5 ms·

I have family that works for DOL's Wage & Hour division. The amount of wage theft is _staggering_. They are chronically understaffed and overworked. Plus, every

by lc9er 4y ago

I have family that works for DOL's Wage & Hour division. The amount of wage theft is _staggering_. They are chronically understaffed and overworked. Plus, every time a Republican administration comes into power, their enforcement power gets severely limited, except in the most egregious cases.

theandrewbailey 4y ago
When people get paid more, the government gets more tax revenue. Smart government would double this division's resources, but governments are anything but smart.
- comprev 4y ago
  Government may get more revenue but the individual politicians get influenced through financial means provided by the companies stealing the wages. Corporates want their pound of flesh for lobbying expenses.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  One party wants a disenfranchised base that will keep voting for them. If they are made whole by the government they might start having wrongthink.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  This would run counter to the "starve the beast"[1] strategy that's formed the core of conservative governance in the US for the last 50 years. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
  - akira2501 4y ago
    If you believe in small government then you're going to enact policies that accomplish this. Re-branding this as "starve the beast" seems nothing more than a propaganda exercise. Further.. almost every business employing people in a State must be setup with that State's authorities. Is there some reason States can't handle wage theft? Is this naturally a federal problem, or even best solved at that level?
    - munk-a 4y ago
      I strongly disagree. If you're in favor of small government and in control you would, absent political concerns, simply shutter government organizations you don't believe in. "Starve the beast" is an entirely different tactic where you don't want to be seen as destroying popular services and so, instead, undermine their ability to function efficiently until they become unpopular enough to cancel. It comes with an understanding that the majority of the political will in a country appreciates these programs when they're well funded and that their cancelation is only politically actionable when they've been starved to ineffectualness. "Starve the beast" is also really only a realistic strategy in a corrupt duopoly like America has since the defunding of popular programs is generally political suicide - unless you can reduce everything to "Us vs. Them"ism.
    - shakezula 4y ago
      It's a term that was _coined by_ fiscal conservatives, it's not a "rebranding as a propaganda exercise".
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      That's not my branding, or a re-branding at all: the first known use of the term was by a Libertarian party member. It's the term of art for this style of financial governance, one that is used somewhat proudly by its disciples. It's a problem for both state governments and the Federal government: wage theft might span from state tax fraud, federal tax fraud, unemployment insurance fraud, federal contract falsification, etc. Making it into a states' issue is overly simplistic.
      - akira2501 4y ago
        > the first known use of the term was by a Libertarian party member. In what context were they using it? I know that's what Wikipedia says, but their reference is behind a paywall. From what I can see of it, this is not how this phrase was initially used. "Starve the Beast" seems to be a specific policy idealism with respect to Proposition 13 and the way tax revenues were being used in certain districts. It does not proscribe a particular administrative style, but rather particular property tax policies.
- agumonkey 4y ago
  non naive suggestion: new nation scale govt structure should be discussed and tried. hybrid patterns, seasonal structures, whatever There are lots of low hanging fruits, which is good because it means space for progress but govt are extremely good at diluting any improvement efforts. Yet most people want higher efficiency / sanity governments.
- ironfootnz 4y ago
  In theory yes, but if you don't pay and use the money for Lobby, you get power, which equals to more rights. That's the foundation of a democracy or let's say society from the times of Pharaos.
- mxschumacher 4y ago
  not quite - you have to think like a government. If people get paid less, the people who finance a given company get to keep more money, it might also be cheaper for consumers. The government has its hands in every stage of every economic interaction. What's "lost" in one area is made up in another. Even a drug dealer has to go to the gas station for example.
- vkou 4y ago
  The purpose of cutting that division is not optimizing the government's revenue, it's optimizing the revenue of their campaign backers. This isn't a policy that was adopted just because, it's the reason the party gets money (As opposed to stuff like the culture war, which is just the excuse that drives the base out to vote).
- fbdab103 4y ago
  Just in the past year, there was a pretty significant fight about funding the IRS. Despite additional IRS funding yielding significant returns.
- eli_gottlieb 4y ago
  That depends whether the government works for the people paying taxes or the people stealing wages.

by lc9er 4y ago

theandrewbailey 4y ago

When people get paid more, the government gets more tax revenue. Smart government would double this division's resources, but governments are anything but smart.

comprev 4y ago
Government may get more revenue but the individual politicians get influenced through financial means provided by the companies stealing the wages. Corporates want their pound of flesh for lobbying expenses.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
One party wants a disenfranchised base that will keep voting for them. If they are made whole by the government they might start having wrongthink.
woodruffw 4y ago
This would run counter to the "starve the beast"[1] strategy that's formed the core of conservative governance in the US for the last 50 years. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
- akira2501 4y ago
  If you believe in small government then you're going to enact policies that accomplish this. Re-branding this as "starve the beast" seems nothing more than a propaganda exercise. Further.. almost every business employing people in a State must be setup with that State's authorities. Is there some reason States can't handle wage theft? Is this naturally a federal problem, or even best solved at that level?
  - munk-a 4y ago
    I strongly disagree. If you're in favor of small government and in control you would, absent political concerns, simply shutter government organizations you don't believe in. "Starve the beast" is an entirely different tactic where you don't want to be seen as destroying popular services and so, instead, undermine their ability to function efficiently until they become unpopular enough to cancel. It comes with an understanding that the majority of the political will in a country appreciates these programs when they're well funded and that their cancelation is only politically actionable when they've been starved to ineffectualness. "Starve the beast" is also really only a realistic strategy in a corrupt duopoly like America has since the defunding of popular programs is generally political suicide - unless you can reduce everything to "Us vs. Them"ism.
  - shakezula 4y ago
    It's a term that was _coined by_ fiscal conservatives, it's not a "rebranding as a propaganda exercise".
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    That's not my branding, or a re-branding at all: the first known use of the term was by a Libertarian party member. It's the term of art for this style of financial governance, one that is used somewhat proudly by its disciples. It's a problem for both state governments and the Federal government: wage theft might span from state tax fraud, federal tax fraud, unemployment insurance fraud, federal contract falsification, etc. Making it into a states' issue is overly simplistic.
    - akira2501 4y ago
      > the first known use of the term was by a Libertarian party member. In what context were they using it? I know that's what Wikipedia says, but their reference is behind a paywall. From what I can see of it, this is not how this phrase was initially used. "Starve the Beast" seems to be a specific policy idealism with respect to Proposition 13 and the way tax revenues were being used in certain districts. It does not proscribe a particular administrative style, but rather particular property tax policies.
agumonkey 4y ago
non naive suggestion: new nation scale govt structure should be discussed and tried. hybrid patterns, seasonal structures, whatever There are lots of low hanging fruits, which is good because it means space for progress but govt are extremely good at diluting any improvement efforts. Yet most people want higher efficiency / sanity governments.
ironfootnz 4y ago
In theory yes, but if you don't pay and use the money for Lobby, you get power, which equals to more rights. That's the foundation of a democracy or let's say society from the times of Pharaos.
mxschumacher 4y ago
not quite - you have to think like a government. If people get paid less, the people who finance a given company get to keep more money, it might also be cheaper for consumers. The government has its hands in every stage of every economic interaction. What's "lost" in one area is made up in another. Even a drug dealer has to go to the gas station for example.
vkou 4y ago
The purpose of cutting that division is not optimizing the government's revenue, it's optimizing the revenue of their campaign backers. This isn't a policy that was adopted just because, it's the reason the party gets money (As opposed to stuff like the culture war, which is just the excuse that drives the base out to vote).
fbdab103 4y ago
Just in the past year, there was a pretty significant fight about funding the IRS. Despite additional IRS funding yielding significant returns.
eli_gottlieb 4y ago
That depends whether the government works for the people paying taxes or the people stealing wages.