kalikshama
Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010 Status: offline
|
...YOUNG: So $455 is the current cap. What's the speculation about what the new cap might be? BERNSTEIN: Well, they haven't said. The White House has thrown out kind of a couple of parameters, or goal posts in that regard. Now, it is very important - we haven't mentioned this - this threshold is not adjusted for inflation. So every year, it loses ground, which means that every year, fewer people are protected by overtime pay, or fewer people are eligible for overtime pay, based on this threshold. So if you go back to 2004 - the last time the threshold was raised - and you simply adjusted that level for inflation - for the inflation that's taken place over the decade since then - the threshold would go from something like 455 today to about 550. So $550 a week. That's actually, in my view, an inadequate adjustment. We should do better than that. If you go back to the 1975 threshold - which was, I think, a more reasonable one - and you adjust that for inflation, you'd have something around $970, or around 50, $60,000 a year. So that would mean that people who earn 50 to $60,000 a year - which I think is basically a middle-class wage - would be automatically eligible for overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week, even if they're a salaried worker. YOUNG: Well, in fact, we should say you co-wrote a paper last year asking the administration to do just this, to raise the salary threshold from $455 a week - about $23,000 a year in salary - to raise the threshold so that those people making over $984 a week would get this time and a half. OK. You know, what the argument is, that if companies are forced to do this, they will just start cutting jobs. BERNSTEIN: In this case, that may not be actually what you ultimately hear, at least when people start learning what we're talking about, because they won't be cutting jobs. In fact, they might be adding jobs, in the following way: What this change does - I'm not going to pretend this doesn't raise labor costs, because of course it does. But it only raises labor costs for people who are working overtime. So if you currently have someone who should be getting overtime, but isn't, and that person works for you, you now have a disincentive for them to work more than 40 hours, because it will cost you more than it did before, at least once this new rule is in place. So what we think will happen is firms will decide not to work those people more than 40 hours a week to cut back on their overtime, and instead, to hire more workers at a straight-time wage, just at the base wage, not the time-and-a-half wage. So, in that sense, it could actually end up increasing employment. Economists who have looked at this from both sides of the aisle have agreed with that analysis. http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/03/13/obama-overtime-pay
|