Obamacare cost...

[calicoug]

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

Interesting survey of 600 or so businesses. I counter with data from 557,000 businesses. But maybe that survey missed your 600.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...art-time-.html

[All-American]

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.

And I don't understand why you think businesses lacked incentives to cut costs until Obamacare came along. Seriously, talk to the guys in Sweden. If Gore, Krugman, and Obama get medals, surely you deserve one too.

[All-American]

Interesting survey of 600 or so businesses. I counter with data from 557,000 businesses. But maybe that survey missed your 600.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...art-time-.html

Your data show that the full-time jobs lost during the recession are largely being replaced with part-time jobs, a fact almost completely unchanged since the recession was supposed to have ended. If we are supposed to celebrate the fact that the 2009 economy is the new normal, you'll have to forgive me for not showing up to the party.

[calicoug]

And I don't understand why you think businesses lacked incentives to cut costs until Obamacare came along. Seriously, talk to the guys in Sweden. If Gore, Krugman, and Obama get medals, surely you deserve one too.

I don't think that and never once said it.

Welcome to the AA style of debate.

[calicoug]

Your data show that the full-time jobs lost during the recession are largely being replaced with part-time jobs, a fact almost completely unchanged since the recession was supposed to have ended. If we are supposed to celebrate the fact that the 2009 economy is the new normal, you'll have to forgive me for not showing up to the party.

Unrelated argument, which I will accept as a surrender of your earlier bad one.

[All-American]

Unrelated argument, which I will accept as a surrender of your earlier bad one.

Not really. We've shifted to a part-time economy. Your data shows it. You're the only one here scratching your head and wondering why.

[All-American]

I don't think that and never once said it.

Welcome to the AA style of debate.

Show me where I ever argued that the only way to cut costs was to fire people, and then you can start arguing that you occupy the high ground.

Businesses are already highly incentivized to cut costs and increase revenue. Saddling more mandatory expenses on employment has predictable and demonstrable effects on employment. It's astounding you think businesses will just shrug it off.

[Moliere]

Your data show that the full-time jobs lost during the recession are largely being replaced with part-time jobs, a fact almost completely unchanged since the recession was supposed to have ended. If we are supposed to celebrate the fact that the 2009 economy is the new normal, you'll have to forgive me for not showing up to the party.

Not only that, but it's also causing an increase in offshoring. Several large corporations have been accelerating their offshoring to India/Philippines to avoid the increase in benefit burden. Of course, I'm not sure I'd technically call it offshoring when the company is already a global company.

The jobs that can't be offshored are the ones that are being reduced to part time.

[CJF]

Not only that, but it's also causing an increase in offshoring. Several large corporations have been accelerating their offshoring to India/Philippines to avoid the increase in benefit burden. Of course, I'm not sure I'd technically call it offshoring when the company is already a global company.

The jobs that can't be offshored are the ones that are being reduced to part time.

This is what I alluded to earlier. My company is growing extremely fast right now. Obamacare is a major part of each and every new client discussion we have.

[Maximus]

I find it amazing anyone is still defending Obamacare even though it is a proven piece of crap bill that is really hurting businesses.

[imanihonjin]

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.

And you continue to show your ignorance to conclude that a company gives a flying crap about revenue produced by an employee.

[Katy Lied]

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.

These are fixed costs, and are irrelevant to the question at hand, which is a variable cost calculation. This is one of the basic mistakes you see made by First Year Business students.

You are obviously a thoughtful and smart guy. It just looks like you never took a basic business class that would inform your arguments here. At the very least, you could speak the same language that others use here to refute their arguments.

I hope you never stop defending your positions here. You have a useful perspective that I don't get to see very much.

[Goatnapper'96]

I hope you never stop defending your positions here. You have a useful perspective that I don't get to see very much.

I am pretty sure he will take that as a surrender and that he wins!

[calicoug]

Show me where I ever argued that the only way to cut costs was to fire people, and then you can start arguing that you occupy the high ground.

Businesses are already highly incentivized to cut costs and increase revenue. Saddling more mandatory expenses on employment has predictable and demonstrable effects on employment. It's astounding you think businesses will just shrug it off.

First, we can both agree you are not occupying the high ground and you don't really appear to contest that point here.

Second, I corrected my statement above on firing employees to include your other employee cost cuts (or cost avoidance) measures. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you think the only costs that can be cut in a business relate to employees as that seems to be the primary focus of your dispute with what I have said.

Third, I never once said businesses will just "shrug it off." I refer you back (and back and back) to my multiple posts stating that it will be quite difficult for them. But maybe this point was again to reinforce you are not occupying the high ground, in which case, good point.

[calicoug]

Not only that, but it's also causing an increase in offshoring. Several large corporations have been accelerating their offshoring to India/Philippines to avoid the increase in benefit burden. Of course, I'm not sure I'd technically call it offshoring when the company is already a global company.

The jobs that can't be offshored are the ones that are being reduced to part time.

I would love to see your empirical evidence showing that there is any trend in offshoring which is attributable to Obamacare. You guys have certainly mastered the approach of "I have an anecdote that I'm willing to extrapolate to the entire economy and then blame on one sole factor!"