What a D!ck

 

From the man who built his life sucking on the teat of government, who wants to cut social security but spent his formative years collecting survivor benefits, wants to continue his assault on people who work for a living.  Speaker of the House and Alfred E. Neuman look-alike Paul Ryan has voiced his opposition to the Obama Administration's expansion of overtime raising the cap from $23,660 to $47,476 for those who work more than 40 hours a week.

Surely, the very serious man has an economic justification for this:

"This regulation hurts the very people it alleges to help. Who is hurt most? Students, non-profit employees, and people starting a new career," Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said in a statement today.

"By mandating overtime pay at a much higher salary threshold, many small businesses and non-profits will simply be unable to afford skilled workers and be forced to eliminate salaried positions, complete with benefits, altogether. For the sake of his own political legacy, President Obama is rushing through regulations -- like the overtime rule -- that will cause people to lose their livelihoods. We are committed to fighting this rule and the many others that would be an absolute disaster for our economy," Ryan added.

Yeah, I don't buy it.  First off, employers aren't having people work more hours for shits and giggles, they're doing it because presumably they need more work done.  For employers who consistently need their employees to work more than 40 hours a week, they can cut hours and hire new employees, pay overtime, or some combination of the two.  Either way, this is a net positive for the workforce.

Secondly, students who are working more than 40 hours a week, of which I'd imagine there aren't that many, should get paid time and a half for every additional hour to compensate them for the opportunity cost of working when they could be studying.  Non-profits whose solution is to alleviate social ills by having wage-slaves should reconsider their organization's model.  People starting a new career will be subject to the same economic logic as above.

Thirdly, Ryan's opposition has nothing to do with employment, GDP, or quality of life; it has everything to do with his philosophy of government and economics that has little to do with an objective reality.  Ryan is looking out for the interests of large employers who stand to lose some money by paying their employees more.  It may be a surprise to some, but the interests of employees and employers aren't 100% in alignment.

Finally, we live in an economy driven by consumer spending and the consumers with the greatest potential to spend more are those currently paid the least.  The current loopholes for "supervisors" who make $30,000 a year and yet are ineligible for overtime are little more than cleverly disguised wage theft.  The overtime threshold is a benefit for employers who want to avoid paying their workers more money; it has nothing to do with the broader economy.

There aren't any silver bullets.  Increasing the overtime threshold won't magically solve economic inequality and revive the middle-class but it is a positive step for workers and the moral thing to do.  Opposition to this is typical of Ryan and those of similar ilk whose chief concern is the short-term earnings of those already at the top of the economic food chain.  These are the people who pretend to be so afraid of the deficit but have no problem charging unnecessary wars to Uncle Sam's credit or pushing for capital gains tax cuts.  They are either disingenuous, stupid, or both and they shouldn't be taken seriously.