No OT for you!

[Siji]

http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3882629&p1=0

Simply amazing.

U.S. offers tips on avoiding overtime pay
New labor rules expected to take effect early this yearThe Associated Press
Updated: 6:33 p.m. ET Jan. 05, 2004WASHINGTON - The Labor Department is giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible under new rules expected to be finalized early this year.

The department's advice comes even as it touts the $895 million in increased wages that it says those workers would be guaranteed from the reforms.

Among the options for employers: cut workers' hourly wages and add the overtime to equal the original salary, or raise salaries to the new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible.

‘We're not saying anybody should do any of this.’

— Ed Frank
Labor Dept. spokesperson


The department says it is merely listing well-known choices available to employers, even under current law.

"We're not saying anybody should do any of this," said Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank.

New overtime regulations were proposed in March after employers complained they were being saddled with costly lawsuits filed by workers who claimed they were unfairly being denied overtime. But the regulations themselves have stirred controversy over how many workers would be stripped of their right to overtime pay.

The issue is being seized by Democrats in their attempt to win back Congress and the White House.

A final rule, revising the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, is expected to be issued in March. The act defines the types of jobs that qualify workers for time-and-a-half if they work more than 40 hours a week.

Overtime pay for the 1.3 million low-income workers has been a selling tool for the Bush administration in trying to ease concerns in Congress about millions of higher-paid workers becoming ineligible.

But the Labor Department, in a summary of its plan published last March, suggests how employers can avoid paying overtime to those newly eligible low-income workers.

"Most employers affected by the proposed rule would be expected to choose the most cost-effective compensation adjustment method," the department said. For some companies, the financial impact could be "near zero," it said.

Employers' options include:

Adhering to a 40-hour work week.
Raising workers' salaries to a new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible for overtime pay.
If employers raise a worker's salary "it means they're getting a raise — that's not a way around overtime," Frank said. The current threshold is $8,060 per year.
Making a "payroll adjustment" that results "in virtually no, or only a minimal increase in labor costs," the department said. Workers' annual pay would be converted to an hourly rate and cut, with overtime added in to equal the former salary.
Essentially, employees would be working more hours for the same pay.

The department does not view the "payroll adjustment" option as a pay cut. Rather, it allows the employer to "maintain the pay at the current level" with the new overtime requirements, said the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division administrator, Tammy McCutchen, an architect of the plan.

Labor unions criticized the employer options.


Who's doing what

1960
— Workers producing goods: 35 percent
— Workers providing services: 65 percent

Today
— Workers producing goods: 17 percent
— Workers providing services: 83 percent


Mark Wilson, a lawyer for the Communications Workers of America who specializes in overtime issues, said the Bush administration was protecting the interests of employers at the expense of workers.

"This plan speaks volumes about the real motives of this so-called family-friendly administration," Wilson said.

He says cutting workers' pay to avoid overtime is illegal, based on a 1945 Supreme Court ruling and a 1986 memo by the Labor Department under President Reagan.

But McCutchen disagreed. If changes were made week to week to avoid overtime, they would be illegal. A one-time change is not, she said.

"We had a lot of lawyers look at this rule. We would not have put that in there if we thought it was illegal," she said.

"Unless you have a contract, there is no legal rule ... prohibiting an employer from either raising your salary or cutting your salary," she said, adding, "We do not anticipate employers will cut people's pay."

The final plan does not require approval from Congress. That hasn't stopped Democrats and some Republicans from trying to block the rule, thus far unsuccessfully, out of fear that millions of workers would become ineligible for overtime.

Department officials say about 644,000 higher-paid workers would lose their overtime eligibility. But the proposal says 1.5 million to 2.7 million workers "will be more readily identified as exempt" from overtime requirements. Labor unions claim the figure is about 8 million.

The Labor Department is aware of lawmakers' concerns has read tens of thousands of comments about the proposal, McCutchen said.

"We understand what the public concerns are and we're going to be doing our best to address them," she said. "It's important to allow us to finish that process so we can back up our words with some good-faith action."

[Chmee]

The fact that there are laws defining who or who should not get overtime pay in the first place is a crock.

What the compensation arrangement is going to be for a particular job is a matter for the employee and the employer to decide on. Its nobody elses business.

[Ladex_Xedal]

If it wasn't for the oversight of our federal government. Corporations would exploit workers and force them into working conditions that make them unable to feed their families.

This is just another example of the Bush Administration working in the best interests of those who truely keep him in office, Big Corporations.

[Adex_Xeda]

Have you ever considered that the very same "oversight" that burdens employer's with price controls, is *costing* jobs?

Some jobs don't deserve the federally minimum mandate. They're not that hard to do.

The market dictates what someone's labor is worth. If one country like the US artificially inflates a job's salary above what the labor is worth.

You get a job lost to another country.

What's better for a high schooler looking for some gas money? A job opportunity or NO job opportunity?

[Ladex_Xedal]

Employer's don't look after the best interests of those they employ. Employer's look after the best interest of their profit margins.

It's the government's job to step in and demand fair treatment for the employee!

[Adex_Xeda]

You didn't answer my question.

[Zaelath]

Have you ever considered that the very same "oversight" that burdens employer's with price controls, is *costing* jobs?

Some jobs don't deserve the federally minimum mandate. They're not that hard to do.

The market dictates what someone's labor is worth. If one country like the US artificially inflates a job's salary above what the labor is worth.

You get a job lost to another country.

What's better for a high schooler looking for some gas money? A job opportunity or NO job opportunity?

So now your economic policy is based on someone in high school wanting gas money?

Allowing jobs to be outsourced overseas is just another way that the government is falling down on it's actual job, protecting the people (from themselves in this case).

Are you *really* suggesting that you should allow overpopulated 3rd world countries to set the baseline wage for the United States? I mean, I can tell from your position and politics you have more money than brains, but are you really that fucking retarded and self interested?

The amusing part is that you're talking about gas money for some kid in high school, who presumably has their own car as well, because the US is priviledged but then go on to explain how that priviledge should be removed.

[Voronwë]

so you are opposed to tarriffs and agriculture subsidies as well Adex?

would you have the global marketplace dictate that either 1. the mississippi basin is not farmed or 2. the people who live in those areas better get used to living in dirt without sewage, electricity, etc like southeast Asians. And everybody i hope you like rice.

[Kluden]

Just talk to the electricians at my current jobsite, clearing $2k a week after taxes with all the OT they are getting Times that suck to be salary...

[Voronwë]

your management could pay less OT by increasing the headcount or having the balls to offer fulltime jobs instead of hiring contractors

[Zaelath]

your management could pay less OT by increasing the headcount or having the balls to offer fulltime jobs instead of hiring contractors

Traditionally OT is just that, stop-gap labour used to fill an urgent/unusual need. The problem has become that employers have regularly decided that it's much better to force people to accept unpaid OT than hire appropriately. Amusingly, some of these companies explain that they can't afford more workers and we'll have to tighten our belts and pull together, in emails from junket conferences that involve pissing away enough money in a week to employ someone full-time for a year.

[Chmee]

Employer's don't look after the best interests of those they employ. Employer's look after the best interest of their profit margins.

Although given the posts you have made I realize the likelyhood you are being satirical is high (although by no means a certainty), but to answer the point as written ...

Employee's don't look after the best interests of their employer. Employees are more interested in their own personal compensation. Negotiation takes place and both parties get to a mutually agreeable price, or they walk away and don't complete the transaction.

[Adex_Xeda]

Actually guys, right now I earn over 50% of my money from overtime charges.

As far as my principle in the matter, if my employer isn't paying me what I think I deserve, I don't go to the government and demand they intervene, I go find another job with a compensation plan that I"m happy with.

The federal government is an unecessary middleman that hassles both sides, and costs money to both the producer and buyer.

I don't buy the arguement that the federal government is necessary to earn a living wage either.

If what you do doesn't pay enough, learn skills that allow you to demand more pay.

Hard work feeds the belly.

Government intervention into the salary process protects workers who aren't trying to improve themselves AND it drives jobs away from our shores.

[Zaelath]

Employer's don't look after the best interests of those they employ. Employer's look after the best interest of their profit margins.

Although given the posts you have made I realize the likelyhood you are being satirical is high (although by no means a certainty), but to answer the point as written ...

Employee's don't look after the best interests of their employer. Employees are more interested in their own personal compensation. Negotiation takes place and both parties get to a mutually agreeable price, or they walk away and don't complete the transaction.

Neither end of the spectrum is always true. Some employers do give a shit about their employees, and some employees repay their concern in kind. The larger the corporation however, the less likely it becomes.

[Ladex_Xedal]

If it wasn't for government protections we'd be back in the 1800s with everyong slaving over their job 14 hours a day with no time to invest in our families.

Government mandated OT helps prevent people from over working and neglecting the time they need to spend with their families.

This federal guidlines ensure honest pay, and encourage people to build stable families.

[Adex_Xeda]

An employee that values his family time has full freedom to develop an arrangement with his employer to have family time.

But involving the government you are stripping the freedom from that employee to choose for himself weither to work at a job he loves, or to work enough to pay bills with a focus on his family.

Who knows best how to deal with your life arrangements? You or some detached federal bureaucracy?

Increased government meddling robs us of our freedom to tailer our own employment situation.

It's an inefficient way to deal with things.

End the end it just means less freedom, higher prices, and less happiness.

[Voronwë]

lets not forget these are low-wage non-benefits eligible (in many cases) employees.

the companies tend to try to minimize their cost per head with these employees, and thats why they dont have full time jobs in the first place.


i am certainly skeptical of the labor unions' position in this matter, because those are often some pretty corrupt organization.

[Zaelath]

An employee that values his family time has full freedom to develop an arrangement with his employer to have family time.

But involving the government you are stripping the freedom from that employee to choose for himself weither to work at a job he loves, or to work enough to pay bills with a focus on his family.

Who knows best how to deal with your life arrangements? You or some detached federal bureaucracy?

Increased government meddling robs us of our freedom to tailer our own employment situation.

It's an inefficient way to deal with things.

End the end it just means less freedom, higher prices, and less happiness.

This is so much unsupported bullshit.

Think back 50 years to "the good old days". No one had a problem supporting a family on a single income, and they were larger families.

Dual incomes have become the "norm" such that they are required to get by now as the market has absorbed the extra cash generated by more people working, and it will absorb more people working longer hours too.

True, the government didn't organise the industrial revolution, it was the unions.

An enlightened society doesn't encourage a situation where the few people that have jobs must work longer hours to fall behind at a slower pace.. which is exactly what the trade department is suggesting here.

No one is suggesting the government mandate how many hours you want to work, they're just suggesting that you be PAID for it. Stop trying to pretend the government is the evil big brother if they ever look out for someone earning less than 6 figures/year.

[Ladex_Xedal]

That's right!

People who are unable to earn 6 figures salaries are most likely unable to look after themselves. They need the federal government in their lives to help them handle the situations that otherwise they'd not be able to deal with.

[Voronwë]

i think we've clearly seen over the past few years, that there is hardly an excess of corporate governance.

[Chmee]

Think back 50 years to "the good old days". No one had a problem supporting a family on a single income, and they were larger families.

The good old days are now, and we live vastly better than 50 years ago.

[Zaelath]

Think back 50 years to "the good old days". No one had a problem supporting a family on a single income, and they were larger families.

The good old days are now, and we live vastly better than 50 years ago.

Frankly that depends on your basis for comparison. If you want to say the mean life expectancy is longer, ok. If you want to say that quality of life is significantly better, on average, you might have a harder case to make.

The "we" in your contention is critical as well.

[Zaelath]

That's right!

People who are unable to earn 6 figures salaries are most likely unable to look after themselves. They need the federal government in their lives to help them handle the situations that otherwise they'd not be able to deal with.

Hush, silly anon troll =)

[Chmee]

Think back 50 years to "the good old days". No one had a problem supporting a family on a single income, and they were larger families.

The good old days are now, and we live vastly better than 50 years ago.

Frankly that depends on your basis for comparison. If you want to say the mean life expectancy is longer, ok. If you want to say that quality of life is significantly better, on average, you might have a harder case to make.

The "we" in your contention is critical as well.

How about, on the average, citizens of the U.S. are vastly better off economically than 50 years ago.

[kyoukan]

Well, it's pretty obvious that they aren't.

[Kylere]

Umm US citizens are much WORSE off than they were 50 years ago. Reality then, single wage earner can be a good thing. Reality now, screw having kids, daycare costs too much and who can live on one income.

[Chidoro]

An employee that values his family time has full freedom to develop an arrangement with his employer to have family time.

That all depends on what you do for a living. Both my wife and I aren't given so much as a handshake for putting in a ton of OT yet we're "Exempt" employees. We don't get shit for working 60+ hours a week and the companies with the positions we do don't give a shit either. My wife will lose her beat if she doesn't get back to work w/in 3 months post child and her job after 12 believe. That's also assuming you can live w/ one salary in the greater NY metro area.

But involving the government you are stripping the freedom from that employee to choose for himself weither to work at a job he loves, or to work enough to pay bills with a focus on his family.

That is such a fucking cop out. Do you consider sending your children to college but not being able to afford to do so w/out two incomes, freedom?

Who knows best how to deal with your life arrangements? You or some detached federal bureaucracy?

Unregulated corporate paying practices are the problem. Gov't better step in or every job short of CEO gets screwed.

Increased government meddling robs us of our freedom to tailer our own employment situation.

Negative. People can still do whatever they please. Government intervention keeps the employee from getting overrun by such entities.

It's an inefficient way to deal with things.

It's ridiculous to think that no intervention is actually better for a common employee.

End the end it just means less freedom, higher prices, and less happiness.

Well that and no more 14 hour slaveshop days at wages that don't reflect a level of inflation or benefits to allow the employee to retire on something other than social security or allow some medical benefit contributions from the company being worked for etc etc. You leave companies to do what they like, and the employee will be poor stupid and unhappy.

I just don't understand why someone that's obviously a common clod in business would desire such things. I mean, I'm the person on top of the heap and I can still see the bullshit that would be pulled over on the regular employee if the company was completely unregulated.

Ky, daycare around my wife's place of work will cost approximately $550 a week. Apparently, that's more than the floor of a 50% earner post tax in this country.

[Chmee]

Well, it's pretty obvious that they aren't.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p05.html

median income, all income given in 2001 dollars
male 2001 - 29,101
female 2001 - 16,614
male 1953 - 19,574
female 1953 - 6,060

That only tells a small part of it. Generally speaking products today are of higher quality and the variety we have to choose from has exploded.

[Zaelath]

Think back 50 years to "the good old days". No one had a problem supporting a family on a single income, and they were larger families.

The good old days are now, and we live vastly better than 50 years ago.

Frankly that depends on your basis for comparison. If you want to say the mean life expectancy is longer, ok. If you want to say that quality of life is significantly better, on average, you might have a harder case to make.

The "we" in your contention is critical as well.

How about, on the average, citizens of the U.S. are vastly better off economically than 50 years ago.

If you even take the "official poverty line", which many people would explain is rediculously low in the US, the official census statistics show that there hasn't been any great improvement for the "average" citizen since 1966 ~ http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov7.html

You have a lot more "shit" to choose from in the US, the actual standard of living is not approaching any eutopia for all (that want to work for it) though.

[kyoukan]

and they also cost far more after you adjust for inflation.

I would rather see a median income of lower and middle class families rather than a median income of the entire country. sure, the united states is more wealthy than it was in the 50s, but certainly not for the majority of the population, who've pretty much completely given up on trying to survive on a single income.

[Chidoro]

Higher quality?

Certainly you jest

More technologically advanced maybe, but higher quality?

Just because you scale the GNP to a certain level doesn't mean the average of society's needs is reflected.

[Zaelath]

Well, it's pretty obvious that they aren't.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p05.html

median income, all income given in 2001 dollars
male 2001 - 29,101
female 2001 - 16,614
male 1953 - 19,574
female 1953 - 6,060

That only tells a small part of it. Generally speaking products today are of higher quality and the variety we have to choose from has exploded.

That tells nothing at all by itself, neither does the page I linked from the same site.

For example, the 2001 dollars are purely adjusted for inflation. The gender/race makeup of the workforce has changed drastically in the intervening 50 years.

If a couple are $20K better off today, than in 1953, why was it possible, likely even, that they were living on the one salary of $20k and people have trouble now on $45K? I'll give you people piss away a lot more money now, and consider luxuries like cars for teens as necessary, but there has to be more to it.

[Adex_Xeda]

Chidoro,

I understand that life is tough. I live it just like you.

I do not belive however that the only thing that can save you from your situation is the federal government.

That's like using crowbar to clean your teeth. It's the wrong tool to fix the problem.

[Chidoro]

You don't get it. You don't address any of the concerns people that believe as I do have.

At least state a point or something. Companies don't pick and choose which employees they are going to overrun. They aren't going to pass over me and head solely for you because I am concerned about employee rights and you aren't. I will get effected financially as a result. Your feelings will be hurt. No contest unless you can formulate an actual arguement as to why gov't "meddling" only hurts employees.

[Fairweather Pure]

I had to tell a 21 yr old guy today, who works 50 hrs a week at the local factory, that he owes the hospital $8,000+ for his emergency room bill and physical therapy. The minimum monthly payment would be 170 bucks a month. He makes $6.25 an hour and has no insurance. For government assistance, he has to make less than $12,500.00 to be eligible. He was over the mark by less than $2,000.00.

He tried to keep his chin up, but I saw his eyes well up and the chin start to shake. He pretty much lost it in the registration room in front of about 20 people. It looked to me like he was going to go home and kill himself.

The people on the bottom always get the shaft. Those on top simply never see the results of the system. We have issues in America. People need to wake up and make some huge changes. Cutting OT is not one of them.

[Adex_Xeda]

I avoided suggesting possible solutions to you because I'm in no position to be giving you suggestions. I don't know how you live. I don't know your finances. I don't know the specifics of your job situations.


I do know my life however. I do know the lives of my extended family. I know of my cousin who after 5 years working as an air conditioner repairman got sick of being treated poorly by his boss. He took out loan, grabbed a couple grants, and went to school for a couple years. He got qualified to work on commercial aircraft and now commands a much more accommidating wage.

I know of my father who grew up dirt poor. He got tired of working at a gas station, saved his money and went to school and earned a teaching degree. After having a son and noticing that the bills were a bit too tight, he sought out funding for an master's degree. He took on a second job as a frozen food's stocker to pay for it. He sold his house and moved into a cheap to rent apartment to lower his costs. He push through to some post masters training and pushed for a job as a school principal.

He took action. He went out and learned something that allowed him to command more pay. He lives quite comfortably now.

If you don't like your situation, God bless ya you live in the absolute best country to do something about it.

Now man, I'm not even going to disrespect you by pretending to know what you need to do to free up your financial situation.

All I do know is there are plenty of people in my family who had hard situations and figured out ways to enhance their job skills and thus provide for their families.

The solution is not begging the federal government for things. The solution is in our taking advantage of opportunities this country provides.

[Chidoro]

I will be reporting a pretty high income on my return as will my wife. Don't worry about me. It's not easy finding a replacement position in my field, but I'll get one. That's the whole point. The point is that I'm making yet I still see the discrepancy. And yes, I worked for it. And yes, others work for it as well yet still don't earn what I or my wife do. You act as if the reason people who have nothing succeed is based solely off of their desire and not assistance in any way shape or form. And that's what you're asking when you leave companies to do as they wish.

Companies unregulated will have made it impossible to get the things your family got to get ahead. Seriously, stop giving me hard luck gone ok stories, my family has lived it as well. It's not solely because of their hard work that helped advance my family to a better situation, it's that the situation was made more amenable due to stepping in via the government.

Seriously, hard work and corporate control are not one and the same. Let the companies go and you'll have a bunch of bright hardworking slumslaves. Don't mix them. It's not begging for anything. Thinking that's what people from my standpoint are saying is nothing but a moronic Rushism

edited the estimate of what I earn, it's nobody's business

[Rivera Bladestrike]

So who is the new Adex guy? Any IP matches, just wondering, hes not really causing problems but it'd be funny to expose him.

[Adex_Xeda]

Don't take my words too far. I'm don't support abolishing all labor laws.

What I AM for is a change in people's attitudes.

People should look for solutions by using their heads, and not but running to Uncle Sam.

[Adex_Xeda]

Speaking of government running things that it's not efficient at, did you catch the Gov. of California's speech?

Take special note about the worker's compensation issues:



Text of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech
Tue Jan 06 2004 18:14:17 ET

Lt. Gov. Bustamante, Speaker Herb Wesson, President Pro Tem John Burton, Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte, Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, Speaker Designate Fabian Nunez, distinguished members of the Legislature, Chief Justice of California Ron George and associate justices, members of the Board of Equalization, my fellow constitutional officers, esteemed Cabinet secretaries, friends, my fellow Californians, and last but not the least, the first lady, the No. 1 partner, and the love of my life, Maria Shriver.

I changed my mind. I want to go back to acting. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not the truth at all.

People have said to me, ``Arnold, isn't it a terrible burden being governor at a time of such crisis?''

I tell them, no, not at all. I love working for the people of California. It is better than being a movie star. It gives me great joy and satisfaction. I am honored to do this work for the people.

I am optimistic about our state. The state of our state will soon be strong, because our people and our purpose are strong.

We have a new spirit, a new confidence. We have a new common cause in restoring California to greatness.

I saw greatness achieved only three days ago, when the rover ``Spirit'' landed on Mars. I want to congratulate the many talented scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who have demonstrated once again that we here in California are the launching pad for the extraordinary.

Now let us do the extraordinary. Tonight I will talk about the progress that we have made, the problems we have yet to overcome, and the path we will follow to overcome them.

I have no doubt that, together, Californians are more than a match for the challenges that we face.

I feel good because I believe we have made progress in rebuilding the people's trust in their government.

The first thing I did as governor was to repeal the tripling of the car tax.

This massive tax increase was a desperate act of a government out of control.

That could not be allowed to stand.

Repealing that illegal tax increase was the right thing to do.

During the campaign I promised that cities and counties would not bear the cost of the repeal.

It would be irresponsible for the state to take that money away from counties and cities.

That is why I acted to keep the money flowing for firefighters and police.

They did not raise the car tax, and they should not bear the burden of its rollback.

Together, we in this chamber repealed SB 60, which endangered the very integrity of the California driver's license.

Rescinding that law was the right thing to do. And I thank you for your bipartisan support.

Together, we put measures on the March ballot that, if passed by the people, will save our state from a June bankruptcy.

June is the month when billions of dollars in past loans come due and the financial house of cards built over the last half decade is set to collapse.

When individuals overspend themselves into trouble, financial counselors often tell them to consolidate their credit card balances so they can work their way out of trouble _ and also tear up their credit cards.

That is what our California Recovery Plan is all about. We took the debt we inherited from the previous administration, the debt that threatens us with bankruptcy, and we rolled it into a $15 billion recovery bond.

Then we tore up the credit card.

We passed a balanced budget amendment.

And we created a rainy day fund for future hard times and emergencies.

Never again will government be allowed to spend money it doesn't have.

Never again will the state be allowed to borrow money to pay for its operating expenses.

And you in this room have done that for the people of California.

No one here got everything he or she wanted. Because we compromised. This, too, was the right thing to do. And I thank you and I congratulate you.

Now I ask you to join me in getting out the message that a ``yes'' vote on these measures on the March ballot is absolutely critical to our financial future.

The alternative is economic chaos. In a bipartisan effort to help our citizens understand how important this bond is to California, I am proud to say that our state Controller, Steve Westly, a businessman and a financial leader, will be co-chairing with me the California Recovery Bond Committee. Thank you very much. Thank you.

With passage of these measures, we will have dodged the first bullet, the 2003-2004 budget deficit.

But the second bullet _ the second financial crisis _ has already left the barrel and is headed right at us.

I am talking about the 2004-2005 budget deficit - which is another staggering $15 billion.

The 2004-2005 budget, which begins July 1, is the one that we must now negotiate.

These huge budget deficits are aftershocks of past financial recklessness.

What happened is this. Over the last five years, the state's income has increased 25 percent, but spending increased by 43 percent. This was irresponsible.

The fact of the matter is that we do not have a tax crisis; we do not have a budget crisis; we have a spending crisis. We cannot tax our way out of this problem. More taxes will destroy what we are trying to save which is jobs and revenue.

Jobs bring revenue to the state, and revenue allows us to do the right things for education, for the environment, for the disabled, for the elderly and those in need.

A tax increase would be the final nail in California's financial coffin.

The people of California did not elect me to destroy jobs and businesses by raising taxes.

I will not make matters worse.

We have no choice but to cut spending, which is what caused this crisis in the first place.

These are cuts that will challenge us all.

But we cannot give what we do not have.

If we continue spending and don't make cuts, California will be bankrupt.

And a bankrupt California cannot provide services to anyone.

Members of the Legislature, you will receive my proposals in the days ahead.

These are proposals that leadership requires, economics demands and the public expects.

These cuts will not be easy but they will not be forever. Let us move quickly to put the excesses of the past behind us and get on with the promise that beckons before us.

I would like to thank all those in the labor community who are working with us to do just that.

I would like to thank all of those in the education community who are working with us to allow the state to save money while still increasing per-pupil funding.

Everyone must play a part in this. I respect the sovereignty of our Native American tribes, and I believe they also respect the economic situation that California faces. In the next couple of days, I will announce our negotiator who will work with the gaming tribes, so that California receives its fair share of gaming revenues.

Every cloud has a silver lining. The good news is that the spending crisis forces us to bring badly needed reform to government.

Although the transition will be difficult, in the end we will have a leaner, more efficient and more responsive state government.

A necessary place to start is education. We must make better use of the money that we spend on our schools.

My proposal gets more money into the classroom and thus increases per-pupil funding.

First, we must give local schools the power to meet the specific needs of their own communities.

We can do this by consolidating $2 billion of categorical programs and cutting the strings to Sacramento.

This will give schools the freedom to spend the money as they _ not Sacramento _ best see fit to serve the children.

Second, school districts are forced to spend an average of 10 to 40 percent more than necessary on non-classroom services.

We must give local schools the freedom to be more cost efficient.

One way to do this is to repeal SB 1419, the law that prevents schools from contracting out services such as busing and maintenance.

This will free up more money for textbooks and other vital classroom needs.

In the past two years, college fees have increased over 40 percent.

We must end this boom-and-bust cycle of widely fluctuating fees with a predictable, capped fee policy for college students and their parents.

And we must limit the fee increases to no more than ten percent a year.

Like our kindergarten through grade 12 schools, our colleges and universities must also share the burden of the fiscal crisis, but we must work to expand the dream of college.

And we must not let the dream bypass our Central Valley.

That is why my budget is funding UC's tenth campus _ UC Merced.

We cannot afford waste and fraud in any department or agency.

Every governor proposes moving boxes around to reorganize government.

I don't want to move the boxes around; I want to blow them up.

The executive branch of this government is a mastodon frozen in time and about as responsive.

This is not the fault of our public servants but of the system.

We have multiple departments with overlapping responsibilities.



I say consolidate them.

We have boards and commissions that serve no pressing public need. I say abolish them.

We have a state purchasing program that is archaic and expensive. I say modernize it.

I plan a total review of government _ its performance, its practices, its cost.

Some of the recommended actions, I will make by executive order. Some will require legislation. And some will need constitutional change.

I want your ideas and the more radical the better. And to California's state employees, I want to thank you for your hard work under trying circumstances.

I also want your ideas, because I want to give you freedom to do your jobs in creative ways.

Now, in addition to restoring our state's finances and responsiveness, we must restore the state's business climate.

Creating and retaining jobs _ and the businesses that provide them _ must be a priority of this Legislature.

Jobs provide a solid foundation for families.

Jobs add revenues to the state budget.

Jobs give stability to our society.

Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. The more jobs the better.

I am going to become California's job czar. I'm going to travel the nation and the world to find those jobs.

I'm going to say, ``Come to California. Come and do business here. Buy our fantastic products. Visit our special attractions. And hire our workers, who are the most productive in the world.''

I am a salesman by nature. And now most of my energies will go into selling California. If you can sell, if I can sell tickets to my movies like ``Red Sonja'' or ``Last Action Hero,'' you know I can sell just about anything. California is the easiest sell I've ever had.

But we must fix the state's business climate. And we must start with workers' compensation reform.

Our workers' comp costs are the highest in the nation _ nearly twice the national average.

California employers are bleeding red ink from the workers' comp system.

Our high costs are driving away jobs and businesses. My proposal brings California's workers' comp standards and costs in line with the rest of the country.

To heal injured workers, it emphasizes the importance of health care and doctors rather than lawyers and judges.

It requires nationally recognized guidelines for permanent disability.

And it provides for innovative approaches. I call on the Legislature to deliver real workers' comp reform to my desk by March 1. Modest reform is not enough.

If modest reform is all that lands on my desk, I am prepared to take my workers' comp solution directly to the people and I will put it on the ballot in November.

This year we also have the highest unemployment insurance costs in the nation. Our system is flat broke.

So that people could get their checks, last month I had to ask Washington for a billion dollar loan to bail us out.

Unemployment checks are an important part, an important safety net.

We must fix the system, and I need your help. California's approach to energy is another barrier to jobs and economic growth.

We have a flawed regulatory structure. Our businesses pay energy rates nearly twice as high as those in other western states.

In California, we have 13 different state energy agencies. Something is wrong when it's easier to create energy agencies than power plants.

California's energy crisis is not over. If we do not act now, California will face energy shortages as early as 2006.

To prevent this, we must reform the wholesale power market to attract new energy investment.

We must reform the retail market so that large customers can get competitive prices.

And we must renegotiate those high-priced electricity contracts that locked us into energy prices at the market's peak.

Closely connected to energy is the environment. And while we are promoting jobs and promoting California, I'm also going to promote our commitment to the environment.

I'm going to encourage the building of a hydrogen highway to take us to the environmental future.

I'm going to encourage builders to build homes using partial solar power.

I'm going to create a Green Bank to make loans to retrofit old, energy-inefficient buildings.

I intend to show the world that economic growth and the environment can coexist.

And if you want to see it, then come to California. During the campaign, I said that I would make sure that California got its fair share of federal tax dollars.

The congressional delegations of other states work together to bring home federal dollars, but the divisions in California have been too deep to do that effectively.

In December, however, we held a historic meeting in Palm Springs.

At a bipartisan retreat, the California congressional delegation and I agreed to put party and district boundaries aside and to speak with one united voice in Washington.

We agreed to fight side-by-side to get more federal tax money for homeland security, for criminal aliens, water resources, highways, and other needs.

Let me tell you another area where we must cooperate. California's naval facilities, our air bases, our supply centers, our training commands have helped our nation produce the best trained and equipped military in the world.

I was in Baghdad last year. I met soldiers who call California home. I met soldiers who trained here and who served here.

California has a proud history of military support. The Pentagon will make the next round of base closures in 2005. This could mean thousands of lost jobs to California.

These bases are important to national defense, and they are important to our steady economic recovery.

As a state, we will fight to keep our bases open. We Californians need to work together at all levels of government. In the days and weeks ahead we have decisions coming at us that are the most difficult any legislator or governor faced in the history of our state.

We have decisions approaching that will inflame passions and potentially create division.

I want to tell you a story that relates to this. During the terrible fires that burned California, I went to the funeral of Steven Rucker, the firefighter who died in the service of his fellow citizens.

He left behind a wonderful wife, two children and heartbroken parents.

After the service, I said to Steven's mother and father, ``If there is anything I can do for you, please let me know.''

His father looked at me for a few seconds, and grief in his eyes and tears coming down, he said, ``Arnold, if you really want to do something in honor of my son, go to Sacramento and stop the politicians from fighting. Stop them from fighting. They're hurting the people and destroying our state.''

Ladies and gentlemen, let us remember those words in the days and weeks ahead.

Let us remember the greater good of California.

I remain a great believer in the future of this state.

I did not seek this job to cut ... but to build.

I did not seek this job to preside over the decline of a dream but to renew it.

President Reagan said that empires were once defined by land mass and subjugated people, and military might.

But America, he said, is ``an empire of ideals.''

California, I believe, is an empire of hope and aspiration.

Never in the history have such big dreams come together in one place.

Never in the history has such an array of talent and technology converged at one time.

Never in the history has such a free and diverse community of people lived and worked under one political system.

This is a wonderful place _ California _ this empire of aspirations.

Great things can be done in California.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us help Californians do great things. Thank you very much.

[Mplor]

I know of my cousin who after 5 years working as an air conditioner repairman got sick of being treated poorly by his boss. He took out loan, grabbed a couple grants, and went to school for a couple years.

The ultimate guarantor of student loans is the Department of Education. Only payday check loans and bail bonds are worse credit risks than student loans and banks would scarcely offer them if it weren't for Uncle Sam and his "interference".

Hm, grants... Pell Grants are free money given out by the federal gov't to pay you to go to school. You don't repay it. Free money from private sources is generally referred to as a scholarship.

It sounds to me like my tax dollars underwrote your cousin's loans and funded his grants. I'm extremely proud of that. It's the American dream enhanced by government action.

You may not be aware of this, but Horatio Alger wrote fiction.

Mippy

[Brotha]

Think back 50 years to "the good old days". No one had a problem supporting a family on a single income, and they were larger families.

The good old days are now, and we live vastly better than 50 years ago.

Frankly that depends on your basis for comparison. If you want to say the mean life expectancy is longer, ok. If you want to say that quality of life is significantly better, on average, you might have a harder case to make.

The "we" in your contention is critical as well.

That statement shouldn't need to be qualified- at all.

Understanding Poverty in America

While except for a couple of places it doesn't compare to 50 or so years ago, it's obvious things aren't as bad as some of you seem to think.

Just some facts to put things into perspective for the pessimists here:

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

What Is Poverty?

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the "Poverty Pulse" poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development in 2002 asked the general public the question: "How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?" The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.2

But if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.3 While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.

Some 73 percent of poor households own a car or truck; nearly a third own two or more cars or trucks. Over three-quarters have air conditioning; by contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the general U.S. population had air conditioning. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own microwaves; a third have automatic dishwashers.

Poor households are well-equipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. One-quarter own large-screen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost two-thirds have cable or satellite TV reception. Some 58 percent own a stereo. More than a third have telephone answering machines, while a quarter have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty.

America's poor compare favorably with the general population of other nations in square footage of living space. The average poor American has more square footage of living space than does the average person living in London, Paris, Vienna, and Munich. Poor Americans have nearly three times the living space of average urban citizens in middle-income countries such as Mexico and Turkey. Poor American households have seven times more housing space per person than the general urban population of very-low-income countries such as India and China. (See Appendix Table A for more detailed information.)

Not only is hunger relatively rare among U.S. children, but it has declined sharply since the mid-1990s. As Chart 2 shows, the number of hungry children was cut by a third between 1995 and 2002. According to the USDA, in 1995, there were 887,000 hungry children: by 2002, the number had fallen to 567,000.

Overall, some 97 percent of the U.S. population lived in families that reported they had "enough food to eat" during the entire year, although not always the kinds of foods they would have preferred. Around 2.5 percent stated their families "sometimes" did not have "enough to eat" due to money shortages, and one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) said they "often" did not have enough to eat due to a lack of funds. (See Chart 3.)

In developing nations as a whole, some 43 percent of children are stunted. In Africa, more than a third of young children are affected; in Asia, near-ly half.26 By contrast, in the United States, some 2.6 percent of young children in poor households are stunted by a comparable standard--a rate only slightly above the expected standard for healthy, well-nourished children.27 While concern for the well-being of poor American children is always prudent, the data overall underscore how large and well-nourished poor American children are by global standards.

Throughout this century, improvements in nutrition and health have led to increases in the rate of growth and ultimate height and weight of American children. Poor children have clearly benefited from this trend. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than boys of similar age in the general U.S. population in the late 1950s. Poor boys living today are one inch taller and some 10 pounds heavier than GIs of similar age during World War II, and nearly two inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than American doughboys back in World War I.28

[Chidoro]

What's the census' definition of "poor" exactly?

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

That house will cost you 350k in Scotch Plains and 450k in Westfield NJ. Since they fall under that distinction of being poor, I guess they are, right?

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Houses being built with AC is surprising how? Hey, in the 1800's they didn't have refrigerators either and jeez, the old horse and buggy could only be afforded by the most wealthy

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

People don't report everyone living in their household. This typically occurs in poorer households and people trying to get their families to be citizens. Thinking that a report that bases those reports solely on people who actually answer the questions is straight on this topic is silly. The Patel's down the block from me aren't going to tell you that they have nine people in their household and not the four that are actually listed and picked up in something like a census.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

And the average Oregononian has more living space than a two bedroom condo in Hoboken worth over $600k. WHat's your point, that people who live in cities have less space than people who don't I take it, right?

So what are you saying is that the way things are are ok because we compare favorably w/ India or Mexico?

[Salis]

Adex did he mention how the people of Iraq are living? Or do we all quietly ignore the things that don't fuel our wonder at the western world?

[Chmee]

and they also cost far more after you adjust for inflation.

I would rather see a median income of lower and middle class families rather than a median income of the entire country. sure, the united states is more wealthy than it was in the 50s, but certainly not for the majority of the population, who've pretty much completely given up on trying to survive on a single income.

The linked statistics are for median income, not mean or GDP per capita. So half of the incomes in the country are higher, half are lower than the median. I avoided searching for GDP per capita because it could be distorted by a few people at the top end making far more.

[Chmee]

Higher quality?

Certainly you jest

More technologically advanced maybe, but higher quality?

More technologically advanced is a big part of it, and no I don't jest. The goods we have available to us are in general better and we have a far higher variety of them than 50 years ago.

[Chmee]

If a couple are $20K better off today, than in 1953, why was it possible, likely even, that they were living on the one salary of $20k and people have trouble now on $45K? I'll give you people piss away a lot more money now, and consider luxuries like cars for teens as necessary, but there has to be more to it.

To whatever degree they are having more trouble now it is likely because they are trying to live a far more affluent lifestyle than the family 50 years ago was.

[Chmee]

Houses being built with AC is surprising how? Hey, in the 1800's they didn't have refrigerators either and jeez, the old horse and buggy could only be afforded by the most wealthy

Exactly the point. Don't you think that having things like AC isn't an improvement in the economic well being of people?

[Salis]

Harvard study on happiness (look it up, famous) comes to the conclusion that people define happiness by how they perceive themselves doing _against_ their peers. So while everyone may be GDP/pop richer, they ain't saying it.

[Chmee]

Two excellent articles on how things have improved.

http://reason.com/9808/fe.cox.shtml

An excerpt.

Americans often put off buying a new computer or cellular phone--not necessarily because we can't afford one but because we're expecting prices to fall. In a conversation about some trendy new gadget, someone's apt to say, "I'm waiting until the price comes down before I buy one." Such a statement shows that declining prices are commonplace, and that many of us are aware of that fact.

Even so, falling prices aren't what Americans usually see. We often lament that the cost of living keeps going up, that it's harder and harder to stretch a paycheck. The hand-wringing about rising prices shows that Americans--even those who wait for bargains--are failing
to recognize one of the basic economic realities of our times. Just about everything we buy gets cheaper and cheaper when expressed in prices that really matter: the amount of work time required to make a purchase.

For the overwhelming majority of goods and services, real prices fall. That's the history of American capitalism in a nutshell. In 1908, Henry Ford offered his first Model T for $850--the equivalent of more than two years' wages for an average factory worker at the time. Given that cost, it's not surprising that the automaker found a limited market, selling a mere 2,500 cars in the first year. Today, autos are more affordable: An average worker has to toil only about eight months to buy Ford's latest best seller, the Taurus.

Even better, modern consumers are getting a lot more for their money. The cars we drive are incomparably superior to a crank-starting, bumpy-riding Model T. They're more comfortable, with roomier interiors, air conditioning, power seats, and adjustable steering columns. They include such extras as power windows, sunroofs, tinted glass, cruise control, and compact disc players. They're safer, equipped with impact-absorbing "crumple zones" and antilock brakes. They last longer and require less maintenance, with some models traveling 100,000 miles before the first tune-up.

With some important, complicated exceptions such as medical care and college educations (which we'll discuss later), declining real prices are the rule. When long-distance telephone service first became available in 1915, a three-minute call from New York to San Francisco cost $20.70. Only the rich could pay the toll for ringing up friends and family. Earning an average hourly wage of less than 23 cents, the typical factory worker of the day would have had to labor more than 90 hours to make a call. Today, of course, nearly all of us are "rich" enough to afford long-distance calls. A three-minute coast-to-coast connection costs less than 50 cents, or a scant two minutes of work at the average wage.

In 1919, earning enough to buy a three-pound chicken required two hours, 37 minutes of work. Today, it's down to 14 minutes--cheap enough to make quaint Herbert Hoover's famous nirvana of "a chicken in every pot." A fuzzy, 12-inch color television required three months of work in 1954. Now, 25-inch models with crystal-clear pictures and remote control take just three days on the job. A 1970 IBM mainframe sold for $4.7 million, a price only a government or big corporation could pay. The average worker would have to work an entire lifetime--actually, several lifetimes--to pay for enough power to do a million calculations a second. Today, personal computers capable of operating 13 times faster than that IBM mainframe sell for less than $1,000. In average work time, the cost of today's computing is down to 19 minutes for a million calculations per second--a price likely to continue falling.

http://reason.com/9512/COXfeat.shtml

an excerpt.

At best, real wages and the other evidence of a faltering economy are indirect barometers of living standards. It's curious that the declinists spend so much time examining a bunch of proxies but can spare so little energy for direct measures of what's been happening to Americans' well-being. The government's statistical mills and industry groups churn out boatloads of num bers, touching on nearly every aspect of American life. The diligent researcher can look up how many cars we own, how many hours we spend on housework, and how many music buffs attend symphony concerts. All that and much more.

Living standards are best measured by what we consume, not by our earnings or income. Looked at this way, the available numbers don't lend any support to the view that the country isn't doing as well as it once did. Comparisons to the early 1970s are particularly relevant. After all, no one doubts that Americans are living better today than they did a century ago, or even 50 years ago. The past quarter century is when the declinists contend the country's living standards started to slip.

But many numbers say it isn't so. On average, for instance, Americans now live in bigger and better houses. From 1970 to 1992, a typical new home increased in size by the equivalent of two 15-foot by 20-foot rooms. While home ownership rates have remained roughly constant over the past two decades, the average age at which Americans buy their first home has moved by roughly three yearsfrom 27.9 in 1970 to 31.0 in 1992. Doomsayers, of course, have been quick to chalk this up to deteriorating economic conditions, ignoring the marked change in Americans' lifestyles. The median age at which we first marry (an event that often precedes home buying) has increased from 21.5 in 1970 to 24.7 in 1992again roughly three years. And nearly 12 percent more of us today also decide never to marry. Add to this the fact that the average number of children per family has declinedfrom 1.09 in 1970 to 0.67 todayand the story clearly changes from deteriorating economic conditions to lifestyle changes.

Then there are the homes themselves. New houses are much more likely to have central air conditioning and garages. About 45 percent of homes now have dishwashers, up from 26 percent two decades ago. Clothes washers were in three-quarters of homes in 1990, up from less than two-thirds in 1970. At the same time, households with dryers jumped from 45 percent to almost 70 percent. The average number of televisions in a household rose from 1.4 in 1970 to 2.1 in 1990. Comparing 1970 and 1990, the typical U.S. family owned 4.5 times more in audio and video equipment, 50 percent more in kitchen appliances, and 30 percent more in furniture. For fun and games, the household has twice as much gear for sports and hobbies.

Among those 15 years and older, passenger vehicles per 100,000 people increased from 61,400 in 1970 to 73,000 in 1991. Americans are enjoying more luxuries, too. The average amount spent on jewelry and watches, after adjusting for higher prices, more than doubled from 1970 to 1991. Per capita spending on overseas travel and tourism is three times greater than in the early 1970s.

Of course, we could be paying for our consumption by depleting our savings. The evi dence, however, suggests it isn't so. Although Americans may not set aside as much as people in many other countries, the average American still has managed to gain net worth. Median real wealth per capita rose by 2 percent a year from 1970 to 1990. The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped sixfold since the early 1970s. The nation has had the best of two worlds: consuming more in the present and setting aside more for the futurenot a bad standard for "better off."

No catalog of higher living standards would be complete without products that didn't even exist for past generations. Twenty years ago, only a lucky few could show movies at home. Now, two of every three households own videocassette recorders. When Elvis was king of rock 'n' roll, records succumbed to warps and scratches. Today's practically unbreakable compact discs offer concert-hall quality sound. Microwave ovens, answering machines, food processors, camcorders, home computers, exercise equipment, cable TV, Rollerblades, fax machines, and soft contact lenses are staples of the 1990s lifestyles. As important, many products, from computers to cloth ing, have been getting higher in quality even as they drop in price. (See Figure 2.)

A decade ago, most motorists had to search out a pay telephone to make a call. Now, cellular technology has put a phone in millions of cars. Companies served 11 million subscribers in 1992, up from 92,000 in 1984. The past 20 years brought many medical breakthroughsnew drugs, new treatments, and new diagnostic toolsto enhance and prolong our lives. Today's cars go farther on a gallon of gas. They've been improved with anti-lock brakes, airbags, fuel injec tors, turbochargers, cruise control, and sound systems that outperform even the best home stereos of 1970. Today's youth may gripe, but they're already benefiting from products their parents didn't get until later in life. What's more, there's a huge inventory of even more world-shaking technologies that will create new waves of convenient, innovative consumer products.

The first test of national well-being, the one that makes the most common sense, should be the material facts of life. If the average consumer owns more of everything, plus the bonus of new products, then it's hard to fathom how a nation could have lost ground over the past 20 years. (See Figure 3.)

Another excerpt specifically address the one income versus two.

At least some declinists will concede that Americans have more material goods than ever, but they contend that it's only because we're working harder. The two-income family, with both husband and wife holding jobs, is all that keeps the country from the consequences of the weak ening of the economy.

What conclusion could be more backward? Both adults have always worked. Running a household entails a daunting list of chorescooking, cleaning, gardening, child care, shopping, washing and ironing, financial management, ferrying family members to ballet lessons and soccer practice. The average workweek of yesterday's housewife, the stay-at-home mom of the 1950s, was 52 hours, a more exhausting schedule than the 39.8 hours typically put in at the office.

The idea that people at home don't work isn't just insulting to women, who do most of the housework. It also misses how specialization contributes to higher and higher living standards. At one time, both adults worked exclusively at home. The man constructed buildings, tilled the land, raised livestock. The woman prepared meals, preserved food, looked after the children. Living standards rarely rose above the subsistence level.

Over time, household tasks were turned over to the market. At first, only one adult went to work outside the home, gaining specialized skills and earning an income that allowed the family to buy what it didn't have the time, energy, or ability to make at home. When men went to work outside the home, living standards rose. Why do we insist that the same transition for women results in a squeezing of the household's possibilities? What's good for the gander is good for the goose. It's more efficient for workers to spend time earning money doing what they do best on the job and then pay others to perform at least some household chores. It makes no sense to suggest that the economic rules flip-flop when a second adult takes a job. Working women make families better off.

As the United States grows richer, tasks once done by family members continue to move out of the home and into the market. To the extent they can afford it, households hire profession als to clean, paint, tend the yard, figure taxes, care for clothing, and perform other responsibili ties once assigned to family members. In getting their daily bread, Americans are finding ways to ease the burden of cooking at home. In 1993, restaurants received 43 percent of the country's spending on food, a big gain from the 33 percent of 1972. Eating out, once an occasional luxury, has become a way of life. And, even when we eat at home, we often rely more on market goodsheat-and-serve products, microwave meals, and carry-out items.

The data show that home productionthe market of all housework and related choresfell steadily from 45 percent of GNP at the end of World War II to 33 percent in 1973. Since then, it has drifted slightly lower, and it's likely to continue a gradual ebbing. Turning to the marketplace for many of the time-consuming, dull chores of maintaining a household frees time for more valuable pursuits. A job is one of them. Another is the pursuit of pleasure.

It is well worth reading all of both articles.