Just so you do not get too cocky regarding the improved unemployment numbers. The REAL numbers are still going the wrong way!!
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Thanks for the heads up!
I haven’t seen anyone too cocky about any aspect of the USA economy except the SUPER RICH who are getting 90% of the productivity gains made DIRECTLY by computerization and automation which cuts manpower/(aka===jobs) needs. EG–new steel plant opens up…. Hooray!!! But the new plant produces more and better steel with less pollution at a cheaper cost but employs 150 people instead of 500.
Sadly–the number of jobs a society can possibly create is a mix of things all with competing interests. Hard if not impossible to not have the pendulum swing from shortage or excess and back and forth.
A good basic grounding in Marxian Economic analysis is as valuable today as when his books where first written. You see…. basically…..there is labor ((thats you and me))…and then there is capital ((thats the criminals in society)). Only extensive and enforced regulations can keep these two groups from open warfare.
Silly to vote for the wrong side.
Silly hoomans, voting silly since the Revolution.
You make it sound like we are actually offered a good option and won’t choose it. Stupid fucking HOOMAN
Ah Donuthole==you done fell for the trap: REALITY only offers us the lesser of bad choices. But even in your scenario===YES, recognize you don’t live in a Disney Movie and that a “perfect” choice does not exist. Now…continue on as a rational person and make the best choice of those that are offered. Don’t be mislead by having your pud pulled in the wrong direction. AKA:
Grow the Fuck Up.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Socrates
Ah kininny–name the slander. I think I did impugn, but I did not slander. Plus, this is in writing, so it would be libel if it were slander.
Know what I mean? But off putting words or no==there is still SUBSTANCE to what I post.
Why would a thinking person aim at character assassination when there is substance to gnaw on?
Food for thought…… but I dither.
There’s a difference between slander and profanity.
Perhaps you’d care to look in a dictionary instead of your daily quote calendar?
REALITY offers you the choice to not be part of the problem and vote for someone who isn’t a D/R. But you prefer to be part of the problem.
Maybe that’s why so many people do drugs! Have you noticed?
Compare the number of poor choices people make and then look at what political party they choose to believe.
Hint: there’s a REASON the democrats choose a stubborn ignorant ASS! And it’s not entirely to appeal to the stubborn ignorant young either.
Don’t misunderstand! The republican’s have their problems too. But more often than not, republican’s don’t have to worry too much about ignorance. Rather, greed is their problem.
Basically what Obama has communicated to Americans:
Our government doesn’t really need main street (we can buy and manipulate their votes), but we really need Wall Street!
We have to keep a dossier on every American (how else are we going to keep them afraid and manipulate their votes)!
The main function of Government is NSA, CIA, FBI DoD and other departments are parasites on our society!
Business wants high unemployment, it depresses wages, keeps employees scared and more quantitative easing!
Just so you do not get too cocky regarding the improved unemployment numbers. The REAL numbers are still going the wrong way!!
Keep it up, John. There’s a really nice waiting room in the Sheremetyevo airport for people like you.
Except employment to increase, as more part-time jobs are created to comport with ObamaCare. His one year postponement, may actually have the effect of reducing employment below what it otherwise would have been. The net effect of ObamaCare is to encourage companies to stay below 50 fulltime employees, and to hire more part-time workers. So full time workers will see their hours cut, and then they will have to buy more expensive health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
If those companies win their court case against Obama it will help, as states that do not set up their own ObamaCare exchange are exempt from the business tax penalties, but Obama has illegally implemented a tax on those companies as well.
MikeN trying to be an economist wannabe, frantically trying to get people to believe his stories.
“may actually have the effect” and maybe it definitely won’t.
Why don’t you leave being an economist, to those that have established creditability and a Nobel Prize!
It’s a pretty obvious effect. I personally know some people whose businesses are reducing hiring in the way that I stated. More part time jobs, stay under 50 employees. On top of that, we have numerous stories of companies doing just that. Olive Garden, Red Lobster, various colleges and local governments. I’m not expecting a Nobel Prize for pointing out the disaster that is ObamaCare.
Here’s a good article showing how companies are working to keep their total employees under 50, exactly as MikeN described it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324616604578304072420873666.html
Funny stuff! Nobel prize indeed! Leave important decisions up to the Nobel prize winners. People like Obama. (That’s some witty satire, or a very poor choice of words.)
FYI (especially to Mike N): Obama won his Nobel prize for basically getting elected. Some prize, huh?
Well, as usual, Mickey is full of shit and Liberty Loser thinks it is ice cream and as routinely occurs provides a link that if either of them could read at an 8th Grade Level they could even learn the opposite of what they think is true.
Perhaps on the point I make is overdrawn?
Say you two of common ILK==I do assume you both know what “”full-time equivalent workers” means? It means you gain no advantage at all by hiring part time employees.
Everything you say with regards to that issue is pure barnyard swill. Ain’t that a bitch?
Ha, ha. But yes==”any” break point creates incentives for those as full of shit as you two are. The kind that will call Employers with 50 employees “small.” What a BURDEN it is in America==to have over 50 employees and have to provide Healthcare. Damn that Obama.
Think of the Children….. they are small too.
Simpletons.
Oh my, so all these businessmen I know are just foolish?
You realize the penalty only applies to full-time workers? There are two different penalties. Those that can get below 50 full-time equivalent employees have a large incentive to do so. Those that can’t or won’t have an incentive to switch to part-time workers, so as to avoid $2000 per employee in fines.
If I have 70 employees full time, it is worth it to switch to 30 full-time and 60 part time, paying $0 in penalty. Now some would prefer I pay $700k in health insurance for the employees, or $80k in penalties, but if I can, I will go for $0.
Mickey==what can anyone do except repeat what was already DISPOSITIVE of the subject?
1. NO, FTE include full time and part time employees. You don’t understand the BASIC VOCABULARY of this subject.
2. I similar vein==every program covering employer/employee rights and benefits has a cut off level for truly small employers who don’t have the base to spread certain de minimus costs over. So, Obama set it at 50. You want to argue for 25 or 75 or would it be “no healthcare for employees at all?” You sound like you are against minimum wage as well? Anti child labor?? Workers Comp? Safe working conditions?
Just how much a fricking ass hole are you Mickey??? This is the USA where healhcare is distributed thru employment. I’m sure you are aware of the reasons for this, good and bad as they are? So==given this is America and not the land of sugar coated fruit and nuts where you are so much more comfortable==how many employees should an employer have before the State should mandate healthcare coverage.
Show us your humanity.
From the article:
The law requires firms with 50 or more “full-time equivalent workers” to offer health plans to employees who work more than 30 hours a week.
So under this definition, what happens to someone who works 29 hours a week vs someone who works 31?
Full Time Equivalent (FTE)–each part time employee is added to the count according to their hours worked. So in your mind twisting example of 29 hours==that would equal 29/4oth of an employee. No benefit at all in going with a 100% part time work force. Its that very abuse that the term/functionality of FTE is meant to counteract.
BASIC VOCABULARY–and yet you still did not look it up or try to understand it. even when the issue was directly on point.
Again you’ve missed it. You are only penalized for full time workers, that is ‘full-time’ workers who work 30 hours per week. The full-time equiv is only for determining which companies are affected. The requirement is for 30 hour workers. There is no mandate to provide health insurance to part-time workers.
Bobbo, perhaps you should call up the CEO of Darden’s who runs Olive Garden and Red Lobster, and inform him how he misunderstood full-time equivalent. You could get lots of people their jobs back. You could even add it to your blog name.
Show us your humanity. You won’t even pick up the phone and call Darden’s to save people’s jobs.
You just keep denying reality because you would like it to be something else. Companies are firing because of ObamaCare.
I already said there were lots of ass holes just like you.
……. more than just stupid, uncaring, self centered, and calcified going on here. An element of some childish wish fulfilment. Winning a gold certificate to Willie Wonka.
Just plain stupid. How have I missed reality again? Ha, ha.
You would substitute Obama Care with what?????? And your answer is as that congress person said: “Die Quickly.”
FERP.
What’s stupid is the desire to have people work less to meet their vision of more people having health insurance.
The economy is booming! All the other countries love us! World leaders hold our potus in the greatest respect. His fellow Africans love him. The Arab world respects him. We are stronger militarily. Our allies trust him and our enemies fear him. Our foreign policies are working. Unemployment is way down and nearly everyone has a full time job. Our national energy policies are working! Our new health care program is working. The student loan program is sorted out. SS problems have been fixed. Medicare is fixed. The government respects the citizens right to privacy. The government is treating those who make the presidents enemies lists evenhandedly. His green jobs works. The incident in Libya has been cleared up. Government officers who testify to Congress tell the truth. Etc.
Which of the above is a lie? All of them! Everything this potus has touched is a total train wreck! How he’s managed to become an abject failure at everything escapes me.
And now he’s going to save the world from anthropogenic warming just as most of the most strident fans of anthropogenic warming are having to revise their numbers down or push them out a century so they’ll be safely dead before people can definitively prove they are idiots. That’s our potus in action.
This article from the Australian lists a lot of the same points. Nice to see we are still making friends.
“Edward Snowden leaks reveal Barack Obama’s foreign aims”
http://tinyurl.com/lomdyo7
Here! Here!
And if you want to see the abject BIAS of not just the media but the majority of ignorant souls in the world consider this: Obama as a REPUBLICAN! We’d probably be into the trial phase after an impeachment by now.
I mean, all “Dub-Ya” did was start a couple of wars. It’s not like his impeached predecessor had anything to do with the beginnings of our spiraling economy by implementing NAFTA or anything.
We can also expect more restaurants to have shorter hours, opening later, closing early, and not staying open from 2-4.
Another post from an modern Republican wackhead!!!!
If Bernanke would just print enough money everything would be fine.
If there is a shortage of money, you simply print more of it.
It is simple. 🙂
MikeN says:
7/6/2013 at 8:42 am
Bobbo, perhaps you should call up the CEO of Darden’s who runs Olive Garden and Red Lobster, and inform him how he misunderstood full-time equivalent. You could get lots of people their jobs back. You could even add it to your blog name. //// I do assume like everyone else that if you are RICH and successful you must be intelligent as well. I do assume that these chain restaurant owners do know what an FTE is….. although why Olive Garden and Red Lobster who I assume employ 1000’s would care about a rule that affects only near 50 is beyond me. Could be though just a good example of FERP: Fucking Evil Retarded Pukes and their group masturbatory exercise called “Criticizing Obama for the Sun Coming Up.” Its easy. Find anything negative whether true or not and just repeat it constantly. If you know its a lie, but you repeat it then you are being evil. If you don’t know its a lie and on being told the truth you say “Oh Yeah, well tell that to these RICH guys who should know the truth” then you are just being Retarded.
See how that works?
Ha, ha. Silly Hoomans. PROUD and demanding that those on the bottom of society not get any healthcare. Its the American WAY===and so proud of it.
FERP.
>although why Olive Garden and Red Lobster who I assume employ 1000′s would care about a rule that affects only near 50 is beyond me.
It’s already been explained to you, but you seem to think you know better. If you are correct, then you can save lots of jobs.
Or perhaps you have the whole FTE thing all wrong, and these companies are in fact saving money by switching to part time workers?
360k more part time jobs in June, with 240k drop in full time jobs.
A coincidence, or perhaps companies looking ahead to ObamaCare, which has a 6 month lookback provision for determining who is a full time worker?
So…….the “solution” is of course Universal Coverage, Single Payer, Socialized Medicine. That way employers are removed from the equation so that they can provide all the jobs for people they wish without evil Obama getting in the way. Workers become free to change jobs without healthcare coverage being an issue. American goods and services become more competitive having this cost element removed from their overhead.
But the FERP won’t allow that either.
They would rather have us all stew in the misery they create so that they can blame the other side for the misery.
Just Look.
So because liberals have made a mess in expanding government to provide health care, the solution is to let liberals expand government even more.
All of this Obamacare talk is assuming that somehow Healthcare became a right somehow when it’s not.
As much as liberals don’t want to admit or understand it, businesses do not exist to pay wages, pay benefits, etc. They exist to make a profit. Anything or anyone that contributes more to that aim than it or they cost is an asset. Anyone or anything that costs more than they contribute to the goal is a liability.
Businesses aren’t human, or hooman if you want to think you’re clever by half. To try and imbue them with human morality is futile. Liberals want to make businesses part of their dream nanny state and then wonder why there are so many problems, or unemployment rises. They can’t grasp the fact that businesses do not pay taxes, benefits, etc. Those payments come from higher costs or lower expenses.
And, before bobbo or some other liberal jumps up and says that proves that SCOTUS shouldn’t have allowed corporations to spend money on the political process – I agree and think they should be denied the ability to do that, but only if the same applies to unions which are also not a person but have been spending money and efforts to influence elections for decades while trying to deny the other side the same privilege.
Unions were part of the SCOTUS ruling too. The ones complaining about corporations spending conveniently forget that.
Matt & Nextlie==how big do you want the crocodile tears to be??? Poor ol’ disadvantaged business men. ….. Can you give me a break? Let us parse:
All of this Obamacare talk is assuming that somehow Healthcare became a right somehow when it’s not. /// No one has said it is a right. Simple truth: its not. Simple truth: It should be. You can agree with that or not and work for what ends you think are more worthy.
As much as liberals don’t want to admit or understand it, businesses do not exist to pay wages, pay benefits, etc. /// Thats correct. Too much of lame stream media gets that wrong.
….
Businesses aren’t human, or hooman if you want to think you’re clever by half. /// You don’t have to be clever to enjoy word play. Most idiots don’t however. Hmmmm…. you might be on to something.
To try and imbue them with human morality is futile. Liberals want to make businesses part of their dream nanny state and then wonder why there are so many problems, or unemployment rises. They can’t grasp the fact that businesses do not pay taxes, benefits, etc. Those payments come from higher costs or lower expenses. /// Your terminology is starting to enter a spin. Like Mickey–you need to read and apply a good dictionary….. or google.
And, before bobbo or some other liberal jumps up and says that proves that SCOTUS shouldn’t have allowed corporations to spend money on the political process – I agree and think they should be denied the ability to do that, but only if the same applies to unions which are also not a person but have been spending money and efforts to influence elections for decades while trying to deny the other side the same privilege. /// Again–confusing unstated assumptions. Typically==Business Organizations brought money to the candidates while Unions brought feet on the ground and votes. Business didn’t like that advantage but has always out spent Unions on the Money front. I’ll bet you can’t actually narrowly define what your complaint is.
Unions were part of the SCOTUS ruling too. The ones complaining about corporations spending conveniently forget that. /// Yes–because corps have x10 x20 the amount of money to spend. SCOTUS ruling also applied to INDIVIDUALS which so far has been the most festering wound. but yes==scotus makes a ruling that advatanges one side 10x more than the other and the dumb public focuses on where the most harm is.
The manipulation of false equivalency.
Shame on you.
Come-on you know unions are among the biggest spenders. To thy own self be true.
“Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor’s political activity that has often been overlooked.”
http://tinyurl.com/79mkgmy
You think Unions spend more money on politics/bribes/fraud than does Business huh?
It all comes down to how you slice and dice the BS….. how you define what you are comparing…..what you add in and what you don’t.
………….could be a case for the exercise of some common sense? Thats an unfair suggestion to make of a FERP.
I apologize.
bobbo,
Who says tears are required, crocodile or otherwise? It was a statement of facts, not a request for sympathy for anyone.
Healthcare is not a right. Saying it should be is merely opinion. Even if it’s voted into a requirement for everyone, it still isn’t a “right,” it’s just legal requirement. If one wants it to be a right, then it will need to be added to the Constitution.
I guess opinions vary on what constitutes clever word play. I enjoy a pun as much as the next person, but “hooman” sounds like when computer fanboys replace Microsoft with M$ or MicroShaft and think they’re clever. To each his own, however.
I like how you try to dismiss the entire paragraph regarding the futility of imbuing businesses with morality, and that businesses don’t pay taxes, etc.. with a meaningless, throwaway ad hominum. Just face the truth – when you increase the cost to a business through taxes or regulations, they get that money from either raising their prices or cutting their expenses. How difficult a concept is that? Too difficult for most liberals to grasp, apparently.
RED HERRING ALERT!!! It doesn’t matter if Businesses or Unions spend more money in the electoral process or not. That statement attempts to divert attention from the core principle: Corporations nor Unions are people and should not be accorded the rights of one. If business spends $10,000 and unions spend $1, or it’s the other way around, it still is wrong. But, to let unions spend millions of their members money directly promoting one candidate over another is as wrong as business doing so.
You make the (silly) assertion that Business brought money to the candidates and Unions brought feet on the ground and votes. Where do you think providing all that advertising and work comes from? Unions spend millions of dollars of their members money promoting those things. Do you think everyone donates their time and resources to the cause of the Union? Unions don’t bribe politicians? What rock have YOU been living under! Unions are so corrupt it isn’t even funny. It’s why they fit so well with the liberal politicians – they understand each other.
I can’t narrowly define what my complaint is? How about, “Quit trying to keep Businesses from spending money on the electoral process unless you’re willing to hold Unions to the same standard.” Narrow enough?
I didn’t hear liberals in general complaining all the decades that unions have been pouring money into promoting Democrats and liberal causes. If they were intellectually honest, then they would have had the same problems with that as they claim to have with Business expenditures. But, they don’t. You like to derisively comment about one side having a 10x advantage over the other, but it doesn’t matter. It’s wrong either way and should be stopped. But, I’m sure all YOU and other liberals want is for Business to be hobbled, and Unions to be left untouched.
I’m not sure how my opinions can be considered manipulation of false equivalency. It seems to be you who prefer to see only one side and ignore the other.
So, shame on you.
+1
That is the dividing line between Rights and Welfare.
If it costs someone resources to provide it, it is welfare.
If someone is forced to provide the resources, that is slavery.
Well if the US economy does truly and genuinely recover, in the next couple of years. This will signal that it’s time for a Republican administration to once more take the reigns and drive the US back into ruin. As have most previous Republican administrations. As I recall was previously posted as a chart, here. The Democratic party seems to be the “recovery” party. And the Republican party, the “ruinous” party. Perhaps not because of anything these two parties actually do. But maybe Wall Street’s or the general investing public’s confidence, waxes and wains, with whoever is in charge of the White House or Congress. If it’s not that, then one party obviously takes it as their mission to build up economic value. While the other takes it as their mission to tear it back down. Possibly as simply a profit taking strategy. Republican raid, Democrats rebuild. Or some believe that they are, and invest accordingly.
Hopefully, Bobbo and the other deniers are starting to realize the mess being caused by ObamaCare. Now let’s look at a silver lining.
Under the law, the employment tax only comes into effect for companies if one of the employees collects a subsidy. The subsidies are only available in the state exchanges, not the federal ones. So, there should be no penalty in the 25-30 states that have opted not to go along with ObamaCare, and employment should be unaffected there. However, Obama and the IRS have illegally ignored this part of the law and are planning for federal subsidies, and a tax in all states. This is being taken to court, and should be an easy victory for the plaintiffs. Assuming they win, then the ‘red’ states that are not cooperating with ObamaCare will not have the problem of employers cutting hours. Indeed, I am advising one such employer with locations in Illinois and Wisconsin, to avoid switching to part-time workers in Wisconsin, and not have any penalties there, though there is the small risk of Obama actually winning in court and being allowed to implement a tax not authorized by Congress.
TucsonMatt in a thoughtful honest reasonable way says:
7/7/2013 at 6:49 pm
bobbo,
Who says tears are required, crocodile or otherwise? /// No one said tears were required. However, otherwise in the context of the issue, your position begs for sympathy for the poor business owner who just can’t afford to offer healthcare coverage to his minimum wage staff. And indeed, without a law such as the one at issue, he cannot. But who does deserve more sympathy–the “poor owner” who has 50 employees ===or the 50 employees??? Is it God or Mamon that we worship. Yes–crocodile tears was most appropriate. Consistent you are to not see it, admit it, or whatever the case is.
It was a statement of facts, not a request for sympathy for anyone. /// Few things are only one thing. Reality is an expanding concentric circle from the pebble of an idea you have thrown into the pool of consideration.
Healthcare is not a right. Saying it should be is merely opinion. Even if it’s voted into a requirement for everyone, it still isn’t a “right,” it’s just legal requirement. /// Word Play–once a “benefit” is legislated, then you have a right to it. You are conflating CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS with legislative one. Small point, but you seem to take pleasure from appearing “exact.” Perhaps that will drive you to a lesson as well?
If one wants it to be a right, then it will need to be added to the Constitution. // No.
I guess opinions vary on what constitutes clever word play. I enjoy a pun as much as the next person, but “hooman” sounds like when computer fanboys replace Microsoft with M$ or MicroShaft and think they’re clever. To each his own, however. /// My reference is to the Little Martian on Bugs Bunny. I thought it was funny when 8 years old…… and I still do.
I like how you try to dismiss the entire paragraph regarding the futility of imbuing businesses with morality, and that businesses don’t pay taxes, etc.. with a meaningless, throwaway ad hominum. //// Let me check what that was…..yeah==point is, you made a stupid irrelevant argument. If society decides to impose a requirement of providing healthcare on employers then that is the requirement. You can call it morality, or the law but in either case===YES IT CAN BE IMPOSED. By conflating two issues, you become unclear or manipulative… or wrong. Its hard to tell. Note: there is just as much “bad” morality on the other side==ie, no imposition of basic healthcare. A subject worth its own long blog.
Just face the truth – when you increase the cost to a business through taxes or regulations, they get that money from either raising their prices or cutting their expenses. How difficult a concept is that? Too difficult for most liberals to grasp, apparently. /// No, thats exactly what happens. Thats why a law is appropriate to set a new level playing field for ALL EMPLOYERS to meet so that the cheap skates don’t win the marketplace competition by shorting their employees.
RED HERRING ALERT!!! It doesn’t matter if Businesses or Unions spend more money in the electoral process or not. That statement attempts to divert attention from the core principle: Corporations nor Unions are people and should not be accorded the rights of one. If business spends $10,000 and unions spend $1, or it’s the other way around, it still is wrong. /// I agree. One of the worst Supreme songs ever.
But, to let unions spend millions of their members money directly promoting one candidate over another is as wrong as business doing so. /// That was illegal under Taft Hartley and not legal to do until the Supremes sang. You have your basic facts wrong. Conflating two different things most likely.
You make the (silly) assertion that Business brought money to the candidates and Unions brought feet on the ground and votes. Where do you think providing all that advertising and work comes from? Unions spend millions of dollars of their members money promoting those things. Do you think everyone donates their time and resources to the cause of the Union? Unions don’t bribe politicians? What rock have YOU been living under! Unions are so corrupt it isn’t even funny. It’s why they fit so well with the liberal politicians – they understand each other. /// You are starting to rotate. Rephrase if you think there is anything of merit here.
I can’t narrowly define what my complaint is? How about, “Quit trying to keep Businesses from spending money on the electoral process unless you’re willing to hold Unions to the same standard.” Narrow enough? /// They were and are held to the same standard. If you want to continue to disagree==be most specific to the law/practice that applies and provide a link.
I didn’t hear liberals in general complaining all the decades that unions have been pouring money into promoting Democrats and liberal causes. /// More conflation. Promoting Democratic candidates was illegal under Taft Hartly. Promoting liberal causes is just what they should do. Two different things. The source of your confusion.
If they were intellectually honest, then they would have had the same problems with that as they claim to have with Business expenditures. But, they don’t. You like to derisively comment about one side having a 10x advantage over the other, but it doesn’t matter. It’s wrong either way and should be stopped. /// Its stupid not to recognize that eventually the degree of difference results in a different harm.
But, I’m sure all YOU and other liberals want is for Business to be hobbled, and Unions to be left untouched. /// Yes, yes….you are “sure” about many things that are 100% assumed. I think Unions ……… who cares? Not the issue.
I’m not sure how my opinions can be considered manipulation of false equivalency. It seems to be you who prefer to see only one side and ignore the other. /// Rhetoric.
So, shame on you. /// Getting tired? Ha, ha.
Regulation of business/commerce/society is the most important thing gubment does (after Nat Security). It has effects no matter what the gubment does OR DOES NOT DO and is always a balance of competing interests. Gubment should not bend over backwards to business, nor to workers as EQUITY recognizes each side has valid concerns, common excesses and so forth. Sadly, a free market while greatly touted is no answer as fraud and advantage quickly take over….. SO THERE MUST BE RULES. Should business be saddled with the cost of healthcare when offering employment? I think they should—but it should be done via socialized single payer systems like Europe. When the same interests who defeat Single Payer then want to shield the employer directly making such payments, then I say what you advocate for is misery on the minimum wage slave. I don’t want to live in a Country that does that. Why do you?
Reply
Oh, bobbo,
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
You said, re: Crocodile Tears: “However, otherwise in the context of the issue, your position begs for sympathy for the poor business owner who just can’t afford to offer healthcare coverage to his minimum wage staff.”
I guess we both assume. I ask for no sympathy for the business or the employee. Merely that Obamacare is going to bankrupt the country, and then both sides will be screwed. I guess the employees can proudly hold up their Obamacare certificates while getting no healthcare.
“Word Play–once a “benefit” is legislated, then you have a right to it.”
Yes, there is a difference between an inalienable right given by God or the Constitution, and something that is legislated that you then have a right to obtain. Making something that is nice to have a right by using legislative tricks doesn’t make it right.
“My reference is to the Little Martian on Bugs Bunny. I thought it was funny when 8 years old…… and I still do.”
Not surprised.
“…stupid irrelevant argument. If society decides to impose a requirement of providing healthcare on employers then that is the requirement. You can call it morality, or the law but in either case===YES IT CAN BE IMPOSED.”
Imposition isn’t the same thing as morality. People have a sense of morality, businesses don’t. Any altruistic, or morality-like things done in the name of business are done by the people running the business, not the business itself. Trying to make a corporation act in a way that isn’t in its best interests financially works only by imposition or by the will of those running the company. Interesting that liberals decry businesses being allowed to spend money in the electoral process because they aren’t people, but turn around and try and make the business entity act like a person! If you want a business to spend money or resources in something that doesn’t directly contribute to profit, then, yes… you impose it upon them and they will adhere to it as minimally as possible. Which dovetails neatly with the second half of the paragraph which you profess to not see the connection regarding businesses not paying taxes.
“No, thats exactly what happens. Thats why a law is appropriate to set a new level playing field for ALL EMPLOYERS to meet so that the cheap skates don’t win the marketplace competition by shorting their employees.”
What you said in no way invalidates my point of businesses not paying taxes or costs of regulations. Just because you pass a law that applies to every business doesn’t mean that magically businesses start paying taxes. It just means that all businesses raise their prices or cut their expenses. What’s so hard to understand about that??? Back in the 80’s, my father and mother-in-law were security guards. Congress mandated an increase in the minimum wage. While Ted Kennedy and everyone else were patting themselves on the back for caring about the little guy, they both lost their jobs. The higher wage made it economically feasible for the company to put in cameras rather than have actual people do the job. Many people lost their jobs because now just a couple of people could sit and watch the cameras. So… the business did not pay the higher wages, they cut their costs.
Of unions spending money to promote one candidate over another: “That was illegal under Taft Hartley and not legal to do until the Supremes sang. You have your basic facts wrong. Conflating two different things most likely.”
If you really think that anyone had any doubt that unions were promoting Democratic candidates over Republicans, then you’re a prime candidate for some swamp land out there. It may have been illegal, but they poured millions trying to get liberal candidates into office. Not conflating at all.
“You are starting to rotate. Rephrase if you think there is anything of merit here.”
Uh… how about TV stations and newspapers don’t run ads for free, so are you saying that all those ads run by unions promoting liberal causes were donated to them at no cost? No, the unions spent millions of dollars of their members money paying for those things. So to say Business brought money and Unions brought feet to the ground and votes is a disingenuous assertion. Those feet and votes cost money. Unions are corrupt, so it makes sense they would feel comfortable with liberal politicians. Everyone’s most comfortable with those who are most like them.
“They were and are held to the same standard. If you want to continue to disagree==be most specific to the law/practice that applies and provide a link.”
The point is simple – most of those complaining about businesses spending money have no problem with all the money unions have spent. It’s hypocritical.
“Its stupid not to recognize that eventually the degree of difference results in a different harm.”
In this case, no. It doesn’t matter if one side gets more benefit than the other if it’s wrong for both sides to be doing what they’re doing.
It’s interesting that as so many countries in Europe are beginning to buckle under the costs of their social programs, we have people over here who are trying to send us down the same path. They’ve gotten away with it for so long because we were their defenses budget. They didn’t have to spend the money on defense the normally would because we were there. So, they spent it on these liberal social programs which worked for awhile, but eventually still caught up to them. Our grandkids are going to hate us.
I have friends who live or lived under these socialized medicine programs and they say it’s great for mundane, normal things. But when it starts getting beyond that, red tape is horrible and it takes forever to get things done. Many people die before they can get in to get tested. Obamacare is going to create more problems then it will solve. They’re already backing away from some things. Long-term care is not covered under Obamacare now because it’s too expensive. They’ve already given how many exemptions to Obamacare to unions and other businesses that are their buddies. They had to bribe states to get their votes by shielding them from the high costs. I would be surprised if more than a handful of those who voted for Obamacare even read the thing.
Liberals like you will continue to think businesses are the enemy and then turn around and express shock and dismay when businesses go away and then there’s no tax revenue to pay for all those neat little programs. Like someone said to me once, “Everyone hates salesmen, but everyone likes to buy things.” Go ahead and hate businesses. Just wait until they’re gone.
Unions went out and spent dues money on ads against politicians who were pro-union. They are a subsidiary of the Democratic Party. This was part of the payoff for looking the other way as the Teamsters election was rigged.
Hey Mickey–just watching Stossel. He also says those affected by the 50 employee rule will switch to part time people.
I can see one potential source of confusion. The FTE calculation applies to whether or not the Obamacare Rules will apply to an employer BUT after that, employers only have to provide healthcare to FT employees. If thats the case, and it sounds like it is, then the Feds have written a bucket crap set of regs on that issue. The whole notion of FTE is to PREVENT this very activity.
I have seen Stossel be wrong on his facts before……….
Lots of FUD out there.
Only what I’ve been saying, but you chose to ignore it.
Thats not what you said. Its what you could have said if you understood the BASIC VOCABULARY.
a point perhaps too subtle for your ham fisted view of things.
With the shared ground we now have…care to name and connect the dots as to how the Regs based on FTE as defined and utilized at law could still nonetheless result in an incentive to move from full time to part time employees?
There are 4 main dots. Not hard at all.
You didn’t understand anything even when pointed out, and somehow the people who pointed it out don’t understand BASIC VOCABULARY. Apparently, putting things in ALL CAPS makes your point valid, a la ECA. But really you are again going into conFusion territory.
If I’m misunderstanding the basic vocabulary, then I am giving some people very bad advice. Now, I have been advising people to switch to part-time employees, and staying under 50 employees total. There is some additional options I am exploring as well. It is possible that companies can actually get away with providing very bad insurance that covers nothing of use like hospital visits, but covers birth control, and they are in the clear.
So it seems that you now understand why Red Lobster is switching to more part time workers then?
I can imagine ….. yes. There are two more dots you haven’t mentioned that make it work.
Obamacare = Crap
BUT–it was all Obama thought he could get thru what with nihilist FERP opposition. Still better than the status quo anti ANDMORE IMPORTANTLY it sets the stage for further changes to correct the BS that so often characterizes programs in transition.
To the Future… and BEYOND!!
So it’s better for people to lose their jobs or have their hours cut, at which point they are still required to purchase health insurance, more expensive than it was before.
>I can see one potential source of confusion.
Looking in a mirror?
Nice to know workers aren’t losing their jobs unnecessarily because people are misunderstanding the law. They are merely losing their jobs because of ObamaCare.
Do you know what FUD is Mickey?
Its what one FERP knowingly LIES and tells another FERP and the second FERP takes it as gospel.
The regs mention FTE’s and I have to assume they are correctly written for the purpose of inhibiting the type of FT/PT game you say those Caring Employers will be motivated to play. It is possible they aren’t however…almost certainly when those two dots you can’t think of are added into the consideration.
I suppose the readiest alternative was to require healthcare for all employees regardless of status and regardless of number?
Pros and Cons to all we do.
I’m not interested in your opinion of what I’ve missed, given how much you’ve whiffed so far.
No, I don’t think it’s a good idea to require insurance for part-time employees, as this would pretty much eliminate part-time work.
Stay skeptical.
Skeptical both about the BLS figures as well as those from Shadowstats.com.
Why? Well, if you look closely at the curves, the BLS U6 curve is offset by, we’ll call it 3%, from the U3 curve. You can see that different data was utilized for U6, since while trending along a nearly identical path as U3, it’s local peaks and dips are not at all the same as for U3.
But with the Shadowstats data, there’s something interesting and possibly suspicious. It’s also biased upward roughly 3% compared to U6. However, it’s trend isn’t just nearly identical with U6, it’s _precisely_ identical, until about July 2009.
This suggests that, however they’re calculating things and whatever the sources for their data, for most of this graph they simply copied BLS’ U6 data and added a percentage.
If that’s the case, then in my opinion, that would cast serious doubt on the veracity of their data from 2010 to the present. It means they would’ve had to change the way they collected and processed their data, and this would demand a whole separate curve (or at least a different color for the end portion of the curve segment).
Not to say things aren’t still bad. Where I live, there’s lots of work, part-time. People often juggle two or three PT jobs to attempt to get FT-equiv. hours.
Nice find. It looks even more identical than that though. From the breakpoint, it’s as if they did a rotation of the BLS U6 curve upwards.
I’ll give it one last go just in case someone actually knows.
THE WHOLE POINT of writing regs structured on the concept of FTE’s (Full Time Equivalent Employees) is so that EVERY employer with say 50 FTE’s will be impacted the same regardless of the Full Time/Part Time make up of their labor force. The VERY PURPOSE of the FTE regulatory scheme is to prevent Employers from being motivated or advantaged to going with part time employees over full time.
I do assume in the main part the Obama Regs do this. What I’m not sure of is the whole penalty/enforcement provision. Last I heard, employers are far ahead to not provide coverage at all and pay the resulting fine, and the fine itself may not even been asked for much less collected….. at least for the first few years of implementation? I don’t care enough to read the regs/law myself and its a subtle enough point that I don’t trust any otherwise even reputable source to get this issue right. That, Plus the FERP’s are actively trying to kill Obama Care by implementing it poorly or not at all so they can call it a failure. Lying is one of their chief tools assuming their faithful will believe it as truth. From Mighty CEO’s who should know better, to the blog echo chambers who don’t understand the issue to begin with.
ALL TO THE POINT—-how bad does it have to get before Single Payer Systems, Government Run, are implemented to remove this BS issue from the labor market.
You assume that which is not true, and then call everyone else a liar for pointing out the truth.
It’s not the regulations, it’s the law itself that says these things. Now, it would be nicer if they hadn’t defined full-time down to 30 hours per week(your 29/40 was another fail). It would also be nicer if they hadn’t considered common ownership. That would be a nice convenient workaround for this mess.
You’ve read the law?
If you respond in 5 seconds with the Code Section or the Legislative Report index number, only then will I believe you.
I never consciously meant to call you a liar. You have to “know” in order to lie. I always think of you more as a stooge.
So far, you’re the one who’s retracted statements in a roundabout way, and now seem to be retracting the retractions. I haven’t called you a liar, just ignorant and conFused.
>ALL TO THE POINT—-how bad does it have to get before Single Payer Systems, Government Run, are implemented to remove this BS issue from the labor market.
I believe you made this point when this monstrosity was passed. You don’t care if it makes things worse, indeed you like it for that reason, because you see it as a step to what is needed.
When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.