Seeking Alpha

The National Retail Federation pushes for 40 hours as full-time week

Comments (22)
  • phoneranger
    , contributor
    Comments (350) | Send Message
     
    This has zero chance of passage. Waste of time. For me now.
    2 Apr, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • ejmoosa
    , contributor
    Comments (36) | Send Message
     
    Less than Zero.

     

    By the time it is through, the work week will be 25 hours...
    2 Apr, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • Chazuu
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    I don't have any idea about whether there is a chance to pass this, but it is part of the continuing, so far successful, campaign to pauperize American workers while enriching the employers. In the graphic arts industry, where I have spent my entire working lifetime, 35 and 37.5 hour work weeks have been standard for full time workers for 20 years or longer. If this passed, a great proportion of American workers would suddenly become part timers with the accompanying loss of benefits.
    Class warfare by the moneyed elite against the ordinary worker has been extraordinarily successful. Making almost all employees part timers or "managers" is a logical advance in this war in which the middle class is gradually being destroyed.
    2 Apr, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Bobbert333
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    "I don't have any idea about whether there is a chance to pass this, but it is part of the continuing, so far successful, campaign to pauperize American workers while enriching the employers."

     

    Really? So all of the workers who got their hours cut to under 30 hours a week when Obamacare was enacted will do worse when they have the opportunity to work 40 hours a week and make more money?
    2 Apr, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • rennatus
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Bobbert333, you said....."Really? So all of the workers who got their hours cut to under 30 hours a week when Obamacare was enacted will do worse when they have the opportunity to work 40 hours a week and make more money?"
    What does that have to do with the bill? It isn't a bill to mandate workers be given 40 hours, it's a bill to define what number of hours "full time" is, do you understand the difference?
    3 Apr, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1252) | Send Message
     
    Chazuu - is it "class warfare" when corporations act in a way that maximizes earnings for their shareholders? Isn't that what the law requires them to do?

     

    I don't agree with the bill, but I also don't agree that it can be classified as "class warfare". I assume since you are commenting on an investment site that you own shares in at least one corporation? Perhaps you are actually on both sides of what you call "warfare"?
    3 Apr, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • jeepnsam
    , contributor
    Comments (49) | Send Message
     
    What's a 40 hour work week??? LOL!!
    2 Apr, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1097) | Send Message
     
    Seriously... Why not just take a nap like Spain and really take it easy. It's going well for them over there.
    2 Apr, 04:21 PM Reply Like
  • Chazuu
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    Executives, professionals and entrepreneurs relish and take pride in working long hours. (Jeepnsam--"40 hours??? LOL")
    Many millions of hourly paid workers would love to be able to get full time work. When their earnings and benefits are stagnant as they have been for a good many years we end up with a slow growth or no growth economy.
    2 Apr, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • Chazuu
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    I am really tired of hearing about how Obamacare is supposedly hurting workers.
    There seems to be a mind set among many die hard right wingers that anything that helps workers is a bad idea. (Usually pejoratively called"Socialism"). I can't find any reliable statistics about how many workers had their hours cut because of Obamacare. I doubt that it is very many because companies with less than 50 employees aren't affected. Larger employers most often have decent health insurance coverage for their employees already.
    2 Apr, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • Jack Banser
    , contributor
    Comments (149) | Send Message
     
    http://reut.rs/1pWrP6t

     

    Say that to the 2 million people who stand to have their hours cut.(And eventually that number will be even more!)

     

    " I can't find any reliable statistics about how many workers had their hours cut because of Obamacare." Do your homework before making silly accusations before attacking groups, it took me all of 2 minutes to find the article above.
    3 Apr, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • xlchill@aol.com
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Will never happen. The democrat party and obama are driving business to offer more low wage and part time jobs and that is why democare is calling a 30 hour week full time.
    2 Apr, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • Chazuu
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    COBeeMan
    "Chazuu - is it "class warfare" when corporations act in a way that maximizes earnings for their shareholders? Isn't that what the law requires them to do?

     

    I don't agree with the bill, but I also don't agree that it can be classified as "class warfare". I assume since you are commenting on an investment site that you own shares in at least one corporation? Perhaps you are actually on both sides of what you call "warfare"?"

     

    You are correct that I own stock, actually in 15 different corporations, and, before semi retiring was a director in two.
    If corporations only responsibility is to maximize profits then, yes they can do anything possible to cheat, steal and otherwise earn profits at the expense of consumers, workers and society in general. My personal belief is that corporations have many other responsibilities. Especially today, when the Supremes have decided that corporations have some sort of personhood.
    It is a fact that the middle class in the USA is shrinking and that the top level is accruing more and more wealth.
    4 Apr, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1252) | Send Message
     
    First, you cannot logically compare the compensation of wage earners with business builders since there is nothing in common between them. Second, the free market dictates what a skill or set of skills is worth based only on supply and demand. Anyone who wants to make more money must gain the appropriate skills. It is detrimental (and irrational) to force higher pay for skill sets that are not in higher demand. If it could be done efficiently with a guaranteed job waiting, it might be a good idea for the government to pay for job retraining rather than welfare programs.
    4 Apr, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • Steve Tinnes
    , contributor
    Comments (74) | Send Message
     
    It's all about supply and demand. If you don't want to make minimum wage, then don't take a mimimum wage job. If no one takes jobs for minimum wages, those paying minimum wages will have to pay higher wages.

     

    The real issue, however, is that those making minimum wages have no skills to get a higher paying job. Ergo, go back to school and this time, do your homework and graduate.
    4 Apr, 07:33 PM Reply Like
  • Chazuu
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    I would suggest that business builders might have a hard time building their businesses without the help of some wage earners. The employer who feels that he has nothing on common with his employees is mistaken. That is the text book example of a poor manager. I negotiated many times with a union on the behalf of a group of employers and we fared much better by recognizing our common interests and goals than as groups from two different (antagonistic) worlds.
    5 Apr, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1252) | Send Message
     
    Likewise, wage earners have no jobs without business builders. My point is that the work they do is nothing alike and cannot be compared as you did.

     

    To your second point, a business builder is not the one who manages employees and negotiates with unions. That is yet another skill set for whom the business builder provides a job.

     

    I did not say there were two different worlds, but you did when you claimed there was some sort of "class warfare" going on. Instead, I simply claim that all compensation is determined by supply and demand for a skill set, and that you cannot compare the compensation given different skill sets otherwise.
    5 Apr, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • Chazuu
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    I really wish I hadn't said "class warfare" since that seems to be a loaded expression.
    I should have simply said that those who control the levers of power have been extraordinarily successful in keeping workers' wages low and their own incomes high and rising. Yes. The laws of supply and demand have yet to be repealed - but they have been and are being manipulated.
    The "business builders" (capitalists) have managed to erect our Byzantine tax code (through the legalized bribery called lobbying) which allows the top tenth of one percent to pay little on no tax, hold profits in low taxed overseas accounts, and export jobs to low wage countries.
    By the way, I was a "business builder" (owner) for over 50 years who negotiated on my own behalf and in behalf of other "business builders".
    7 Apr, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1252) | Send Message
     
    I agree that the tax code is unfair, and that is a much better reform target than "class warfare".

     

    I wouldn't mind eliminating the income tax code (and most of the IRS) and implementing a national sales tax (or some such flat tax model) without any tax rebates, credits, or returns. It would be collected by the States for the Feds (except for non-sales tax states).

     

    I believe everyone should pay their fair share, and the more stuff you buy the more you would end up paying. Maybe there would also be one rate for essentials like food and another rate for non-essentials like jewelry. The problem comes when certain political types want to force certain groups to pay a higher percent or allow other groups to pay a lower percent, which requires a tax code, that is manipulated back and forth and grows exponentially.
    7 Apr, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • Chazuu
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    Pennsylvania, where I live, has a reasonably fair system of taxation. There is a sales tax of 6%, but it does not apply to food or clothing and some other essentials. There is a flat tax on income (a little over 2%) and on estates (6%).
    One of our previous governors, Milton Freeman, was a wealthy individual and I remember the report one year that he had (legally) paid no federal income tax, but that he had paid the Pennsylvania flat tax on income.
    There is also no reasonable justification that a "business builder", the CEO of a corporation, should pay a marginal federal income tax rate of close to 40% while a hedge fund manager, making the same income, gets by paying a maximum of 15%. At the same time, a much lower level hourly employee pays closer to 20% or more, including the deduction for Social Security and Medicare. Since these deductions are currently capped at $113,700 of income, the high earner pays no such deduction of all income above this level, throwing the great majority of the burden on the low wage owners.
    8 Apr, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1252) | Send Message
     
    That is part of the problem with income tax. There are different kinds of income (wages, capital gains, and others) that are taxed differently because certain groups want to motivate certain activities/actions and demotivate others. The thought is that raising capital gains taxes would actually hurt the small investor most (on an individual basis) and possibly prevent them from participating altogether (which smacks of *the term that shall not be mentioned*).

     

    Perhaps, a simple plan would be for the Feds to not tax wages, but tax all capital gains, windfalls, and purchases of non-essentials, and all at the same rate. How is that for simple and fair? The new law would explicitly define what is NOT taxed and would also prevent Congress from changing it in any way other than changing the rate with a 66% vote.
    8 Apr, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Chazuu
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    Sounds reasonable. Dream on!
    9 Apr, 09:48 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|