patrick.net

http : // www . usnews . com / opinion

Obamacare is a disguised increase in minimum wage, albeit one that also adds extra complexity to running a business.

CaptainShuddup says

http : // www . usnews . com / opinion

But unlike the opinions YOU post, this one actually has facts to back it up.

Listen man, I'm like mainlining the facts, like free basing what's up.

My high school has laid off all their permanent substitute teachers (the ones that used to work 40 hours a week) and now, no substitute teacher this coming school year will be allowed to work for more than 25 hours. This was all in response to the healthcare bill. Now mind you, this isn't some greedy corporation we are talking about. It's a municipal entity. I won't be surprised if corporations and small businesses resort to similar tacticts to avoid paying more to have to pay for their benefits that the bill requires.

theoakman says

My high school has laid off all their permanent substitute teachers (the ones that used to work 40 hours a week) and now, no substitute teacher this coming school year will be allowed to work for more than 25 hours. This was all in response to the healthcare bill. Now mind you, this isn't some greedy corporation we are talking about. It's a municipal entity. I won't be surprised if corporations and small businesses resort to similar tacticts to avoid paying more to have to pay for their benefits that the bill requires.

Either you didn't read the article, or you didn't understand it. While there have been anecdotal accounts of employers cutting hours "because of Obamacare", the data doesn't support your contention.

Please review "anecdote" vs. "data".

Homeboy says

theoakman says

My high school has laid off all their permanent substitute teachers (the ones that used to work 40 hours a week) and now, no substitute teacher this coming school year will be allowed to work for more than 25 hours. This was all in response to the healthcare bill. Now mind you, this isn't some greedy corporation we are talking about. It's a municipal entity. I won't be surprised if corporations and small businesses resort to similar tacticts to avoid paying more to have to pay for their benefits that the bill requires.

Either you didn't read the article, or you didn't understand it. While there have been anecdotal accounts of employers cutting hours "because of Obamacare", the data doesn't support your contention.

Please review "anecdote" vs. "data".

Lol. I'm not telling a fairy tale here. My district will no longer allow substitute teachers to work more than 25 hours. This is what's happening at a municipal entity. You can choose to ignore it or write it off if you want. But FYI, I did read the article...I mean opinion piece...and there wasn't really any comprehensive data presented. Just a few anecdotes and unsupported conclusions.

Are you serious? Go to any major retailer and ask them when the last time they hired a full time employee. There are 5 million less full time employees now than in 2008 despite there being 14 million more ppl in te work pool. They should have gone for single payer or broke. Obamacare the way it is, is 100%, without a doubt, a job killer and is stifling the economic recovery. To think otherwise means you have lost your grasp of common sense

theoakman says

Lol. I'm not telling a fairy tale here. My district will no longer allow substitute teachers to work more than 25 hours. This is what's happening at a municipal entity. You can choose to ignore it or write it off if you want. But FYI, I did read the article...I mean opinion piece...and there wasn't really any comprehensive data presented. Just a few anecdotes and unsupported conclusions.

You still are not understanding this. If you believe I'm calling you a liar, you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my post. I didn't say your school district didn't do that. What I said was that you are confusing the concept of ONE anecdote with the concept of data.

I mean, can you understand that finding ONE place that cut hours doesn't mean you won the argument? We certainly could find examples of employers who cut hours BEFORE Obamacare was even thought of. That doesn't prove anything. You have to look at the DATA to understand if there is a significant trend, and when you look at the DATA, there is no trend. That's not "ignoring" the anecdote; it is understanding that you need to look at ALL the data, not just one incident.

Please, people - this is absolutely basic stuff. If you don't understand it, you don't understand ANYTHING.

You folks seem to be trying to get a lot of mileage out of that article being in the opinion section, which is pretty stupid. Here are more articles about the same thing:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865583636/Is-Obamacare-a-job-killer.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/obamacare-wont-slash-workers-hours-report-finds-6C10732487

theoakman says

there wasn't really any comprehensive data presented. Just a few anecdotes and unsupported conclusions.

You're just parroting what I wrote about you. You don't even understand the difference between data and anecdote. Again, from my first post:

"[T]he number and percentage of workers putting in between 26-29 hours per week was slightly lower in 2013 than in 2012. The average percentage of workers in this category for 2013 was 0.597 percent. That is down from 0.604 percent in 2012."

That is DATA. What YOU presented was an anecdote.

lakermania says

Are you serious?

Yes.

lakermania says

Go to any major retailer and ask them when the last time they hired a full time employee.

That is not meaningful data.

lakermania says

There are 5 million less full time employees now than in 2008 despite there being 14 million more ppl in te work pool.

That actually supports MY point. You're saying the number of part-time employees went up from 2008, but that was before employers were required to provide insurance, so there cannot be any connection there. And as my article shows, the number of part time employees went DOWN in 2013, when employers WERE required to provide insurance. So the trends are exactly the OPPOSITE of what one would expect them to be if Obamacare were the cause.

Thanks for proving my point!

theoakman says

My high school

Oh, crap. I just realized I'm arguing with a high school kid. Jesus Christ. No wonder.

Homeboy says

theoakman says

My high school

Oh, crap. I just realized I'm arguing with a high school kid. Jesus Christ. No wonder.

lol....I'm done with this thread....because I'm arguing with someone that has less maturity than a high school kid. But anyway, the small sample of data that was presented in the article references people working 26 to 29 hours a week. Funny story, most new hires seem to be coming in at less than 25 hours per week. Go look up data on new hires. They are all coming in part time.

The real unemployment rate is north of 20%, this is caused by the lack of investment in small business. Partly because they can get a better return by investing in other things, partly because they are discouraged from invest because of federal policy.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-17/business/35490490_1_private-equity-stock-market-long-term-investors

U.S. News? This magazine could be relabeled U.S. Fiction. That would increase their subscriptions.

theoakman says

lol....I'm done with this thread....because I'm arguing with someone that has less maturity than a high school kid. But anyway, the small sample of data that was presented in the article references people working 26 to 29 hours a week. Funny story, most new hires seem to be coming in at less than 25 hours per week. Go look up data on new hires. They are all coming in part time.

You're full of shit, sonny. First of all, from the NBC article I linked to (that apparently nobody bothered to look at):

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/obamacare-wont-slash-workers-hours-report-finds-6C10732487

â–  "According to the BLS Household Survey, 85 percent of the gain in employed workers since June 2009 is due to additional full-time positions. And since Obamacare passed in March 2010, over 90 percent of the gain in employment is due to additional full-time positions."

■ "According to the BLS establishment survey, the average workweek has risen 0.7 hours since the recession ended in June 2009. Moreover, at 33.7 hours, the average workweek has essentially returned to its level at the start of the Great Recession. These developments would not have occurred if employers had cut back on their workers’ hours during the current recovery."

Did you catch that? The average work week has RISEN, not fallen. What was that source you cited that showed otherwise? Oh, yeah - you didn't cite any sources. LOL.

Furthermore, if you chart the number of part time workers, clearly there was a rise BEFORE the ACA required employers to provide health insurance. but it actually DROPPED after that:

Obviously, the rise in part time employment was a result of the recession, and clearly has nothing to do with Obamacare. That is, for those of us who aren't mouth-breathing Fox News junkies.

But jeepers, I hope Mary Sue says yes when you ask her to the prom, and you guys win the big game.

carrieon says

U.S. News? That magazine could be relabeled U.S. Fiction. That would increase their subscriptions.

So NBC is fiction too, since they cited the same study?

Homeboy says

Did you catch that? The average work week has RISEN, not fallen. What was that source you cited that showed otherwise? Oh, yeah - you didn't cite any sources.

except when you look at how many jobs there were in 2000 compared today, your story doesn't hold water.

Homeboy says

Did you catch that? The average work week has RISEN, not fallen. What was that source you cited that showed otherwise? Oh, yeah - you didn't cite any sources. LOL.

true since the current workers have taken up additional duties of the laid off workers.
and we are not rehiring laid off workers as quickly as in prior recessions. a jobless recovery ?

Even my freaking hairdresser has experienced cuts in hours due to impending Obamacare. She complained to me last month that she wants more hours but they won't give her more than 28 or something. That's because she works for a national stylist chain, with lots of employees. If she worked for a local barbershop or beauty salon, it would be different.

At some point, "anecdotal" data becomes more important than info pushed by bought-and-paid-for media outlets. Smart money is on anecdotal data every time.

Homeboy says

That is, for those of us who aren't mouth-breathing Fox News junkies.

Homeboy says

So NBC is fiction too, since they cited the same study?

If you say so....

Will Obamacare Hurt Jobs? It's Already Happening, Poll Finds

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100825782

Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."

The poll was taken by 603 owners whose businesses have under $20 million in annual sales.

Another 38 percent of the small business owners said they "have pulled back on their plans to grow their business" because of Obamacare.

Those are "some pretty startling answers," Friedman said.

"To think that [nearly] 20 percent of small businesses have already reduced the numbers they have in their business because they're concerned about the medical coverage is significant, and a bit troubling," Friedman said.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100825782

In fact, health care is now the top concern for small businesses according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's latest quarterly small business survey.

The survey, conducted by Harris Interactive in July 2013 among more than 1,3000 small business executives, found 71 percent of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to hire. Only 30 percent say they are prepared to meet the requirements of the law, including participation in the marketplaces.

indigenous says

except when you look at how many jobs there were in 2000 compared today, your story doesn't hold water.

Buh? Would you mind explaining what the employment rate in the year 2000 could possibly have to do with the ACA employer mandate, which wasn't set to take effect until 2014?

People, try to focus here, m'kay?

thomaswong.1986 says

true since the current workers have taken up additional duties of the laid off workers.

Don't know what you're talking about. Could you provide a data source, and an explanation of how this relates to employers allegedly cutting hours due to Obamacare?

thomaswong.1986 says

and we are not rehiring laid off workers as quickly as in prior recessions. a jobless recovery ?

Hmmm.... are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I can't tell.

Quigley says

At some point, "anecdotal" data becomes more important than info pushed by bought-and-paid-for media outlets. Smart money is on anecdotal data every time.

Um, no. Wrong. The phrase "anecdotal data" is an oxymoron. "Anecdote" is singular; "data" is plural. It's nonsensical.

Let me explain this very simply to you: Let's say you flip a coin and it comes up heads. Does that mean every coin ever flipped comes up heads? No, it doesn't.

Speaking of "bought and paid for media outlets", I've noticed many, many more media stories featuring anecdotal accounts of employers supposedly cutting hours in response to Obamacare, e.g. Denny's, Papa John's, Red Lobster, etc., and few media stories featuring actual data on the subject. So yes, the media does appear to be biased on the subject, but biased in the opposite direction from what YOU think they are.

But look, I'm tired of explaining the difference between anecdotes and data. If you don't understand it yet, do a fucking google search about it.

thomaswong.1986 says

Homeboy says

So NBC is fiction too, since they cited the same study?

If you say so....

Um, no I didn't "say so"; that was sarcasm, genius.

thomaswong.1986 says

Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."

Oh, opinions. Gee, I thought everyone here was against "opinions". I guess that's only opinions that don't work in your favor, LOL.

If the opinions given in this survey represent actual facts, then where is the corresponding spike in unemployment? Surely if so many employers have stopped hiring, the unemployment rate would have suddenly skyrocketed. Except it DIDN'T. So how do you explain that?

Homeboy says

If the opinions given in this survey represent actual facts, then where is the corresponding spike in unemployment? Surely if so many employers have stopped hiring, the unemployment rate would have suddenly skyrocketed. Except it DIDN'T. So how do you explain that?

The number of unemployment not reflected in UI figures is extremely high. They have already exhaused their UI . Many even in SV are not being hired because they are unemployed.

Companies won’t even look at resumes of the long-term unemployed

Here’s one big reason why America’s unemployment crisis may be here to stay. Thanks to the lasting effects of the recession, there are currently 4.7 million workers who have been out of work for at least 27 weeks. And new research suggests that employers will almost never consider hiring them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/companies-wont-even-look-at-resumes-of-the-long-term-unemployed/

In California, Lingering Concerns over Exclusion of Unemployed
http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/StateandLocalResources/Pages/Exclusion-unemployed.aspx

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/unemployment-rate-get-real.asp

How are Labor Statistics Compiled?
One misconception about the unemployment rate is that it is derived from the number of people filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. But the number of UI claimants does not provide accurate information on the extent of unemployment, since people may still be jobless after their benefits run out, while others may not be eligible for benefits or may not even have applied for them.

The only statistical fact recently changed with the new U.S. economy is among those getting by with welfare, disability and food stamps which doubled from 12% to 25% of the total population. As an added benefit to this growing group, they now also receive free healthcare, again without paying taxes.
BTW, they are also unemployed.

Homeboy says

Buh? Would you mind explaining what the employment rate in the year 2000 could possibly have to do with the ACA employer mandate, which wasn't set to take effect until 2014?

The unemployment rate is subject to book cooking and is, many economists state that the real unemployment rate is north of 20%

It is more accurate to look at the nubmber of jobs. Up until recently there were more jobs in 2000. This in conjunction with the fact that there are 14 million more people in the workforce than in 2000 indicates that the 7.5% number is Bull Shit.

indigenous says

It is more accurate to look at the nubmber of jobs. Up until recently there were more jobs in 2000. This in conjunction with the fact that there are 14 million more people in the workforce than in 2000 indicates that the 7.5% number is Bull Shit.

Whaaaa???? What "7.5% number"? What are you talking about? I think you are extremely confused as to what is being argued. The number 7.5 has not occurred in this thread until you wrote it just now.

thomaswong.1986 says

The number of unemployment not reflected in UI figures is extremely high. They have already exhaused their UI . Many even in SV are not being hired because they are unemployed.

Even if unemployment were under-reported, there would be a spike in the numbers if massive amounts of employers suddenly stopped hiring because of Obamacare. Where's the spike? You're basically arguing that you're right, but the data doesn't support your view due to a conspiracy theory of yours. That doesn't really cut it.

thomaswong.1986 says

Companies won’t even look at resumes of the long-term unemployed

Unemployment was a problem BEFORE Obamacare. What we are arguing here is whether Obamacare CAUSED unemployment, not whether unemployment exists. Show me some DATA that indicates a connection between a rise in unemployment, and the ACA employer mandate.

thomaswong.1986 says

Here’s one big reason why America’s unemployment crisis may be here to stay. Thanks to the lasting effects of the recession, there are currently 4.7 million workers who have been out of work for at least 27 weeks. And new research suggests that employers will almost never consider hiring them.

What does that have to do with whether Obamacare has caused unemployment?

Again, people - could we try to focus here?

Homeboy says

Whaaaa???? What "7.5% number"? What are you talking about? I think you are extremely confused as to what is being argued. The number 7.5 has not occurred in this thread until you wrote it just now.

7.5% unemployment

carrieon says

The only statistical fact recently changed with the new U.S. economy is among those getting by with welfare, disability and food stamps which doubled from 12% to 25% of the total population. As an added benefit to this growing group, they now also receive free healthcare, again without paying taxes.

BTW, they are also unemployed.

Yeah, I get it - you're an angry right-winger. What does any of that have to do with the topic?

indigenous says

7.5% unemployment

I agree the official unemployment numbers are probably too low. So how does that prove the ACA caused unemployment? It doesn't. Unemployment was worse BEFORE ACA, not after it.

Homeboy says

I agree the official unemployment numbers are probably too low. So how does that prove the ACA caused unemployment? It doesn't. Unemployment was worse BEFORE ACA, not after it.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

7.5% unemployment

I agree the official unemployment numbers are probably too low. So how does that prove the ACA caused unemployment? It doesn't. Unemployment was worse BEFORE ACA, not after it.

I think anyone will have a hard time correlating the statistics, despite the Keynesian penchant for trying to do this.

WhHomeboy says

indigenous says

7.5% unemployment

I agree the official unemployment numbers are probably too low. So how does that prove the ACA caused unemployment? It doesn't. Unemployment was worse BEFORE ACA, not after it.

1 is investment capital gets a better return from things other than investment in small business(ie QE money). 2 is uncertainty created through ACA and Frank Dodd, e.g. who is going to make a long term loan when interest rates are almost guaranteed to go higher in the near future, or what these 2 bills are going to do to the business climate?

Indigenous - I don't understand how these are responses to what I wrote. They are both utter non sequiturs. The "Keynesian" jab is particularly mystifying, as I constantly find myself at odds with the Keynesians on this board.

You are contending that ACA has caused a rise in unemployment/underemployment, and I am telling you the data don't support your premise. What you are writing now has nothing to do with this. Seems like you're just trying to deflect because you have no legitimate response.

Homeboy says

I don't understand how these are responses to what I wrote. They are both utter non sequiturs.

Keynesians always want a mathematical explanation for things which they feel trumps understanding the dynamics.'

The premise of my thinking is that ALL jobs are created by small business. Government jobs are not real jobs, big business expands and shrinks so the net effect is a wash. Therefore it is imperative for job creation that small business gets every leg up it can. The thing not to do is to discourage investment in small business investment, which the current POTUS has done in spades.

As I said it is hard to come up with a number that correlates to this exactly as it has to do with confidence. Nothing destroys confidence more than " =hi were the government we are here to help"

Let's make this real simple so the leftists can understand this. When the price of something goes up do you buy more or less?

If you go to Starbuck tomorrow and you double latte mocha frappa whatever has increased from $6 to $12 are you going to keep consuming them with the same frequency?

Likewise when you increase the cost of labor through Obamacare employers cut back.

Look at job growth the last couple of years (employers know that costs will eventually rise) and look at the increase in the last few BLS job reports of part-time jobs.

IT ISN"T EVEN DEBATABLE that the bill hurts employment and especially full-time jobs.

It especially hurts the lower wage jobs because of the magnitude of the cost changes. For someone making 30k a year the increase in costs to their employer of obamacare is a big percentage jump.

The country is better off just to expand Medicaid rather than trying to change everything I think.