> Don't think in terms of money. Think in terms of the economy of stuff (both goods and services). There's 20% less stuff produced. That's 20% less stuff availa

> Don't think in terms of money. Think in terms of the economy of stuff (both goods and services). There's 20% less stuff produced. That's 20% less stuff available to consume. You're assuming linear productivity per hour worked, which is a silly assumption. Productivity per hour worked is obviously going to go up when you reduce labor supply, because, uhh: - Data clearly shows people are more productive per hour the fewer hours they work, and, - Presumably businesses not every unit of labor that a business employs enjoys the same return on investment. If the business moves from being able to buy 1000 units of labor to 990 units, they are not going to choose average ROI 10 units of labor to remove. - You're assuming that having the overtime threshold kick in 20% sooner (I favor 36 hours, BTW, not 32) results in 20% fewer hours worked. This seems silly. > And, "closer to historic balances"? Historic when? 1950? Productivity and wages tracked at about the same growth rate from 1920 to 1970. Since then, wages have stagnated but productivity has grown significantly. This has reversed in the last year or so, but it's not clear how much is transient and in any case it is not enough to make up all the lost ground.