2 ms·

This always happens in these discussions: > if the law forces people to work only 40 hours The law isn't forcing them to work only 40 hours. It's forcing Sch

by cxr 3y ago

This always happens in these discussions: > if the law forces people to work only 40 hours The law isn't forcing them to work only 40 hours. It's forcing Schreiber to pay them more if they do.

darth_avocado 3y ago
> Just pay them more It doesn’t work because of you know, math. Not only are you suggesting that people only work 40 hours, but also get paid more for those 40 hours. So now farmers not only hire 2 people instead of 1 because you still have more than 40 hours of work, but now also compensate 2 workers for the lost wages they otherwise would have made working longer hours for a short duration of time. It’s like instead of working 8 hours M-F, I work 10 hours M-Th and take the Friday off because of how my industry works, the law now forces employers to pay me overtime for 2 hours every day. So employers have to restrict me to 8 hours per day to avoid overtime and hire someone else along with me to get the same amount of work done. But then also pay both of us the lost wages for Friday.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cxr 3y ago
  > > Just pay them more > [...] Not only are you suggesting Please don't do false quotes[1]. I'm the one who said, "Just pay them more"—and I'm not sure that anyone did, it seems like it's something that you just... made up (and decided to attribute to me...?). And I didn't suggest anything other than that your choice to phrase it as "the law forces people to work only 40 hours" was untrue—that you were exaggerating—a sort of motte and bailey. Your approach of responding to this with another (albeit this time less forgivable) instance of exaggeration is in a word unkind. I don't know what you hoped this would result in, but I'm not going to respond to you further here. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13602947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13602947>
  - cxr 3y ago
    > I'm the one who said, "Just pay them more" I'm _not_ the one who said it, rather.

by cxr 3y ago

This always happens in these discussions: > if the law forces people to work only 40 hours The law isn't forcing them to work only 40 hours. It's forcing Schreiber to pay them more if they do.

darth_avocado 3y ago

> Just pay them more It doesn’t work because of you know, math. Not only are you suggesting that people only work 40 hours, but also get paid more for those 40 hours. So now farmers not only hire 2 people instead of 1 because you still have more than 40 hours of work, but now also compensate 2 workers for the lost wages they otherwise would have made working longer hours for a short duration of time. It’s like instead of working 8 hours M-F, I work 10 hours M-Th and take the Friday off because of how my industry works, the law now forces employers to pay me overtime for 2 hours every day. So employers have to restrict me to 8 hours per day to avoid overtime and hire someone else along with me to get the same amount of work done. But then also pay both of us the lost wages for Friday.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cxr 3y ago
> > Just pay them more > [...] Not only are you suggesting Please don't do false quotes[1]. I'm the one who said, "Just pay them more"—and I'm not sure that anyone did, it seems like it's something that you just... made up (and decided to attribute to me...?). And I didn't suggest anything other than that your choice to phrase it as "the law forces people to work only 40 hours" was untrue—that you were exaggerating—a sort of motte and bailey. Your approach of responding to this with another (albeit this time less forgivable) instance of exaggeration is in a word unkind. I don't know what you hoped this would result in, but I'm not going to respond to you further here. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13602947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13602947>
- cxr 3y ago
  > I'm the one who said, "Just pay them more" I'm _not_ the one who said it, rather.