So, apparently I can't work more than 40 hours a week...

[Jon]

It's my first time entering the workforce and it seems finding work that exceeds 40 hours a week is hard.

Why? Because the state feels it's necessary to mandate employers by force to pay 1.5 times the wage for every hour worked overtime.

Fuck this. If I want to offer labor for more than 40 hours per week, it's my damn right. It's my labor.

[1713472439]

1713472439

[1713472439]

1713472439

[1713472439]

1713472439

[1713472439]

1713472439

[Kluge]

Work at two different Walmarts.

Problem solved.

You're welcome.

[FirstAscent]

It's my first time entering the workforce and it seems finding work that exceeds 40 hours a week is hard.

Why? Because the state feels it's necessary to mandate employers by force to pay 1.5 times the wage for every hour worked overtime.

Fuck this. If I want to offer labor for more than 40 hours per week, it's my damn right. It's my labor.

Speaking from inexperience, I see. You said it yourself - it's your first time entering the workforce. I guarantee you, one day you'll find that after you work 40 hours a week, and go to and from work, and eat, and sleep, that your personal times is not much, and then when your employer says, we need you for 48 hours this week, and so on, and it's damn inconvenient, and the employer starts to give you shit work because you're a complainer, and so on...

You'll be damn glad they have to pay you time and a half for overtime.

Be thankful that overtime is time and a half. You have no idea. The whole thing you're missing is without time and a half as a disincentive for the employer to work you more than 40 hours a week, they'd walk all over you if you didn't work 60 hours a week and fire your ass if it happened to be inconvenient for you because in this climate, they have a lot of people who will work 60 and 70 hours a week and they don't need an extra employee on the books if you don't want to do that for the next five years.

Get out there and work 40 hour weeks for six months straight and then report back here.

[Jon]

It's my first time entering the workforce and it seems finding work that exceeds 40 hours a week is hard.

Why? Because the state feels it's necessary to mandate employers by force to pay 1.5 times the wage for every hour worked overtime.

Fuck this. If I want to offer labor for more than 40 hours per week, it's my damn right. It's my labor.

Be thankful that overtime is time and a half. You have no idea. The whole thing you're missing is without time and a half as a disincentive for the employer to work you more than 40 hours a week, they'd walk all over you if you didn't work 60 hours a week and fire your ass if it happened to be inconvenient for you.

I see no problem with this. If the market enables and prefer individuals who can work 60+ hours with no complaints, then so be it. It's their money and labor; let them do as they please.

If I can't meet my employer's desires, I should be fired.

I will not thank the state for coercing businesses and individuals. Some people have families to feed and they need to work more hours. When stores can't afford to, it can be a problem. It hurts everyone in the end: People can't do what they want.

[FirstAscent]

It's my first time entering the workforce and it seems finding work that exceeds 40 hours a week is hard.

Why? Because the state feels it's necessary to mandate employers by force to pay 1.5 times the wage for every hour worked overtime.

Fuck this. If I want to offer labor for more than 40 hours per week, it's my damn right. It's my labor.

Be thankful that overtime is time and a half. You have no idea. The whole thing you're missing is without time and a half as a disincentive for the employer to work you more than 40 hours a week, they'd walk all over you if you didn't work 60 hours a week and fire your ass if it happened to be inconvenient for you.

I see no problem with this.

I will not thank the state for coercing businesses and individuals. Some people have families to feed and they need to work more hours. When stores can't afford to, it can be a problem.

That's my point. You're in competition with people who can outwork you like you can't believe. You probably can't keep up with them. They just work and sleep. If not for time and half, the business would fire you because you finally get tired of 70 hour weeks.

[Jon]

It's my first time entering the workforce and it seems finding work that exceeds 40 hours a week is hard.

Why? Because the state feels it's necessary to mandate employers by force to pay 1.5 times the wage for every hour worked overtime.

Fuck this. If I want to offer labor for more than 40 hours per week, it's my damn right. It's my labor.

Be thankful that overtime is time and a half. You have no idea. The whole thing you're missing is without time and a half as a disincentive for the employer to work you more than 40 hours a week, they'd walk all over you if you didn't work 60 hours a week and fire your ass if it happened to be inconvenient for you.

I see no problem with this.

I will not thank the state for coercing businesses and individuals. Some people have families to feed and they need to work more hours. When stores can't afford to, it can be a problem.

That's my point. You're in competition with people who can outwork you like you can't believe. You probably can't keep up with them. They just work and sleep. If not for time and half, the business would fire you because you finally get tired of 70 hour weeks.

I don't have the right to a job from a business that caters to and prefers hardworkers. Why should I deny a more efficient and harder worker more hours and a business better gains for those hours?

[FirstAscent]

I don't have the right to a job from a business that caters to and prefers hardworkers. Why should I deny a more efficient and harder worker more hours and a business better gains for those hours?

You're not getting it. The other point is you said you have never worked 40 hour weeks. Try it for six months, and then report back with your new viewpoint on the matter.

[Jon]

I don't have the right to a job from a business that caters to and prefers hardworkers. Why should I deny a more efficient and harder worker more hours and a business better gains for those hours?

You're not getting it. The other point is you said you have never worked 40 hour weeks. Try it for six months, and then report back with your new viewpoint on the matter.

My father worked 80 hour weeks managing a restaurant. I know what it looks like -- or the lack thereof. I want it more than anything. I want a year of the most work I can do. I need to build my savings to their fullest and it will be done.

I will report back.

[Jon]

...and, yes, I don't get how it's preferable for the government to mandate how long one should work.

If men want to and are willing to work 80 hour weeks and the businesses benefit from it, I see no problem. They should be able to act as they desire.

[FirstAscent]

I don't have the right to a job from a business that caters to and prefers hardworkers. Why should I deny a more efficient and harder worker more hours and a business better gains for those hours?

You're not getting it. The other point is you said you have never worked 40 hour weeks. Try it for six months, and then report back with your new viewpoint on the matter.

My father worked 80 hour weeks managing a restaurant. I know what it looks like -- or the lack thereof. I want it more than anything.

There's a big difference in spending 80 hours managing and being managed for 80 hours a week. I'm sure the employees he scheduled just loved hearing him say "I work 80 hours every week."

[FirstAscent]

...and, yes, I don't get how it's preferable for the government to mandate how long one should work.

If men want to and are willing to work 80 hour weeks and the businesses benefit from it, I see no problem. They should be able to act as they desire.

What about the average person who doesn't want to listen to the asshole manager tell them that he works 80 hours a week and if the employee can't do the same, well then he'll just have to take a hike. That's the way it would be.

[Jon]

...and, yes, I don't get how it's preferable for the government to mandate how long one should work.

If men want to and are willing to work 80 hour weeks and the businesses benefit from it, I see no problem. They should be able to act as they desire.

What about the average person who doesn't want to listen to the asshole manager tell them that he works 80 hours a week and if the employee can't do the same, well then he'll just have to take a hike. That's the way it would be.

Why should the employer have to sacrifice for less?

Not all jobs can be functional with 80 hour weeks, you know. The fact is if enough of the population wants lower work weeks, their desire will be met in one way or another; whether it be through alternative jobs or lower wages.

Nothing inherently makes an employer more powerful than an employee. They both have desires and something to give.

[CIYAM]

You just need to look at countries like China where often the most lowly paid are also the most ridiculously overworked (often the overtime not paid anyway as it is deemed "just something you have to do if you want this job").

There's nothing like the fear of unemployment to give bosses free labor.

[Jon]

(often the overtime not paid anyway as it is deemed "just something you have to do if you want this job").

Then that's just the market rate for the labor. If the employee can be easily fired and replaced with somebody who can easily meet the requirement of un-salaried overtime, then why not?

I see nothing wrong here.

[benjamindees]

I remember being your age and thinking that people work for profit.

[Jon]

I remember being your age and thinking that people work for profit.

...then they wouldn't work. People will only enter an exchange if they will be better off in return. Masochism included.

Life can be hard but it doesn't justify making the forest equal with a hatchet and a saw.

[benjamindees]

Subsistence is not profit, Atlas.

[Jon]

Subsistence is not profit, Atlas.

Is life not preferable to death?

[benjamindees]

Profit is not "that which is preferable", it is "that which makes one better off".

If I threaten to cut off either your finger or your toe, and you choose the finger, you have not profited by the exchange of a finger for a toe.

all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

[CIYAM]

I see nothing wrong here.

Well then don't complain when the majority of jobs are outsourced to China and India and the majority of other people in developed countries become unemployed (unless you really do want to work your 80 hours a week for a few measly bucks to be on the "same level").