A Thought on a way to truly create a stronger economy
Mar 14, 2020 22:28:50 GMT -5
robeiae likes this
Post by GilroyC on Mar 14, 2020 22:28:50 GMT -5
I do not claim to be an economist or a well versed economic scholar. I speak more from being in the trenches of different jobs and hearing what managers say.
So I wanted to offer a thought process of how we can maybe improve the economy.
My idea for economic growth would require two phases. Some of it would affect all companies, while others would affect only some.
One big thing I'd want to change and would affect everyone is overtime rules.
1) Change the multiplier for what constitutes Overtime. When these rules were enacted in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, having to pay 1.5 times a salary severely cut into a company's profits. After all, that meant paying 15 cents for each hour past 40 instead of the normal 10 cents an hour during that base work day. More recently, while most employers try to avoid overtime, they find it cheaper than having more people do the job. I'd propose raising the multiplier over the course of a few years. Start at 2.5 times as your first change, then increase it by 0.5 times every two years until it maxes out at 5 times the base pay.
2) Them I'd want to make adjustments to the rules for the exempt employee
a. Right now, you can be labeled exempt if you make more than $35,568 a year or $684 a week. This is still technically poverty level in some places. My proposed change it that the area's median income - 25% should become where the exempt status starts. This would then allow the exempt status to shift based on the location. In a place like Southern Maryland, where the Median Income is $65,000 a year, you can't start being exempt until you reach $48,750. The disadvantage to this change is in places where the median income is low enough to drop the base below the $35,568 a year presently established.
b. The other option to this Exempt change is to change how things can trigger overtime for exempt employees. So leave the base alone at $35,568. Now take that median income -20% or $55568 (whichever is higher) and allow them a maximum of 55 hours a week. Once they have worked more than 55 hours, they become eligible for overtime for all time worked beyond the 55 hours.
The reason for the above changes is real simple. Companies are content to burn people out to save their bottom line, rather than hire more people. If we can make it cost more to run people ragged, maybe that will force companies to hire more people rather than burn out employees with too much overtime. I frequently hear the phrase "Do more with less," however many companies are trying to do more with almost nothing.
That part would be phase 1. Phase 2 would probably have a little less impact…
To be a part of the American Stock Exchange system (Nasdaq or the NYSE) the following conditions must be available:
1) Being OVERqualified should not eliminate someone from consideration for a job. Give them a chance to get in the door and prove why they deserve to work for you.
2) 1% of all open and available full time jobs must allow the hiring of someone with a high school diploma. These jobs must offer a path to growth and advancement within the company. These jobs can NOT be internships.
3) 1% of all open and available full time jobs must allow the hiring of someone with a bachelor's degree fresh out of college with no experience. These jobs must offer a path to growth and advancement within the company. These jobs can NOT be internships.
4) (This is still something I'm debating) A two way loyalty system must exist to show that employees are valued as more than lines on a spreadsheet and that employees consider the company as more than some place to get a paycheck
Here's more of a why for Phase 2. We talk about jobs added, but they aren't really jobs that are going to help people learn and grow, nor do they actually open spots for people to become loyal employees. There are still too many people having to work two, three, four jobs, just to make ends meet. Too many people who get into and stay in bad marriages due to financial insecurity.
If we have a company with 100 employees, they have to have an opening for 1 high school graduate and 1 college graduate. This helps these people who maybe can't afford to go to college or who want to go straight to work with their first college degree. It helps pay down some of those college loans, because the graduates got jobs and can actually afford to pay. At companies like Google, or GE, who have 1000s of employees, 1000s of jobs, this means 10 openings for a college grad, 10 opening for a high school graduate.
I feel like 1% to the high school grad and 1% to the college grad is not a lot to ask.
This also allows people to prove their worth with a company, that just because they don't have a degree doesn't mean they don't have a brain to learn and grasp concepts. How many people are stuck because they can't afford to advance beyond their poor neighborhood? How many geniuses are lost to the financial ruin of bad crime ridden areas? And why should only SPORTS STARS be allowed to get out and earn a living?
When offered to another thoughtful group, I kept hearing this is too "socialist" and "get the government out of the free market." Then I realize these are people who don't pay attention to history. You need regulations to make a true free market work. Last time we tried to do without, the Great Recession happened. Once the regulations went into place, the market and economy improved.
One big thing I'd want to change and would affect everyone is overtime rules.
1) Change the multiplier for what constitutes Overtime. When these rules were enacted in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, having to pay 1.5 times a salary severely cut into a company's profits. After all, that meant paying 15 cents for each hour past 40 instead of the normal 10 cents an hour during that base work day. More recently, while most employers try to avoid overtime, they find it cheaper than having more people do the job. I'd propose raising the multiplier over the course of a few years. Start at 2.5 times as your first change, then increase it by 0.5 times every two years until it maxes out at 5 times the base pay.
2) Them I'd want to make adjustments to the rules for the exempt employee
a. Right now, you can be labeled exempt if you make more than $35,568 a year or $684 a week. This is still technically poverty level in some places. My proposed change it that the area's median income - 25% should become where the exempt status starts. This would then allow the exempt status to shift based on the location. In a place like Southern Maryland, where the Median Income is $65,000 a year, you can't start being exempt until you reach $48,750. The disadvantage to this change is in places where the median income is low enough to drop the base below the $35,568 a year presently established.
b. The other option to this Exempt change is to change how things can trigger overtime for exempt employees. So leave the base alone at $35,568. Now take that median income -20% or $55568 (whichever is higher) and allow them a maximum of 55 hours a week. Once they have worked more than 55 hours, they become eligible for overtime for all time worked beyond the 55 hours.
The reason for the above changes is real simple. Companies are content to burn people out to save their bottom line, rather than hire more people. If we can make it cost more to run people ragged, maybe that will force companies to hire more people rather than burn out employees with too much overtime. I frequently hear the phrase "Do more with less," however many companies are trying to do more with almost nothing.
That part would be phase 1. Phase 2 would probably have a little less impact…
To be a part of the American Stock Exchange system (Nasdaq or the NYSE) the following conditions must be available:
1) Being OVERqualified should not eliminate someone from consideration for a job. Give them a chance to get in the door and prove why they deserve to work for you.
2) 1% of all open and available full time jobs must allow the hiring of someone with a high school diploma. These jobs must offer a path to growth and advancement within the company. These jobs can NOT be internships.
3) 1% of all open and available full time jobs must allow the hiring of someone with a bachelor's degree fresh out of college with no experience. These jobs must offer a path to growth and advancement within the company. These jobs can NOT be internships.
4) (This is still something I'm debating) A two way loyalty system must exist to show that employees are valued as more than lines on a spreadsheet and that employees consider the company as more than some place to get a paycheck
Here's more of a why for Phase 2. We talk about jobs added, but they aren't really jobs that are going to help people learn and grow, nor do they actually open spots for people to become loyal employees. There are still too many people having to work two, three, four jobs, just to make ends meet. Too many people who get into and stay in bad marriages due to financial insecurity.
If we have a company with 100 employees, they have to have an opening for 1 high school graduate and 1 college graduate. This helps these people who maybe can't afford to go to college or who want to go straight to work with their first college degree. It helps pay down some of those college loans, because the graduates got jobs and can actually afford to pay. At companies like Google, or GE, who have 1000s of employees, 1000s of jobs, this means 10 openings for a college grad, 10 opening for a high school graduate.
I feel like 1% to the high school grad and 1% to the college grad is not a lot to ask.
This also allows people to prove their worth with a company, that just because they don't have a degree doesn't mean they don't have a brain to learn and grasp concepts. How many people are stuck because they can't afford to advance beyond their poor neighborhood? How many geniuses are lost to the financial ruin of bad crime ridden areas? And why should only SPORTS STARS be allowed to get out and earn a living?
When offered to another thoughtful group, I kept hearing this is too "socialist" and "get the government out of the free market." Then I realize these are people who don't pay attention to history. You need regulations to make a true free market work. Last time we tried to do without, the Great Recession happened. Once the regulations went into place, the market and economy improved.
