As with the bill that Rep Takano introduced in Congress, I feel like the media are not discussing this in at all a reasonable way. It is _not_ a bill to shorten

As with the bill that Rep Takano introduced in Congress, I feel like the media are not discussing this in at all a reasonable way. It is _not_ a bill to shorten the workweek. It's a bill to change the line at which employers pay overtime ... to workers who would get overtime. In California, for employers of the size mentioned here, workers become exempt at around ~$62k/yr. The BLS has stats for California which annoyingly give the median hourly wage, and the average annual comp (~$65.5k), but not the median annual comp. But certainly large fraction of workers are above the 'exempt' line, possibly more than half. Add to that a lot of workers are: - working for employers smaller than 500 staff in CA - some form of contractor - working multiple jobs (perhaps less now than a few years ago) What's the proportion of workers who would be impacted by this? And how many workers are not yet exempt, but are close enough to the exempt line that employers will be better off giving them a raise to an exempt salary and then demanding more hours per week? https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/wage-and-hour/salary-laws/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/wage-and-hour/salary-laws... https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes_ca.htm#00-0000 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes_ca.htm#00-0000