Obama knows full well the damage his ACA does to the economy. Its "go into effect" dates keep getting delayed and pushed back, year after year, but the consequences of the 30 hour work week rule are perfectly clear to all but the most deluded.
This is 100% bullshit. All of the important parts of the ACA have been in effect now for almost a year and a half. All of them. Who duped you into thinking that the employer mandate is the 'go in effect' date for the ACA?
Ahhh, the good old Forbes right wing op-ed. I assume this is who duped you. As an aside, the number of times I've seen people duped by Forbes op-eds on here is amazing. Why do you guys keep reading these clowns when it is abundantly clear they have lied to you over and over again? Don't you get tired of it?
Now to deal more specifically with this guy's bullshit. The way he's trying to trick you here is by using arbitrary time periods and weasely definitions.
1. He claims that's due to the ACA's one year 'look back' window, but that claim doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny. Full time people on the books are full time people on the books regardless of when you hired them. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit it to specific time periods.
2. He is using household survey numbers while are super noisy. The benchmark for statistical significance is 400,000 jobs
in each month.
3. He's tying to use all part time workers instead of
part time for economic reasons, which would be what you would want to look at to see if people were actually being forced into part time work.
He does all these things because if he didn't, he wouldn't have a claim left.
Really though, all that's needed to show this guy is wrong is one graph, but at least in this case he was wrong for one reason that wasn't his fault, he simply didn't know what the future would hold. If his hypothesis were correct we should have seen a continued increase in part time jobs vs. full time jobs as time gets closer to the employer mandate going into effect. Instead, we get this:
Part time jobs are plummeting, just when his hypothesis says they shouldn't be.
Finally, I also truly enjoyed this:
The report acknowledges that there has been “a statistically significant increase’ in involuntary part time work in 2014 and that involuntary part time work is what “should be affected if employers are reducing workers hours to avoid employer mandate penalties.” Given these concessions, Obamacare’s impact on involuntary part time work would seem difficult to ignore, although apparently not impossible.
The report attempts to explain away this increase by noting that part time employment between 30 and 35 hours per week has also increased suggesting that the overall increase is “most likely due” to the “severity and depth of the Great Recession.” Translation: It’s George Bush’s fault.
If what he were saying was true you wouldn't see part time employment increase equally above and below the cutoff, as that is precisely the line of demarcation he claims employers are trying to avoid to begin with. That conclusion is obvious and inescapable.
He admits his own logic is wrong but then plows on as if that's not important. The snark he tries to use while admitting his own argument is bullshit is pretty funny.
So seriously, don't settle for being duped by these clowns anymore.
Facebook
Twitter