I understand what you’re saying, that 50% is better than nothing. Which obviously, I agree with. My contention is that even 50% is not enough to make up for what the worker gives up. Obviously the lack of opportunities may force the employee to accept the arrangement, but I’m speaking about a work life balance overall.

And there are many positions where the cost of hiring/training/retaining employees is higher than 50%, so it’s more advantageous for employers to just give overtime, which employers obviously utilize. But because an employer can force the employee to work overtime, it’s not clearly a beneficial arrangement to both.

Meh, we're just talking past each other, probably were from the start. I'm saying, "time-and-a-half beats working on games at EA for 80 hours/week for base, your factory-working friend has it better than a lot of tech workers" and you're saying "overtime sucks". Both statements are true, we're just negotiating the price...er, wait, wrong metaphor.