also, mike do just -- dudis.oogle have been getting killed in mobile advertising specifically by facebook. are these numbers more reassuring? adam: i think it's a situation where the entire pie is growing. i don't know if i would classify google as getting killed. there are still extremely dominant. i think we are seeing a new very compelling option with facebook. certainly the overall tailwinds to the mobile advertising face -- space is growing rapidly. google continues to expand. they don't have the monopolistic type position that they did in desktop search, but they are still a very powerful force. emily: this is ruth's first time on the call. what are her main challenges? >> one thing we should all expect is that it is still the google culture. item think we will see an era of increasingly broad guidance. ruth's job will be able to figure out the portfolio allocation of resources. i think at a company like google, now that we are 60 billion out of revenue, just that resource allocation around the company that

listen, the broader purposes was to provide a lot of subsidies and we're not going to be if you haddy dudies that worry about particular language or worry about what congress has done. i'm not going to walk you through the ways the majority opinion violated the rule of law. no objective observer can read that dissent and think that what the majority was doing could possibly be interpretation. i'll make three general points in addition to what justice scalia pointed out. the first thing to notice is the majority did agree that this was not a case of chevron deference. the reason was because they hadn't delegated this issue to the i.r.s. congress itself had spoken to this question itself. press sicely it made a conscious decision on whether subsidies should be available on federal exchanges. so the premise of the statute -- the premise of the opinion is that congress made this decision. and congress made a conscious decision to say you will have subsidies on exchanges established by the federal government by writing the words you will have subsidies on exchanges established by the state. in ot

and prescribed certain dudies test for each of these exemption exemptions exemptions. that's where it's sat since 2004. what the president asked the labor democrat to do was take a look at the salary test, the duties test, anything else that might be relevant to updating these exemptions to determine whether or not white collar employees should be exempt from overtime pay requirements or if they work more than 40 hours a week, they should get overtime pay. that's exactly what the labor department's proposal does. it looks at -- it takes a very simple approach in establishing a bright line test that says in 2016 that an employee makes less than around $50,000 a year, that employees regardless of his or her duties would be eligible for overtime pay. above that bright line of $50,000 a year then the employer would have to apply these duty tests to see if they would be eligible for overtime pay or exempt exempt. >> this proposal, the nfib says may sound well meaning but could hurt workers. explain. >> yes. thank you for inviting me to be here today. like a lot of proposeal