Obamacare cost...

[snowcat]

I would prefer to cut the bond completely between health care and employment and move everyone into an exchange system (eliminating the employer deduction for health care would go a long way towards making this happen on its own).

I think it is also the preference of the authors of Obamacare. I believe that due to Obamacare you will both eventually get your wish. I also believe that the overall quality of health-care will decline as a result.

[CJF]

Cali, why do you think Obamacare has no impact on the increase in part time work? My anecdotal data with my company and a few other major US corporations indicate that Obamacare is playing a major role in new hire strategies. And since I'm working in the outsourcing world, my offshoring operations is growing about 4x the rate it grew in 2012. Obamacare is not the sole reason for that growth, but it is a major factor in every discussion I have with these groups. A few companies prefer to stay onshore, but they're cutting back their internal work to minimize the impact of the unknown. And that's what it is for most companies right now.

[calicoug]

Cali, why do you think Obamacare has no impact on the increase in part time work? My anecdotal data with my company and a few other major US corporations indicate that Obamacare is playing a major role in new hire strategies. And since I'm working in the outsourcing world, my offshoring operations is growing about 4x the rate it grew in 2012. Obamacare is not the sole reason for that growth, but it is a major factor in every discussion I have with these groups. A few companies prefer to stay onshore, but they're cutting back their internal work to minimize the impact of the unknown. And that's what it is for most companies right now.

I never said it has no impact.

[Uncle Ted]

Cali, why do you think Obamacare has no impact on the increase in part time work? My anecdotal data with my company and a few other major US corporations indicate that Obamacare is playing a major role in new hire strategies. And since I'm working in the outsourcing world, my offshoring operations is growing about 4x the rate it grew in 2012. Obamacare is not the sole reason for that growth, but it is a major factor in every discussion I have with these groups. A few companies prefer to stay onshore, but they're cutting back their internal work to minimize the impact of the unknown. And that's what it is for most companies right now.

FIFY.

This trend has been happening pretty much since Obama took over... before Obamacare:

[calicoug]

FIFY.

This trend has been happening pretty much since Obama took over... before Obamacare:

Based on that chart it's actually been happening since before he took over. Although it coincides pretty nicely with the recession.

[Uncle Ted]

Based on that chart it's actually been happening since before he took over. Although it coincides pretty nicely with the recession.

But Obama said the recession was over (3 years ago)? Why is part time hiring still very popular?

[calicoug]

But Obama said the recession was over (3 years ago)? Why is part time hiring still very popular?

Like I said above, I'm not sure anyone knows for sure just yet. My best guess is it's because the industries which are showing strong hiring right now are the very industries which specialize in part time labor (like retail). It also doesn't help that many of the full time jobs which were available (particularly public sector jobs) are being cut back or eliminated due to cuts in government spending.

[Uncle Ted]

Like I said above, I'm not sure anyone knows for sure just yet. My best guess is it's because the industries which are showing strong hiring right now are the very industries which specialize in part time labor (like retail). It also doesn't help that many of the full time jobs which were available (particularly public sector jobs) are being cut back or eliminated due to cuts in government spending.

My theory is that the robots are taking over...

http://money.msn.com/investing/12-ma...-want-your-job

And robots don't need benefits.

[imanihonjin]

That's not really true, though. This isn't a binary issue of "get below 50 employees or definitely lose money." If that's true for any companies, it's a small, small percent of them. If a company would rather lay off 26 employees than take on additional health care costs, they really are operating on ultra-thin margins and are already getting very little benefit out of the 26 employees. More likely, employers will find other areas where they can cut costs or areas where they can increase sales or areas where they can increase pricing (or a combination of those activities). If they have 75 employees as in the example you cite, the odds are their competitors are already offering health insurance and have figured out a way to make it work.

I'm not suggesting the issue will be easy for companies to solve. It won't be. That's an unfortunate part of an American system where we tie health care to employment far too much already. I would prefer to cut the bond completely between health care and employment and move everyone into an exchange system (eliminating the employer deduction for health care would go a long way towards making this happen on its own). The costs are real for employers and they are tough to manage- I don't disagree at all on that point. I simply don't see a mass movement to terminate dozens of employees per business or convert dozens of employees per business to part time work. The very survey someone posted above (ironically in an attempt to prove the opposite) pretty clearly shows that about 9/10 employers aren't going to fire dozens of people or reduce lots of hours. By and large employers are used to offering health care, and by and large this is an issue that businesses adjusted to a long time ago.

Sorry, you have completely shown your ignorance in how to operate a business. If someone has 75 employees and now has to offer health care that is at an additional cost of somewhere in the ball park of $750k per year to comply with the Obamacare mandate. If it were as easy as you state to fine "other areas to cut" or to increase sales or pricing....don't you think they would have previously done so to maximize profit? This is complete nonsense and absolutely proves that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to running a small business. $750k per year can absolutely run a small business into the ground.

[All-American]

Oh, and those additional burdens congress was going to have to bear? Obama just gave them a waiver for that.

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/...chael-f-cannon

[imanihonjin]

Oh, and those additional burdens congress was going to have to bear? Obama just gave them a waiver for that.

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/...chael-f-cannon

There are a lot of things to be pissed off about when it comes to Obamacare.....we don't need to manufacture false stories like this one and doing so really sinks the rights credibility to point out legitimate flaws. Congressmen and their staffers previously had 75% of their premiums covered by the government just like most of us to through our employer. Under Obamacare these individuals were forced to enter in the insurance exchanges without receiving the 75% subsidy they had previously. This waiver essentially allows these individuals to have up to 75% of their premium paid for, as it always has, by the Federal government. It is really a non issue that reduces the effectiveness of attacking other legitimate issues.

[All-American]

There are a lot of things to be pissed off about when it comes to Obamacare.....we don't need to manufacture false stories like this one and doing so really sinks the rights credibility to point out legitimate flaws. Congressmen and their staffers previously had 75% of their premiums covered by the government just like most of us to through our employer. Under Obamacare these individuals were forced to enter in the insurance exchanges without receiving the 75% subsidy they had previously. This waiver essentially allows these individuals to have up to 75% of their premium paid for, as it always has, by the Federal government. It is really a non issue that reduces the effectiveness of attacking other legitimate issues.

Right-- contrary to the provisions of the law. It would be one thing if congress had debated putting these extra stringent requirements in the law, decided not to, and then passed the law. Here, they put the requirements in the law, passed it, realized how hard it was on them, and then received an exemption so that the law they just passed wouldn't hurt them. Would that every person whom the requirements of Obamacare negatively affect could so easily ignore them and maintain the ex ante status quo.

[calicoug]

Right-- contrary to the provisions of the law. It would be one thing if congress had debated putting these extra stringent requirements in the law, decided not to, and then passed the law. Here, they put the requirements in the law, passed it, realized how hard it was on them, and then received an exemption so that the law they just passed wouldn't hurt them. Would that every person whom the requirements of Obamacare negatively affect could so easily ignore them and maintain the ex ante status quo.

You still don't have it right.

[calicoug]

Sorry, you have completely shown your ignorance in how to operate a business. If someone has 75 employees and now has to offer health care that is at an additional cost of somewhere in the ball park of $750k per year to comply with the Obamacare mandate. If it were as easy as you state to fine "other areas to cut" or to increase sales or pricing....don't you think they would have previously done so to maximize profit? This is complete nonsense and absolutely proves that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to running a small business. $750k per year can absolutely run a small business into the ground.

Sure. $750k can run a business into the ground. Of course, it depends on the size of the business. In this example where it takes 75 employees to get to the $750k expense you say it would be, they already have a sizable payroll. Assuming a mere $30k average salary, their payroll alone is $2.25M and would be $3M with the health insurance (less tax deductions). Your solution is to lay off all of those employees or reduce all of their hours. It makes one wonder in this perfectly optimized business you claim exists where there is no other cuts that can be made nor any price inefficiencies what those 25 employees were doing before this given how quickly you have determined they have to be let go. Were they not generating any revenue at all? Even sufficient to cover their $30k salary per year? If not, one wonders why this business has 75 employees. If they are generating revenue, does the additional expense necessarily outweigh the revenue that would be lost by cutting the employee? You are counting on about $10k per employee in health care costs (before taxes). I suspect most companies will find a way to make that up elsewhere without cutting their workforce out entirely. Example: in 2005 Target began offering health insurance to all of its part time employees. How did they do that voluntarily? Under your analysis, they should have fired hundreds of employees immediately after announcing they were going to give those employees healthcare. And yet, the granting of healthcare benefits doesn't even merit a mentioning in their 10k.

As I said before, this isn't a cost that is easily absorbed nor is it a cost that many employers want to have. It's not even a cost I want employers to have- I've already said my preference is for health care and employment to be divorced in this country. But it is a cost most large employers (more than 50 employees) can find a way to meet.

[All-American]

You still don't have it right.

You mean I haven't won you over yet? How disappointing. Guess I'll just have to try harder.