:

    Eric Cantor and his minions can incite me past my personal tolerance level. The misleading hordes are in disarray thanks to people like you, Jon Chait and PK. I shudder to think of Brad DeLongs response, but I’m sure I’ll like it.


  2. Jill SH says:

    It’s the End of Job-Lock! Hallelujah!

    I can’t tell you how many families I know where one person is self-employed (often an artist, musician, or craftsman) and the spouse carries the health-insurance job, often new mothers who must work full-time and can’t be home with their baby.

    Now if they want people to do long crummy boring jobs, they’ll have to pay more! People will start their own businesses, or work only as long as they want for some employer.

    Employers may actually come to enjoy this, especially small small businesses who couldn’t afford to have health insurance for employees. It will make the labor market much more fluid.

    It’ll take a while to sink in with folks just how much the ACA is changing so many of our basic assumptions about work, employment, and health care. It’ll only get better and better.


  3. smith says:

    Well this is an excellent opportunity to bring up an important issue and put the Republicans on the defensive. Unfortunately hapless and clueless Democrats don’t a thing about simple concepts regarding labor issues and working hours. They know nothing of the basic important New Deal legislation that dealt with labor issues. They know nothing of the important regulatory changes that were made to these laws in the 1990s and 2000s. They never think about the historical changes in the labor market in the 1950s through 2000 that rendered even previous law and regulations out of date.

    I’ll spell it out for you.

    In 1938, in part to aid recovery and create more employment opportunities, the Fair Labor Standards Act mandated time and a half for hourly wages for hours over 44 a week. In 1940, this was further rolled back to 40 hours. However from 1950 to 2000, manufacturing jobs disappeared, and even without globalization, NAFTA, consolidation, augmented by the stupidity, selfishness, and shortsightedness of the new business executive, a modern economy would be expected to have less manual labor and more office workers. But the combination of increased office workers and increasingly broader label of who was exempt (salaried employees, sounds so special and managerial) meant that overtime pay was available to an ever smaller segment of the labor market. Salaried employees don’t just miss out on overtime, they work for free past scheduled hours. The changes alluded to earlier in the 1990s and 2000s broadened the scope of who was exempt (tech employees got their own special new exemption in 1996).

    Dean Baker has brought up the issue of hours worked repeatedly (as have I actually in this blog)
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/why-americans-should-work-less-way-germans-do

    So instead of getting in a typical Obama and Democratic defensive crouch over work-force participation, liberals or progressives should use discussion of the subject to promote phasing in a 35 hour work week, and ending most or all exempt status. After 64 years, don’t you think it’s about time we could work a little less instead of being exploited more?


    • smith says:

      Oops, make that 74 years (1940 40 hour week, it’s now 2014)
      Also, you won’t see this issue because Democrats are in the pocket of business interests and the top 10% who have control over their own hours, not the average American.


    • smith says:

      Sorry, it should read
      “Democrats don’t know a thing…”
      left out what they know, nothing


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.