| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (79)

Posted: Apr 7th 2009 5:02PM dogmaticatheist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@KarlW:

You can starve on minimum wage. CA minimum wage is only $8.00 right now, which is $320/week before taxes. That's not a whole lot to live on. But if you are only capable of a minimum wage job, than you shouldn't be having a family and expecting everyone else to pick up the slack.

Life's not fair. Some people are born better off than others. Such is the lottery of life. Taking wealth from someone who earned it by force (ala the government) and giving it to someone else who did not earn it is morally wrong, end of story.

Freedom is more important than fairness. To provide fairness you have to restrict the freedom of one group to provide fairness to another. People who work hard to make a good living should be free to keep the fruits of their labor. They should also be free to choose for themselves if they want to use their personal wealth to help those less fortunate.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2009 11:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
CA minimum wage is ONLY 8?!

Here in KS its 5.50! (although i think it went up). I personally happen to agree with both sides, but I'm going to lean more towards the "supply-siders". They are right that more government is ALMOST always the wrong route to take, seeing as how... its never worked before. But I do concede unions have accomplished many things such as the work week and child labor laws. The problem is when the unions have too much power. How much fucking money could Ford Gm ect. save if they didn't have to pay their FORMER workers AND current works triple what the Japanese companies are paying? and the united auto workers don't ever say "well we don't want the company to go under lets work this out" its always "FUCK YOU!"

And one other thing is the whole card check legislation by the unions, basically taking away your freedom to closed voting in the workplace. Its very clear the intentions of card check, to pressure workers to vote for unionization.

But you are all right in a way.
Reply

Posted: Apr 9th 2009 6:16PM JustEric said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ lasersanchez: The only ones who benefit from unions are the union leaders. The employer suffers, the employees suffer and the customer suffers. There are no exceptions to this rule.

There are foolish employers, employees and customers who *think* they're benefiting from a union, but they're delusional at best.
Reply

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 6:15PM carg0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
let the west coast exodus begin.

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 6:21PM eudaimo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ok, I couldn't resist. It appears that in Massachusetts employees who make a scant $455 a week can be exempt. That's about $23,000 a year with no overtime. No thanks.

Like I said, $75,000 is reflective of California's insanely generous protection of employees.
Reply

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 6:36PM BigD145 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
California is an expensive place to live. Good luck finding room in the nearest tent city.
Reply

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 11:19PM MarkezJM said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There's been a continual west coast exodus for awhile now of CA natives who have decided to move somewhere cheaper to live. Ridiculous #s of people are moving here all the time because CA is full of absolutely kickass places to live. On my last beach volleyball team of 6 people, 2 were from VT, one from KY, one from Germany, and one gal who was actually from San Diego originally. The state is packed with transplants. I'll gladly pay the higher cost of living for the swell geography I live in.
Reply

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 6:30PM Levi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I thought game programmers were grossly underpaid and overworked... If they're getting paid $75,000/yr, I might have to go back and finish my comp sci degree and get into the field!

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 8:25PM Attila226 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report


In most parts of the country making $75,000 year is a lot of money. However, in most parts of the country you don't to pay at least $1,200 a month in rent. It's really an apples and oranges comparison.

There are people in parts of the world that think $5 an hour is a lot of money, but that's only because it's relative to the cost of living.
Reply

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 6:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Don't forget in this oh so wonderful state that you are forced to have a lunch break.

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 6:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
To reduce lawsuits? Isn't that a bit like legalizing murder to give the judges some holiday time?

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 6:47PM The Wicker Man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
what is wrong with this state?

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 6:52PM DonaldMick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That loud bang you just heard was EA Spouse's head exploding.

Posted: Apr 7th 2009 7:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not so much. Read darkseid's comments (& Aex's).
Reply

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 7:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Perhaps everyone needs a little history on this to put things in perspective.

Around 2000ish California instituted a law, that stated something along the lines of "for computer professionals to be considered Exempt (Meaning a position that does not have to pay extra for overtime worked) had to make the equivilant of $36+ for all hours worked during the year". This number topped out around $50/hour in 2006/2007. This means the employee's salary had to reflect he earned at least $50 for each hour worked. (Meaning 40hours a week had to be paid a salary above 104k, avg 60hours a week had to be paid a salary above 156k, etc. etc.) If someone was placed on salary at $160k a year, and worked an average of 70hores a week, then they were not declared exempt and now had a right to sue for wage compensation. So, all the computer professionals, from engineers to tech support, that were paid salary (no-overtime) and paid less than the appropriate amount per hour, now had reason to sue (check oracle overtime lawsuit)

In 2008, there was an appeal to the law that dropped the hourly wage back down to $36 an hour and capped it at 75k total for the year. This means if a Computer professional is not paid at least 75k a year, they cannot be classified as Exempt and are mandated overtime pay by law.

To put things in perspective, most exempt positions (non-overtime paying) do not require such strict salary requirements, for example, Managers at Movie Theaters may get paid the equiv of 40h x $12 a week, but are not paid overtime for hours worked above 40, and they often put it much more than 40.

As to the point made near the last line, that game dev's might want to move to Boston, Boston requires a much lower salary cap for computer professionals (somewhere along the lines of $455 a week, or 23k a year) to be declared exempt. It might be wise for companies to move out of state, but I don't think the people those companies employ would rather be paid less to work more.

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 7:35PM eudaimo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This. Thank you.
Reply

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 7:12PM dogmaticatheist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't know what the average salary for a game programmer is these days, but my guess is that $75,000 is near the top end of that scale. On the flip side, this new legislation may make companies who pay a lot of overtime consider increasing the salary for their employees to $75k. The employees may make less overall, but their base pay will increase and the cost savings may help keep their employer afloat so that you don't lose your job entirely.

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 7:27PM busydoinnothin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times?! STUPID MONKEY!

Quite possibly the greatest Simpsons episode ever.

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 7:28PM PoisonedAl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
WAGONS.... east.

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 8:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As a game programmer working in California, I can account that sometime in late 2006 (or early 2007 maybe?) some developers at our company on the lower end of the pay scale were reclassified as non-exempt, meaning that they became hourly rather than salaried and received overtime.

So it seems this new law is only reversing (partially) that very recent change - which didn't make sense in the first place...

If you're a junior making overtime and you want to work late to perfect your code or art (juniors tend to be young, idealistic, gung-ho bachelors who take longer to learn their way through everything), you need your boss's approval, and they may not be willing to pay to let you do that. Meanwhile a senior (generally older with kids at home, doing the same work but faster and better) is more likely to be asked to stay late to pick up the slack, because their overtime is free.

When crunch comes, everyone throws in, but an hourly junior working 90 or 100 hours/week might make as much or more than a senior (with many years more experience) working the same hours. The only compensation for seniors was a couple extra weeks of vacation at the end of the project. Huh?

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 8:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
...But I fully approve of the aforementioned nonsense, because it made me rich as _hell_.
Reply

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 8:35PM lastdinosaur17 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
california wants to ban cars that are the color black to save a minuscule amount energy and now withholding overtime pay?

are the legislatures stupid? -- their policies are reminiscent of something france would do.

F**K cali's legislature.

Posted: Apr 8th 2009 12:01AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I know everyone will think I'm just trying to same liberals, but seriously the northeast states and CA (especially NY and CA) are dominated so much by liberals its unbelievable. The government is constantly growing. Is it any wonder those states are in the most dire need of revenue because they can't pay for their social programs? Every state is struggling but theres a difference betweem being in debt because you lost some income, and being in near bankruptcy because you lost income and won't cut your spending habits and instead max out your credit cards.

Needless to say, CA is the latter.
Reply

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 8:49PM Otimus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ah, a good ol' daily reminder that Capitalism is awful and ran by monsters.

Posted: Apr 6th 2009 9:12PM MNeko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm guessing Electronic Arts had something to do with this.

Posted: Apr 7th 2009 12:01PM The Fuzz 53 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When the fuck did $75k/yr. make you rich? I must have missed that memo.

To quote Homer Jay Simpson, "Lousy Democrats."

Posted: Apr 8th 2009 12:02AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
See the article (economy, is crap)
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2009 7:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Joystiq arsonist reporting +4.

Posted: Apr 8th 2009 12:02AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wish we had a strong third party...

Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW