|
On October 04 2013 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers. From where would the government "make up the difference" ? edit: Also, I've gone into detail. If you could be less abstract with your points, it would be helpful. There isn't much substance to "an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time." It's really the same thing with the government making up the difference. There is absolutely no substance to it. From what I gather and with some small alterations of my own what I believe is being proposed is that instead of making it all or nothing based on the 30hr line you have employers contribute based on the hours an employee works. So we'll say that for a typical full-time employee (based on 40/hpw employers typically contribute about 50% of the cost toward their employees premium costs. So instead of that or nothing (part-time) have employers contribute a minimum amount based on the hours worked. I'm not hard crunching the numbers at the moment but to give an idea it would look something like hpw=hours per week ec=employers contribution 10-14.99 hpw = 15% ec 15-19.99 hpw = 25% ec 20-24.99 hpw = 30% ec 25-29.99 hpw = 35% ec etc... Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer. Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Ok, I don't understand why we're only funding 50% of the cost and not 100%, but that's just an issue of magnitude, and since we're making up numbers, doesn't really matter too much. Next, if the employer is paying some pro-rated amount, whatever that amount works out to, then the employee must make up the difference ? If the employee chooses to forgo insurance and elects to pay the penalty, certainly the employer wouldn't be penalized for the employee's choice. Also, this would, again, create incentive to hire employees who will not receive coverage from the employer, would it not ? So, would the incentive to use part time workers instead of full timers really be removed ? Part timers would much less likely buy insurance with only a small portion of the cost paid by the employer. Additionally, the cost to the employer of such a law would be detrimental to the economy due to the increase in the cost of low-skilled labor. In the current law, at least employers have a way to mitigate these burdens. Removing that burden, adding these costs, would drive many businesses out of business. You can't just raise the cost of doing business and expect businesses to be unaffected. Ok so we'll start with... People who think business and social responsibility are not intimately connected and don't have to be considered in close proximity, have an economic and philosophical disagreement we won't settle here so I'll move on.
No social responsibility of a business supercedes keeping the doors open.
On October 04 2013 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
There is already a mechanism that raises the penalty year over year so outside of places who exclusively hire people who are 18-21 ish (haven't looked intensely at the penalty escalation portion of the law) with parents who do not have them on their own healthcare package then the pool of non-insured employees is going to rapidly diminish. Not to mention, if suddenly non-insured people are a more desired employee, supply and demand suggests the cost to employ them will go up as will their wages. So while there might still be what you say at the beginning it would rapidly drop off in popularity (although I am skeptical it would be of any significance to start).
The fine is designed so very rapidly people will lose any and all incentive to not have health insurance (The Heritage Foundation and several others spent a lot of time and money coming up with how to make that happen)
You're talking about a penalty increasing. There is no penalty for employees whose hours are less than 30, or for employers with less than 50 employees. I'm not sure what to even make of your supply and demand analysis. How would "suddenly non-insured people" become a "more desired employee" ? I don't even understand what you're saying.
On October 04 2013 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I presume we are talking about small businesses impacted by the ACA which would be businesses with 50-500 employees Presuming you're right that the net effect is an increase in the cost of doing business, businesses have been getting more out of their employees while paying them less for decades. It would only be reasonable for some of that to actually trickle down contrary to the predictions of trickle down economics and the history of employment and wages over the last few decades. Countless businesses go out of business for countless reasons so the idea that it would drive any significant amount of businesses under is unfounded. However, I would sincerely feel for those it did and would be amiable to alterations that would make that less likely (should it ever actually be realized).
Rhetorical bullshit like this is why I said earlier that debating with people is generally useless. I bring up specific points which affect real businesses, and you argue with this bolded crap. Oh yeah ? Businesses have been getting more out of their employees while paying them less for decades ? I'm seriously tempted to just /ignore you because you have no substance whatsoever.
On October 04 2013 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I probably should've started with this and I kind of did but... There are only anecdotal stories so far of your original premise about the PPACA even having any significant impact on jobs. (Kind of reminds me when people were blaming Obama for why they didn't tip.)
Sorry to break it to you, Mr. IIgnoreEverythingThatDoesn'tHelpMyPoint, but just in the last couple of pages, we've seen two posters acknowledge hours being cut across the fast food industry. It is real, and it is spurred by the incentive written into the law.
On October 04 2013 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
As more data come in, the law's impact can't be seen in hiring statistics, says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.
"I was expecting to see it. I was looking for it, and it's not there,'' says Zandi, whose firm manages ADP's surveys of overall private-sector job creation. If the Affordable Care Act "were causing a drop, you would see meaningful slowing.'' [USA Today, 8/21/13]
|
On October 04 2013 16:04 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:55 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 15:43 4ZakeN87 wrote:
Well it almost funny as European since they entire thing is a big embarrassment for US. I think disbelieve would be the term to describe the discussion about it in Sweden.
Now unfortunately however has swedish banks quite a lot invested in US stocks (not stocks but notsure about the english word) and have parts of their savings in dollars, approximately ~50billion dollars. So now what happens is that due to the incompetence of the US government the dollar is close to get down rated, if it had been any other country it would already have happened, because the world does not trust US to follow a logical line of procedures to deal with this problem.
So what happens then in turn is that the pension of Swedish people are threatened to be reduced substantially because of this. Now that seems a little unfair to me, so it would be real nice if the US government could get this shit together.
Now as a second recommendation for US I would withdraw some of the army from Afghanistan and place it in Washington instead, that way they can go after the Tea party movement instead of Al Qaida. You see, I get that Al Qaida is a problem, but they mainly threatened to blow up their own people in their surroundings. Now the tea party movement on the other hand is probably the most dangerous organization on the planet, because I think they might actually be crazy enough to collapse the entire world economy in their crusade towards their dream world. I am not sure how many deaths or much damage to society an economic collapse would cause but I would guess it is more than anything Al Qaida ever managed to achieve. I know you're not being serious, but let's see if you're willing to see your radically charged comment through to the end. What do you mean have the army "go after" the Tea Party movement? The Tea Party isn't an army for troops to fight, so your comment really makes no sense. What, is the army going to debate the Tea Party to death? That's not what an army is good at. Well, at least both groups are ideological extremists that are working hard to destroy the infrastructure of their people to get rid of something they don't like.
Irrelevant. The point is that I want 4ZakeN87 to state what exactly he's suggesting the army do to the Tea Party.
|
It's funny in a way that the ACA is both a capitalist program (the exchanges bringing more information to consumers, increasing consumer choice) and anti-capitalist. (employer and individual mandates)
I'd assume the Democrats' utopian health care is single-payer insurance or a clone of the UK's NHS, and the Republicans' ideal system is a completely consumer-based system where everyone chooses their own plan. The ACA doesn't really advance or hurt either side by itself since it's too much of a compromise.
This isn't about the ACA at all, it's a mandate on whether single-payer would be a good idea in the future, and that's what's frightening Republicans and exciting Democrats, not "Obamacare".
|
On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity.
Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end.
|
On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end.
Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread.
|
On October 04 2013 16:09 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers. From where would the government "make up the difference" ? edit: Also, I've gone into detail. If you could be less abstract with your points, it would be helpful. There isn't much substance to "an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time." It's really the same thing with the government making up the difference. There is absolutely no substance to it. From what I gather and with some small alterations of my own what I believe is being proposed is that instead of making it all or nothing based on the 30hr line you have employers contribute based on the hours an employee works. So we'll say that for a typical full-time employee (based on 40/hpw employers typically contribute about 50% of the cost toward their employees premium costs. So instead of that or nothing (part-time) have employers contribute a minimum amount based on the hours worked. I'm not hard crunching the numbers at the moment but to give an idea it would look something like hpw=hours per week ec=employers contribution 10-14.99 hpw = 15% ec 15-19.99 hpw = 25% ec 20-24.99 hpw = 30% ec 25-29.99 hpw = 35% ec etc... Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer. Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Ok, I don't understand why we're only funding 50% of the cost and not 100%, but that's just an issue of magnitude, and since we're making up numbers, doesn't really matter too much. Next, if the employer is paying some pro-rated amount, whatever that amount works out to, then the employee must make up the difference ? If the employee chooses to forgo insurance and elects to pay the penalty, certainly the employer wouldn't be penalized for the employee's choice. Also, this would, again, create incentive to hire employees who will not receive coverage from the employer, would it not ? So, would the incentive to use part time workers instead of full timers really be removed ? Part timers would much less likely buy insurance with only a small portion of the cost paid by the employer. Additionally, the cost to the employer of such a law would be detrimental to the economy due to the increase in the cost of low-skilled labor. In the current law, at least employers have a way to mitigate these burdens. Removing that burden, adding these costs, would drive many businesses out of business. You can't just raise the cost of doing business and expect businesses to be unaffected. Ok so we'll start with... People who think business and social responsibility are not intimately connected and don't have to be considered in close proximity, have an economic and philosophical disagreement we won't settle here so I'll move on. No social responsibility of a business supercedes keeping the doors open. Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
There is already a mechanism that raises the penalty year over year so outside of places who exclusively hire people who are 18-21 ish (haven't looked intensely at the penalty escalation portion of the law) with parents who do not have them on their own healthcare package then the pool of non-insured employees is going to rapidly diminish. Not to mention, if suddenly non-insured people are a more desired employee, supply and demand suggests the cost to employ them will go up as will their wages. So while there might still be what you say at the beginning it would rapidly drop off in popularity (although I am skeptical it would be of any significance to start).
The fine is designed so very rapidly people will lose any and all incentive to not have health insurance (The Heritage Foundation and several others spent a lot of time and money coming up with how to make that happen) You're talking about a penalty increasing. There is no penalty for employees whose hours are less than 30, or for employers with less than 50 employees. I'm not sure what to even make of your supply and demand analysis. How would "suddenly non-insured people" become a "more desired employee" ? I don't even understand what you're saying. Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I presume we are talking about small businesses impacted by the ACA which would be businesses with 50-500 employees Presuming you're right that the net effect is an increase in the cost of doing business, businesses have been getting more out of their employees while paying them less for decades. It would only be reasonable for some of that to actually trickle down contrary to the predictions of trickle down economics and the history of employment and wages over the last few decades. Countless businesses go out of business for countless reasons so the idea that it would drive any significant amount of businesses under is unfounded. However, I would sincerely feel for those it did and would be amiable to alterations that would make that less likely (should it ever actually be realized). Rhetorical bullshit like this is why I said earlier that debating with people is generally useless. I bring up specific points which affect real businesses, and you argue with this bolded crap. Oh yeah ? Businesses have been getting more out of their employees while paying them less for decades ? I'm seriously tempted to just /ignore you because you have no substance whatsoever. Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I probably should've started with this and I kind of did but... There are only anecdotal stories so far of your original premise about the PPACA even having any significant impact on jobs. (Kind of reminds me when people were blaming Obama for why they didn't tip.) Sorry to break it to you, Mr. IIgnoreEverythingThatDoesn'tHelpMyPoint, but just in the last couple of pages, we've seen two posters acknowledge hours being cut across the fast food industry. It is real, and it is spurred by the incentive written into the law. Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
As more data come in, the law's impact can't be seen in hiring statistics, says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.
"I was expecting to see it. I was looking for it, and it's not there,'' says Zandi, whose firm manages ADP's surveys of overall private-sector job creation. If the Affordable Care Act "were causing a drop, you would see meaningful slowing.'' [USA Today, 8/21/13]
1) I said I'd move on so I will.
2) The penalty for not having insurance as an individual increases year over year... not sure how I can make that clearer.
3) There are several studies that show that employers have been getting more for less, especially since the recession, it is a relatively indisputable truth. I presumed you'd be aware of them but if you need to see them I could show you.
4) Those posts are by definition anecdotal so that doesn't refute my point or Mr. Zandi's research at all.
|
On October 04 2013 16:20 Cheren wrote:
This isn't about the ACA at all, it's a mandate on whether single-payer would be a good idea in the future, and that's what's frightening Republicans and exciting Democrats, not "Obamacare".
Single payer hopes and being able to see a doctor for a checkup for the first time in ~10 years (maybe more scared than excited). 
|
On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
3) There are several studies that show that employers getting more for less, especially since the recession, is a relatively indisputable truth. I presumed you'd be aware of them but if you need to see them I could show you.
No business owner faced with a financial decision gives a flying fuck about your or any other studies. The fact that you continue to refer to "studies" as if they are authoritative to ANY actual business facing difficult decisions just screams you have no real world experience or knowledge about which you post.
On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
4) Those posts are by definition anecdotal so that doesn't refute my point or Mr. Zandi's research at all.
Real world experience trumps bullshit "research" every day. Did the all-important Mr. Zandi neglect to ask real people in his research ? Did it ever occur to you that plenty of "research" is politically motivated to engineer support for a pre-determined position ?
Why do I even bother responding to your posts.
|
On October 04 2013 16:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
3) There are several studies that show that employers getting more for less, especially since the recession, is a relatively indisputable truth. I presumed you'd be aware of them but if you need to see them I could show you. No business owner faced with a financial decision gives a flying fuck about your or any other studies. The fact that you continue to refer to "studies" as if they are authoritative to ANY actual business facing difficult decisions just screams you have no real world experience or knowledge about which you post. Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
4) Those posts are by definition anecdotal so that doesn't refute my point or Mr. Zandi's research at all. Real world experience trumps bullshit "research" every day. Did the all-important Mr. Zandi neglect to ask real people in his research ? Did it ever occur to you that plenty of "research" is politically motivated to engineer support for a pre-determined position ? Why do I even bother responding to your posts.
ROFL you're right why do you bother...
"Facts contradict my argument so screw those facts".... Typical...
Seems like you missed 2) though?
|
On October 04 2013 16:26 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end. Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread.
What a useful reply... and I'm not even talking about you sending me to maybe the one thread on TL that's more creepy than this one. Frankly, I can't even tell if you're arguing with me or against me - so, to keep it brief, I wholeheartedly agree: every employee being able to afford a roof over the head (preferably one with heating, running water, and light that doesn't come from candles) would be one of the things I was implying when I said that human security is important.
|
On October 04 2013 16:26 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end. Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread.
The point is that paying for all those things and generally having a lot of stuff is a poor substitute for good health and peace of mind, two things that poor workplace conditions can deprive you of.
I would also like to support GreenHorizon's point that workers have suffered over the past 50 years: productivity has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, but wages have stagnated.
Finally, there's a legitimate debate to be had about the means by which the republican party has gone about their battle against the ACA, a debate that is being ignored. Aren't there legitimate political channels for the repeal or modification of the ACA? Why must it be stopped now? After all if it is economically destructive over the short to medium term that is something that can be tracked, analyzed, and subsequent correcting decisions can be made.
|
On October 04 2013 16:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:37 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
3) There are several studies that show that employers getting more for less, especially since the recession, is a relatively indisputable truth. I presumed you'd be aware of them but if you need to see them I could show you. No business owner faced with a financial decision gives a flying fuck about your or any other studies. The fact that you continue to refer to "studies" as if they are authoritative to ANY actual business facing difficult decisions just screams you have no real world experience or knowledge about which you post. On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
4) Those posts are by definition anecdotal so that doesn't refute my point or Mr. Zandi's research at all. Real world experience trumps bullshit "research" every day. Did the all-important Mr. Zandi neglect to ask real people in his research ? Did it ever occur to you that plenty of "research" is politically motivated to engineer support for a pre-determined position ? Why do I even bother responding to your posts. ROFL you're right why do you bother... "Facts contradict my argument so screw those facts".... Typical... Seems like you missed 2) though?
I left out 2 because you made it clear you were talking about the individual mandate and I've already said I had no idea what relevance you were trying to make in terms of your supply and demand analysis. I had been discussing employers dropping their employee hours below 30 in order to avoid falling under the employER mandate. If you can make sense of your supply and demand argument, have at it. I didn't understand your thought process, told you so, and when you didn't clarify, I just let it die.
|
|
|
On October 04 2013 16:44 Parsistamon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:26 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end. Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread. The point is that paying for all those things and generally having a lot of stuff is a poor substitute for good health and peace of mind, two things that poor workplace conditions can deprive you of. I would also like to support GreenHorizon's point that workers have suffered over the past 50 years: productivity has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, but wages have stagnated. Finally, there's a legitimate debate to be had about the means by which the republican party has gone about their battle against the ACA, a debate that is being ignored. Aren't there legitimate political channels for the repeal or modification of the ACA? Why must it be stopped now? After all if it is economically destructive over the short to medium term that is something that can be tracked, analyzed, and subsequent correcting decisions can be made.
Ah yes, I remember my argument that we should have poor workplace conditions. It was on page.... hmm... where was that post... Hmm, I guess I can't find it. Where the fuck did that come from ?
|
On October 04 2013 16:48 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:44 Parsistamon wrote:On October 04 2013 16:26 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end. Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread. The point is that paying for all those things and generally having a lot of stuff is a poor substitute for good health and peace of mind, two things that poor workplace conditions can deprive you of. I would also like to support GreenHorizon's point that workers have suffered over the past 50 years: productivity has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, but wages have stagnated. Finally, there's a legitimate debate to be had about the means by which the republican party has gone about their battle against the ACA, a debate that is being ignored. Aren't there legitimate political channels for the repeal or modification of the ACA? Why must it be stopped now? After all if it is economically destructive over the short to medium term that is something that can be tracked, analyzed, and subsequent correcting decisions can be made. Ah yes, I remember my argument that we should have poor workplace conditions. It was on page.... hmm... where was that post... Hmm, I guess I can't find it. Where the fuck did that come from ?
We were discussing the "humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer," something I file under the (admittedly broad) term of workplace conditions. Argue semantics if you will, the point remains. Obviously I'm not talking about sweatshops and coal mines.
Also, Kaitlin you are becoming really quite acerbic in your responses.... you might find people more inclined to agree with you if you showed a little mutual respect.
|
On October 04 2013 16:50 Parsistamon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:48 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:44 Parsistamon wrote:On October 04 2013 16:26 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end. Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread. The point is that paying for all those things and generally having a lot of stuff is a poor substitute for good health and peace of mind, two things that poor workplace conditions can deprive you of. I would also like to support GreenHorizon's point that workers have suffered over the past 50 years: productivity has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, but wages have stagnated. Finally, there's a legitimate debate to be had about the means by which the republican party has gone about their battle against the ACA, a debate that is being ignored. Aren't there legitimate political channels for the repeal or modification of the ACA? Why must it be stopped now? After all if it is economically destructive over the short to medium term that is something that can be tracked, analyzed, and subsequent correcting decisions can be made. Ah yes, I remember my argument that we should have poor workplace conditions. It was on page.... hmm... where was that post... Hmm, I guess I can't find it. Where the fuck did that come from ? We were discussing the "humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer," something I file under the (admittedly broad) term of workplace conditions. Argue semantics if you will, the point remains. Obviously I'm not talking about sweatshops and coal mines. Also, Kaitlin you are becoming really quite acerbic in your responses.... you might find people more inclined to agree with you if you showed a little mutual respect.
Well, this is a budget discussion. It's in the government shutdown thread. The government is shutdown because Repubs would like to defund the ACA. Part of the reason Repubs want to do this is the financial impact on businesses. It imposes additional costs on employers, some of them are unable to take on the additional costs. Injecting utopianesque, everybody should be happy and deserves legally mandated minimum levels of dignity from their employers, ideas is a complete load of crap. If an employer can't afford the extra costs, they may have to close their doors, and then employees have no job to complain about working conditions.
I'm not terribly worried about people agreeing or disagreeing with me being dependent upon tone. If they agree with my points, they agree that some of these issues I'm responding to are pretty silly. If you're someone who brings up worker dignity in a discussion about employers being able to afford government mandated programs, then you're simply not going to understand my point anyways.
|
On October 04 2013 16:44 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 16:37 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
3) There are several studies that show that employers getting more for less, especially since the recession, is a relatively indisputable truth. I presumed you'd be aware of them but if you need to see them I could show you. No business owner faced with a financial decision gives a flying fuck about your or any other studies. The fact that you continue to refer to "studies" as if they are authoritative to ANY actual business facing difficult decisions just screams you have no real world experience or knowledge about which you post. On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
4) Those posts are by definition anecdotal so that doesn't refute my point or Mr. Zandi's research at all. Real world experience trumps bullshit "research" every day. Did the all-important Mr. Zandi neglect to ask real people in his research ? Did it ever occur to you that plenty of "research" is politically motivated to engineer support for a pre-determined position ? Why do I even bother responding to your posts. ROFL you're right why do you bother... "Facts contradict my argument so screw those facts".... Typical... Seems like you missed 2) though? I left out 2 because you made it clear you were talking about the individual mandate and I've already said I had no idea what relevance you were trying to make in terms of your supply and demand analysis. I had been discussing employers dropping their employee hours below 30 in order to avoid falling under the employER mandate. If you can make sense of your supply and demand argument, have at it. I didn't understand your thought process, told you so, and when you didn't clarify, I just let it die.
It was in correlation to my proposed alternative to the structuring of the employer mandate and your counter-argument of it.
You essentially said it wouldn't reduce the pressure to switch significant amounts of a workforce from full-time to part-time.
I was saying if suddenly employees who would choose not to get insurance were more desirable (increase in demand[which I disagree would happen anyway but if it did...]) employers would need to pay them more (increase in cost) to get them to work for them vs another employer as they are in limited supply. And it would likely be an ever shrinking pool either way.
|
On October 04 2013 16:44 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:26 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end. Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread. What a useful reply... and I'm not even talking about you sending me to maybe the one thread on TL that's more creepy than this one. Frankly, I can't even tell if you're arguing with me or against me - so, to keep it brief, I wholeheartedly agree: every employee being able to afford a roof over the head (preferably one with heating, running water, and light that doesn't come from candles) would be one of the things I was implying when I said that human security is important.
Yeah, I'm just seeing this post now. In reading your post, I think you might be more thinking of the macro level where I've been engaged in the micro. Sure, overall, dignity is important. However, the focus of my recent posts has been on employers having additional expenses mandated to them, and the very real possibility that many businesses will not be able to take on those additional costs, and close their doors. In such cases, the macro importance of worker dignity has to take a backseat to the micro focus of the employer going out of business and the employees being out of a job entirely. If a business is on the brink of closing its doors, it's not really the time for workers to be pushing for more worker rights and dignity issues. It's entirely possible we don't disagree, but I've been responding to multiple people and I think you got in the mix.
|
On October 04 2013 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:44 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 16:37 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
3) There are several studies that show that employers getting more for less, especially since the recession, is a relatively indisputable truth. I presumed you'd be aware of them but if you need to see them I could show you. No business owner faced with a financial decision gives a flying fuck about your or any other studies. The fact that you continue to refer to "studies" as if they are authoritative to ANY actual business facing difficult decisions just screams you have no real world experience or knowledge about which you post. On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
4) Those posts are by definition anecdotal so that doesn't refute my point or Mr. Zandi's research at all. Real world experience trumps bullshit "research" every day. Did the all-important Mr. Zandi neglect to ask real people in his research ? Did it ever occur to you that plenty of "research" is politically motivated to engineer support for a pre-determined position ? Why do I even bother responding to your posts. ROFL you're right why do you bother... "Facts contradict my argument so screw those facts".... Typical... Seems like you missed 2) though? I left out 2 because you made it clear you were talking about the individual mandate and I've already said I had no idea what relevance you were trying to make in terms of your supply and demand analysis. I had been discussing employers dropping their employee hours below 30 in order to avoid falling under the employER mandate. If you can make sense of your supply and demand argument, have at it. I didn't understand your thought process, told you so, and when you didn't clarify, I just let it die. It was in correlation to my proposed alternative to the structuring of the employer mandate and your counter-argument of it. You essentially said it wouldn't reduce the pressure to switch significant amounts of a workforce from full-time to part-time. I was saying if suddenly employees who would choose not to get insurance were more desirable (increase in demand[which I disagree would happen anyway but if it did...]) employers would need to pay them more (increase in cost) to get them to work for them vs another employer as they are in limited supply. And it would likely be an ever shrinking pool either way.
Ok, I think I understand the track we're on. Do you really think we're anywhere near an economic condition where there is a limited supply of low-skilled labor ? I don't. The unemployment rate among those under 26 is astronomical. These are all people who a) would have parental insurance, or b) would just pay the penalty, which can't exceed 1% of their income, no matter how much it increases year to year.
edit: I'm out for the night...
|
lol, a good article
Fact is with so many jobs outsourced to slave labour countries and/or automated the government need to keep expanding in order for employment growth to expand rather than go sideways at best.I recall all sorts of shenanigans (in regard to employment and hiring data) when the govt hired hundreds of thousands of temp workers for the census count over there a year or so ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
