4 ms·

> What typically happens: Farmer hires 75% more people so none of them get overtime but now they each make 57% as much money because they've each had their hour

> What typically happens: Farmer hires 75% more people so none of them get overtime but now they each make 57% as much money because they've each had their hours cut. Wouldn't that also increase rates, since you need to hire more laborers, which means the demand for labor increases? Another possibility, is lower peoples' rates to $24.80—40 hours at $24.80/hr + 30 hours at overtime = $2108, so the same as they were being paid before. Or something in between.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Wouldn't that also increase rates, since you need to hire more laborers, which means the demand for labor increases Only if farm work is such a large proportion of the market for unskilled labor that it would move the entire market, which it isn't. And even if it was, paying more would raise costs which would cause marginal farms to fail and lower labor demand again. > Another possibility, is lower peoples' rates to $24.80—40 hours at $24.80/hr + 30 hours at overtime = $2108, so the same as they were being paid before. Those people don't want to work for $24.80/hour instead of $30 for most of the year just to be able to get overtime during harvest season. You might offer to pay them less during that time for the same kind of work, but this is the sort of thing the government sometimes gets mad at you for, because then you're transparently thwarting their inefficient price controls. And you have to ask what's the point of the law if the best case scenario is that you can find a way to cause the rule to have no effect.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > And you have to ask what's the point of the law if the best case scenario is that you can find a way to cause the rule to have no effect. I was looking for a way to have the rule cause no harm—everybody works the same hours, and gets paid the same.

4 ms·

> What typically happens: Farmer hires 75% more people so none of them get overtime but now they each make 57% as much money because they've each had their hour

by mcphage 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Wouldn't that also increase rates, since you need to hire more laborers, which means the demand for labor increases Only if farm work is such a large proportion of the market for unskilled labor that it would move the entire market, which it isn't. And even if it was, paying more would raise costs which would cause marginal farms to fail and lower labor demand again. > Another possibility, is lower peoples' rates to $24.80—40 hours at $24.80/hr + 30 hours at overtime = $2108, so the same as they were being paid before. Those people don't want to work for $24.80/hour instead of $30 for most of the year just to be able to get overtime during harvest season. You might offer to pay them less during that time for the same kind of work, but this is the sort of thing the government sometimes gets mad at you for, because then you're transparently thwarting their inefficient price controls. And you have to ask what's the point of the law if the best case scenario is that you can find a way to cause the rule to have no effect.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > And you have to ask what's the point of the law if the best case scenario is that you can find a way to cause the rule to have no effect. I was looking for a way to have the rule cause no harm—everybody works the same hours, and gets paid the same.