97% of all job creation in 2013 has been part-time.

[thraashman]

Government spending, 17 Trillion Dollars in debt, may be part of the problem.

A normal economy, can match buyers with sellers. Supply and demand.

Once Government gets involved, skimming off the top, with the force of the police and army behind it, there is little hope for the average citizen.

-John

Then come lawyers, and insurance companies. They are sucking up all the little tidbits that Government leaves.

You want to run a swimming pool? Pay the Insurance company.

Pay the Lawyers.

Anything left, pay a life guard minimum wage; for your dream of running the best swimming pool ever.

-John

It's OUTRAGEOUS that Government is stealing from the normal American, and requiring them to pay insurance companies and lawyers. While Government itself is 17 Trillion dollars in debt.

OUT-FUCKING-RAGEOUS

-John

Posting 3 times in 9 minutes without having anyone reply to you succeeds in doing exactly one thing, showing the rest of us your personal brand of crazy.

 

[thraashman]

What is 'ends meat'?

More than 80% of the working 'poor' owns luxury items like TVs.

Its all about priorities people. There is no reason the productive members of society should subsidize the lifestyles of anyone.

This idea that people are starving in the streets is laughable.

<gasp> I hear some of them even have running water and heat in the winter! How DARE they think they're entitled to such things!

 

[spacejamz]

Source?

Nation's Largest Theater Chain Cuts Employee Hours To Shirk Obamacare Responsibility
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...oyee-hours-to-shirk-obamacare-responsibility/

ObamaCare's $96 an hour cost spike may end 30-hour workweek
http://news.investors.com/politics-...6-an-hour-may-end-30-hour-workweek.htm?p=full

Obamacare Putting Millions Of Part-Time Workers At Risk Of Seeing Cut Hours: Study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/part-time-workers-obamacare_n_3210321.html

Small Business on Obamacare: No Reason to Hire or Invest
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48000806

“The impending costs of health care do not give business owners confidence to open that extra store or to hire more people and create the economic output our country needs.”

“It’s going to force franchisees to shift workers to part-time to avoid the 50-employee threshold,” he said. “It will keep new owners and new openings on the sideline.”

"The government is rewarding and encouraging businesses to remain 50 people or less to avoid the total payment of high health insurance premiums," said David Greenspon, CEO of Competitive Edge in Des Moines, Iowa. Greenspon, which employs 150 people, expects this decision could increase his health-care costs by $500,000. He predicts that it will be less expensive for some business owners to pay the penalties for non-compliance than pay additional fees to insure all employees.

 

[spacejamz]

People are idiots and propaganda works, as evidence by quite a few posts here in this thread.

pot meet kettle

 

[ivwshane]

pot meet kettle

Yes, you two should meet.

 

[spacejamz]

Yes, you two should meet.

It is both amazing and sad that you guys have already met and you didn't even realize it...

 

[Patranus]

<gasp> I hear some of them even have running water and heat in the winter! How DARE they think they're entitled to such things!

No one is entitled to anything aside from the fruits of their hard work.

 

[Doppel]

And that mentality is everything that is wrong with society.
Let me guess a computer and internet in a home are 'necessities of life' as well
:rollseyes:

I think some internet access is, yes. Just as electricity, running water, internal plumbing are all now common and once were luxuries. Times change and so does the access to technology. 65" TV is a luxury, a 27" really isn't, it can be had for $200.

If we define luxury as anything beyond that needed to not die of exposure, yes I will agree a TV is a luxury.

 

[Linux23]

If these so called corporations start increasing their part time work force just to avoid the ACA, then i'd slap them with so many fines that they would think twice about killing people's way of life just to save a buck. Fack these greedy companies.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

If these so called corporations start increasing their part time work force just to avoid the ACA, then i'd slap them with so many fines that they would think twice about killing people's way of life just to save a buck. Fack these greedy companies.

Shityeah, that's a great idea. The government should definitely enforce corporations to hire very low wage full time workers, where they literally COST the corps money to keep the people employed. Now that's the liberalie way!

I mean come on, when mom gives you that $100 a week allowance so you can sit at starbucks and express your inner creativity by writing short stories on a typewriter the money literally just MAGICALLY appears in her purse, amiright? These so called corporations should be able to pay these people the same way!


Frigging greedy companies, trying to make a profit so they can stay in business and continue hiring people.



And so much LLLOL at forcing them do via fines. I swear you liberalies won't be happy until our all of our major profitable companies scoot off to some other country to do business. But....... I'm sure you'd find a way to continue blaming the rightwingers.....

 

[spacejamz]

I think some internet access is, yes. Just as electricity, running water, internal plumbing are all now common and once were luxuries. Times change and so does the access to technology. 65" TV is a luxury, a 27" really isn't, it can be had for $200.

If we define luxury as anything beyond that needed to not die of exposure, yes I will agree a TV is a luxury.

How about a new smartphone (Iphone 5/Galaxy III or IV/etc) with a data plan and unlimited texting???

Would a basic "pay as you go" phone would be be good enough??? My guess is no...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

A little perspective is always good.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This appears to be unfounded speculation from the Mercatus Center. There's a reason why you should take statements of people from ultra-right think tanks with a grain of salt.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/obamacare-by-the-numbers/

Obamacare essentially creates a significant new tax on businesses with full-time employees. So what does common sense tell you about that? It tells you that businesses will be motivated to manage their costs by filling their employment needs with more part-time employees if possible.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

LOL love it.


Job market down during presidency? Just hire MASSIVE amounts of government employees to falsely inflate numbers.

No worries that gubment dole workers are near impossible to lay off and will help cripple the next president (who rest assured, will be an evil republican after this fiasco....)

 

[spacejamz]

If these so called corporations start increasing their part time work force just to avoid the ACA, then i'd slap them with so many fines that they would think twice about killing people's way of life just to save a buck. Fack these greedy companies.

What color is the sky in your world because you obviously have no clue about reality....

Companies exists to make money to satisfy their investors (i.e., I guess that is called greed in your pet unicorn land). In reality, no company will ever conclude, "I guess we have made enough money. Screw our investors, we will just redistribute our excess profits to the needy."

 

[Kwatt]

No one is entitled to anything aside from the fruits of their hard work.

I often get confused at the way "entitled" is used. Could someone please provide clarification.

If a person works for wages and then pays for something are they "entitled" to recieve what they paid for or not?

Are their any exceptions? I.E. Where a person is expected to pay for something and not recieve it.

.

 

[fskimospy]

Obamacare essentially creates a significant new tax on businesses with full-time employees. So what does common sense tell you about that? It tells you that businesses will be motivated to manage their costs by filling their employment needs with more part-time employees if possible.

That is certainly a possible outcome, but it is not currently backed up by the data.

Things people think are 'common sense' and things that happen in economics are often very different things, as repeatedly shown by all the wrong predictions that people have made about the economy and the nature of government spending during this downturn.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL love it.


Job market down during presidency? Just hire MASSIVE amounts of government employees to falsely inflate numbers.

No worries that gubment dole workers are near impossible to lay off and will help cripple the next president (who rest assured, will be an evil republican after this fiasco....)

LOL. Look at who didn't read the chart. HINT: Obama is the only president on there with a net DECREASE in the amount of government jobs. I love how you're too stupid to read the chart, then declare that Obama has falsely inflated numbers, then declare persecution over it.

Dumbass.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

LOL. Look at who didn't read the chart. HINT: Obama is the only president on there with a net DECREASE in the amount of government jobs. I love how you're too stupid to read the chart, then declare that Obama has falsely inflated numbers, then declare persecution over it.

Dumbass.

Sorry that my tired old eyes can't see the teeny tiny print on a poorly labelled graph. And even after zooming way way in I can still see a peak of government hiring, so my comment still stands.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry that my tired old eyes can't see the teeny tiny print on a poorly labelled graph. And even after zooming way way in I can still see a peak of government hiring, so my comment still stands.

No you can't. As I said earlier, Obama has presided over a net decrease in government jobs. I like how even after your point is explicitly shown to be wrong and you acknowledge your error you still try and claim that your point stands. Why double down?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

No you can't. As I said earlier, Obama has presided over a net decrease in government jobs. I like how even after your point is explicitly shown to be wrong and you acknowledge your error you still try and claim that your point stands. Why double down?

Technically I believe that accounts for fed AND state jobs.

If you look at fed jobs only, the number has gone up, during a recession, when we should have cutbacks.

 

[spacejamz]

No you can't. As I said earlier, Obama has presided over a net decrease in government jobs. I like how even after your point is explicitly shown to be wrong and you acknowledge your error you still try and claim that your point stands. Why double down?

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/has-government-employment-really-increased-under-obama/

The number of federal employees has risen under President Obama. There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and now there are 2,804,000 workers. The fact is that there is no month during President Obama’s term when the federal workforce was smaller than it was in the first month of Mr. Obama’s presidency. The president took over in January 2009. Every month after January 2009 has seen more federal workers than were employed in January 2009.

On the other hand, total government employment — federal plus state and local — has fallen significantly under President Obama after rising significantly under President Bush.

It’s important not to understate the federal government’s role in the size of state and local governments. The stimulus gave tens of billions of federal dollars to the states in order to prevent cutbacks in the number of state and local workers, and many, including Professor Krugman, argue that that wasn’t enough.

So those are the facts. What to make of them?

I think Senator Paul is overstating his case by using the word “enormous” to describe either the growth of the federal workforce under President Obama or the size of the federal workforce under President Obama relative to President Bush. (It’s unclear which the senator was arguing.) And, of course, if the senator was referring to total government employment and not just federal, then clearly he was wrong.

But the senator is right that there are more federal workers under President Obama than under President Bush, and that there are more federal workers today than there were on the day Mr. Obama was sworn in as president.

 

[berzerker60]

How about a new smartphone (Iphone 5/Galaxy III or IV/etc) with a data plan and unlimited texting???

Would a basic "pay as you go" phone would be be good enough??? My guess is no...

A pay as you go top-of-the-line (Nexus 4) smartphone can be had for ~$200 (craigslist used) + $30/month for unlimited text and data, 100 min voice (via TMobile), which to get someone access to internet, phone, and entertainment all in one if WAY cheaper than the monthly bill for the cheapest package from Comcast.

But then we'd hear bitching about how you don't need any help if you have a smartphone, despite it being the economical choice.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That is certainly a possible outcome, but it is not currently backed up by the data.

Things people think are 'common sense' and things that happen in economics are often very different things, as repeatedly shown by all the wrong predictions that people have made about the economy and the nature of government spending during this downturn.

Please provide data showing that this 97% "anomaly" over the last 6 months is not related in any way to Obamacare. Unless you can prove otherwise...I'll stick to common sense if you don't mind.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

A pay as you go top-of-the-line (Nexus 4) smartphone can be had for ~$200 (craigslist used) + $30/month for unlimited text and data, 100 min voice (via TMobile), which to get someone access to internet, phone, and entertainment all in one if WAY cheaper than the monthly bill for the cheapest package from Comcast.

But then we'd hear bitching about how you don't need any help if you have a smartphone, despite it being the economical choice.

In my opinion we shouldn't be paying for ANY of these tech goodies. A nexus 4? iphone5? Come on.

Internet is free at the library. I PROMISE you that a poor person won't melt if they have to take a bus to the library to look for jobs.

Granted that's a LOT of work and we can't expect our lazy citizens to go through such a massive amount of effort to find themselves a job when it's really the working people's responsibility to keep the lazy and incompetent employed. It's prolly easier to go stand (well, sit) in line at the welfare office.