Obamacare cost...

[statman]

Contrary to your implicit argument above, the additional costs can be avoided. Small businesses are avoiding the costs. They are shifting to part-time employees.

Yes they are.

90% of the "new jobs created" since 2009 have been part-time jobs. Essentially, our entire recovery has been based on replacing full-time employees that were laid off at the beginning of this mess, with part-time employees that were hire to eventually replace them. That's why this recovery doesn't feel like much of a recovery - and why GNP growth hasn't matched with "recovery" in "employment."

[All-American]

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

Yes they are.
90% of the "new jobs created" since 2009 have been part-time jobs. Essentially, our entire recovery has been based on replacing full-time employees that were laid off at the beginning of this mess, with part-time employees that were hire to eventually replace them. That's why this recovery doesn't feel like much of a recovery - and why GNP growth hasn't matched with "recovery" in "employment."

False. We don't know why they are shifting to part time work. It's a total mystery. But it's probably because we cut government spending.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1002035

[statman]

False. We don't know why they are shifting to part time work. It's a total mystery. But it's probably because we cut government spending.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1002035

Is it really a mystery why part timers are relpacing full-timers? Because you don't have to give healthcare benefits to part-timers - and under O-Care, it's going to get a lot more expensive to give your employees healthcare. It's not rocket science.

Walmart used to make health-care benefits available to anyone working over 21 hours per week for the previous quarter (you had to be 'more than half-time'). And if they were hiring, they'd usually prefer hourly employees who would sign on as full-time. Now, new employees hired after Jan 1, 2014 won't get health care benefits unless they work 30+ hours a week, and, in general, they're only hiring hourly employees who work LESS than 30 hours per week.

[All-American]

Is it really a mystery why part timers are relpacing full-timers?

So says the economic expert in the link I provided. You aren't saying he's wrong, are you?

[statman]

FIFY.

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

Here's a chart with a lot more data:


Companies are waiting to see what's actually in Obamacare before they commit to hiring back full-time jobs they ditched going into the recession.

[statman]

So says the economic expert in the link I provided. You aren't saying he's wrong, are you?

I didn't see see any economic expert's opinion - but I have no problem telling you that any particular economist's point is wrong. Krugman is a nobel economist, and everything he says is wrong.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Here's a chart with a lot more data:


Companies are waiting to see what's actually in Obamacare before they commit to hiring back full-time jobs they ditched going into the recession.

My reading of this chart is that employers vastly prefer part time workers to full time workers when the either the economy is bad or the future is uncertain (for whatever reason). This kind of gap between part time and full time is not the norm, but it appears as if that split has been going on for five years now. My belief is that Obamacare providing a direct and substantial incentive to keep only up to 50 full time employees (just so there is no misunderstanding, a company can have, say, 49 full time employees and 100 part time employees and not fall under the Obamacare sword) and/or only hiring part time employees when you're beyond that 50 employee threshhold has maintained this gap for a much longer period of time than it would have otherwise existed.

The tragedy of this overall economy (and I'm not arguing that Obamacare is the root cause of all continued economic malaise) is that there now exists a generation of workers who have had a rocky start to their careers and/or have earned substantially less than they otherwise would have in a normal economy. One can find studies of how widespread unemployment or underemployment when certain age groups entered the market permanently affects their earning potential into the future. For instance, someone entering the workforce between 1995 and 1999, has fared better than someone who entered between 2000 and 2003 when the country was dealing with the dot com bubble bursting. But entering the job market circa 2002, doesn't hold a candle to how bad the job market was between 2008 and 2011 (hell, even 2013).

http://www.columbia.edu/~vw2112/pape...eisz_final.pdf

[calicoug]

lol, he'll be here all week folks.

Businesses also cease operating when they can't adjust, leaner competition without the costs fill the void. Also rarely does an expense arise that is easily avoidable by simply cutting hours and hiring more pay time workers. It apparently hasn't dawned on you that employers will take the easiest route that this legislation gives them an incentive to take. You act like this is an increase in the cost of postage. It's a minimum of $3k per employee and the fact that you think this can easily be cut elsewhere and that businesses haven't already figured out ways to cut such a high amount to gain a competitive advantage just shows how clueless you are.

I have never said it can easily be cut elsewhere. In fact I have repeatedly said it will be quite difficult (and I have said it over and over but here's hoping it sinks in just once). But again you are assuming that cutting employees is the easiest path to take. That's just not clearly true. Let's assume you are a sales company who heavily relies on employees to make sales. Without them sales would decrease in relation to the number you are cutting. So what do you do? You want us all to believe there is no choice. The employer must cut that employee to avoid a $10k extra payment the employer must cover if be doesn't fire the employee. Of course firing the employee also means all of the revenue generated by that employee goes away and the employer still has a sales office he is renting with a 5 year lease that now has a vacant office. He still has the company car that employee use to drive. He now is paying more in unemployment insurance too. Was that really the only possible way to trim out $10k in costs? If you still think the answer is yes, further discussion won't help.

[calicoug]

Contrary to your implicit argument above, the additional costs can be avoided. Small businesses are avoiding the costs. They are shifting to part-time employees.

Sorry, but there just isn't evidence of that happening yet. It may happen in the future, and it may yet be that the incentive to reduce hours is strong enough to cause employers to shift to part time labor. But that's just not the case today.

[calicoug]

Is it really a mystery why part timers are relpacing full-timers? Because you don't have to give healthcare benefits to part-timers - and under O-Care, it's going to get a lot more expensive to give your employees healthcare. It's not rocket science.

Walmart used to make health-care benefits available to anyone working over 21 hours per week for the previous quarter (you had to be 'more than half-time'). And if they were hiring, they'd usually prefer hourly employees who would sign on as full-time. Now, new employees hired after Jan 1, 2014 won't get health care benefits unless they work 30+ hours a week, and, in general, they're only hiring hourly employees who work LESS than 30 hours per week.

And yet target and many others are giving health insurance to part timers. Why? Well, one explanation would be that it's cheaper than giving pay raises because of tax benefits. Health care isn't provided in a vacuum. It's part of the compensation picture for employees. Offer it and you can afford to pay a bit less. Companies have been much more happy to give on health care to unions over pay for this very reason. Offering healthcare doesn't make a company less competitive. It can, and several companies which have offered pay in lieu of health insurance may now find themselves in a bind that ultimately causes a downward adjustment on pay as one offsetting cut (even if AA doesn't think it's possible to do anything but fire employees).

[calicoug]

False. We don't know why they are shifting to part time work. It's a total mystery. But it's probably because we cut government spending.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1002035

I'm amused you don't think the slowdown in government spending had any effect on full time jobs. Even only looking at government jobs lost due to cuts would tell you you're wrong.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/...enstone-looney

There would be an extra 1.7 million government jobs alone if hiring patterns had only continued per historical trends, setting aside what they would have done with additional stimulus spending at local and state levels. This doesn't even include removing the sequester or cuts in the private sector to adjust for decreased federal spending.

[calicoug]

I didn't see see any economic expert's opinion - but I have no problem telling you that any particular economist's point is wrong. Krugman is a nobel economist, and everything he says is wrong.

He's trolling. Poorly.

[All-American]

(even if AA doesn't think it's possible to do anything but fire employees).

Oh, brother.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1002918

Seriously, if you can't bother to scroll up . . . .

[All-American]

Sorry, but there just isn't evidence of that happening yet. It may happen in the future, and it may yet be that the incentive to reduce hours is strong enough to cause employers to shift to part time labor. But that's just not the case today.

There is simply no way to come to that conclusion with your head anywhere but in the sand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3468498.html

[calicoug]

Oh, brother.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1002918

Seriously, if you can't bother to scroll up . . . .

Oh, sorry. Fire workers, not hire workers, hire part time workers or cut hours. Basically the only costs you think can be lowered deal with payroll (and half your solutions are cost avoidance and not cost cutting). I really don't understand why you think it isn't possible for non-labor costs to be cut anywhere in a business. Someone sold you on a model of efficiency that you have taken to an extreme.