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

[buckshot24]

What are you even trying to argue anymore? This is super simple.

1.) DSF posted a chart.

2.) SpaciallyAware said that based on that chart Obama was falsely inflating employment by hiring 'MASSIVE' amounts of government workers, because he didn't read the chart he was referencing.

3.) I told him that his chart shows a decrease in government employment under Obama, meaning the chart actually showed the opposite of what he claimed.

Yes it is simple, you fucked up. Obama had NOTHING to do with the decrease in overall government jobs. What he had influence over increased in 2009 and has stayed the same until 2011.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes it is simple, you fucked up. Obama had NOTHING to do with the decrease in overall government jobs. What he had influence over increased in 2009 and has stayed the same until 2011.

You are failing at basic logic.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

You realize that the numbers of part time employees has DECREASED since its passage, not increased, right?



Speaking of admitting when you fucked up.

No doubt another poorly made intentionally misleading graph posted to try to dig yourself out of a hole.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to pick this one apart, but I'm sure another comrade will step up to the plate.

 

[fskimospy]

No doubt another poorly made intentionally misleading graph posted to try to dig yourself out of a hole.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to pick this one apart, but I'm sure another comrade will step up to the plate.

I think we can safely say at this point that reading graphs isn't your strong suit, so that's probably for the best.

 

[buckshot24]

You are failing at basic logic.

Ok, you only fucked up partially. The graph showed a decrease in total government jobs. However, that isn't the case federally. Federally as in what Obama has some control over.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, you only fucked up partially. The graph showed a decrease in total government jobs. However, that isn't the case federally. Federally as in what Obama has some control over.

Obama has significant influence over state and local government budgets. Did you forget how much of the stimulus had to do with preserving state and local jobs?

SA's statement was false and I told him so. Nothing I wrote was false. There's simply no arguing this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Since the passage of the ACA there is a multi-year downward trend in the percentage of employees that are part time, there is a 6 month trend upwards in the percentage of employees that are part time. From that data it is not possible to conclude that the ACA is the driving factor in this.

This was all in the article, what part of it made it tough for you to understand?

You've shown that data used in that article isn't able to conclude whether or not Obamacare is influencing the historically high part-time numbers we seen over ther past 6 months. It is highly misleading of you to say that Obamacare's influence on the numbers it is not currently backed up by the data as the data clearly does not analyze this possibility. The data in that article does not in any way conclude that this unprecendented "anomaly" is not related to Obamacare. It simply does not address this potential factor.

Personal question...what kind of satisfaction do you get from being so condescending to others all the time? You're obviously a really smart guy...you might want to think about it.

 

[fskimospy]

You've shown that data used in that article isn't able to conclude whether or not Obamacare is influencing the historically high part-time numbers we seen over ther past 6 months. It is highly misleading of you to say that Obamacare's influence on the numbers it is not currently backed up by the data as the data clearly does not analyze this possibility. The data in that article does not in any way conclude that this unprecendented "anomaly" is not related to Obamacare.

Personal question...what kind of satisfaction do you get form being so condescenting to others all the time? You're a really smart guy...you might want to think about it.

No, I showed that employment trends over the last several years (including the last 6 months) do not show a trend that would support the ACA influencing part time employment. That is EXACTLY what is meant when you say something isn't backed up by the data. That's the basic structure of research design. When something isn't backed up by the data you mean you are unable to reject the null hypothesis.

If you think putting the last 6 months in with more relevant data is 'highly misleading', that's just frankly bizarre.

 

[buckshot24]

SA's statement was false and I told him so. Nothing I wrote was false. There's simply no arguing this.

Not based off of the graph.

Federal employment has gone up since he took office. Simply no arguing that either.

As far as your graph is concerned. That isn't the total number of part time jobs so why don't you try again?

 

[fskimospy]

Not based off of the graph.

Federal employment has gone up since he took office. Simply no arguing that either.

As far as your graph is concerned. That isn't the total number of part time jobs so why don't you try again?

That is the total number of part time workers (EDIT: employed part time) for economic reasons, currently estimated at approximately 8.2 million:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

So, how's admitting you fucked up coming?

 

[buckshot24]

That is the total number of part time workers unemployed for economic reasons, currently estimated at approximately 8.2 million:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

So, how's admitting you fucked up coming?

So when you wrote this....

You realize that the numbers of part time employees has DECREASED since its passage, not increased, right?

You were just being sloppy?

Since July 12' part time jobs have increased overall.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm#cps_empsit_a05.f.4

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, I showed that employment trends over the last several years (including the last 6 months) do not show a trend that would support the ACA influencing part time employment. That is EXACTLY what is meant when you say something isn't backed up by the data. That's the basic structure of research design. When something isn't backed up by the data you mean you are unable to reject the null hypothesis.

If you think putting the last 6 months in with more relevant data is 'highly misleading', that's just frankly bizarre.

I'm talking about the last 6 months...unfortunately your chart doesn't address this time period. This thread is about recent data illustrating an employment trend that's unprecedented in our history. Yet you seem to want to talk about a prior trend using old data and make conclusions regarding ACA's affect accordingly. Bottomline...the data you're use to support your point is dated and completely irrelevant to this discussion.

There's a significant new employment trend developing as the implementation of Obamacare looms. Hmmm. What a coincidence. Personally I think a little common sense goes a long way.

 

[fskimospy]

So when you wrote this....
You were just being sloppy?

Since July 12' part time jobs have increased overall.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm#cps_empsit_a05.f.4

No. Yet again you do not appear to understand how to use data or statistics. You linked something since July 2012 when the ACA was passed in March 2009. Unless the ACA passed in July 2012, you're being sloppy.

Go to this BLS archive:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab8.htm

Select the 'Part time for economic reasons' and the 'Part time for noneconomic reasons' checkboxes. You will see that both have declined after the passage of the ACA.

Since we are talking about the ACA's economic effects however, the rational thing to do was to discuss those working part time due to economic reasons.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm talking about the last 6 months...unfortunately your chart doesn't address this time period. This thread is about recent data illustrating something that's unprecedented in our history. Yet you seem to want to talk about a prior trend using old data and make conclusions regarding ACA's affect accordingly. Bottomline...the data you're use to support your point is dated and completely irrelevant to this discussion.

There's a significant new employment trend developing as the implementation of Obamacare looms. Hmmm. What a coincidence. Personally I think a little common sense goes a long way.

While I certainly can't prevent you from declaring inconvenient data irrelevant, I'm aware of no credible policy analyst that would do so.

 

[buckshot24]

No. Yet again you do not appear to understand how to use data or statistics. You linked something since July 2012 when the ACA was passed in March 2009.

It was in doubt up until July of last year. Many thought it would be invalidated by the supreme court. Also as employers get closer and closer to the date of implementation this is the period of time where the effects of Obamacare would be most pronounced.

 

[fskimospy]

It was in doubt up until July of last year. Many thought it would be invalidated by the supreme court. Also as employers get closer and closer to the date of implementation this is the period of time where the effects of Obamacare would be most pronounced.

So when you wrote this:

What kind of proof do you need? Obamacare provides an incentive to employers to not hire full time people. Part time employees have increased since its passage.

What did you mean?

Nice try on moving the goalposts, btw.

 

[buckshot24]

While I certainly can't prevent you from declaring inconvenient data irrelevant, I'm aware of no credible policy analyst that would do so.

Data far removed from the effects of Obamacare isn't relevant when discussing the effects of Obamacare.

 

[buckshot24]

So when you wrote this:



What did you mean?

Nice try on moving the goalposts, btw.

I was sloppy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

While I certainly can't prevent you from declaring inconvenient data irrelevant, I'm aware of no credible policy analyst that would do so.

If you want to make conclusions using an old data trend and somehow make it relevant to the current trend...go for it. There is nothing more I can say.

 

[Doppel]

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 smartphone I consider a luxury device. There is no hard and fast definition of what is and isn't a luxury, of course.

I know some people on gov assistance who have iPhones. I think it's fucking absurd. If I didn't have one paid through work I wouldn't personally pay $90/month+ for one myself and I'm nowhere near gov assistance income level.

 

[palehorse]

You realize that the numbers of part time employees has DECREASED since its passage, not increased, right?

Speaking of admitting when you fucked up.

That chart shows total numbers. We need one that shows the percentage of jobs created over time. (Part-time vs full-time, e.g. the 97% figure described in the OP)

 

[fskimospy]

That chart shows total numbers. We need one that shows the percentage of jobs created over time. (Part-time vs full-time, e.g. the 97% figure described in the OP)

No you don't. The BLS measures 'jobs created' as the increase in employment in a sector month to month (or year to year or whatever). Since part time work has been decreasing, part time jobs since the enactment of the ACA encompass less than zero percent of the jobs created.

So if you really wanted the chart you're requesting, just put a squiggly line far below the 0% mark and call it a day.

 

[palehorse]

No you don't. The BLS measures 'jobs created' as the increase in employment in a sector month to month (or year to year or whatever). Since part time work has been decreasing, part time jobs since the enactment of the ACA encompass less than zero percent of the jobs created.

So if you really wanted the chart you're requesting, just put a squiggly line far below the 0% mark and call it a day.

Wrong answer. In order to make sense of the 97% statistic from the last six months of data, we need a similar statistic demonstrating that percentage over time (in annual or six month increments).

 

[palehorse]

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.

I think it's very telling that ivwshane (and others) completely ignored this post after challenging you for sources.

shocker.

 

[berzerker60]

You mean the same people who think they are getting a better deal at local rent-a-center store because the payment is only $30/week will go out and actively shop for the best deal on a cell phone plan? There is a reason why those rent-a-center places are in business even though one with common sense would think they shouldn't be (isn't $30/week the same as $120/month??? LOL)

How much is an iphone 5 going for on craigslist these days? I would be willing to bet that they would want the iphone over anything because it has the wi-fi's and more GB's....(see iphone vs android on youtube if you don't get the reference)...

Here's an iphone 4 for $280 in DC on the first page of search results posted today. http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/mob/3941364048.html It would work fine with the $30/month unlimited plan I mentioned.

It's pretty hard to be a saavy consumer if you don't have access to the internet to do research beforehand, and preferably some actual training in personal finance which ought to be taught in schools. Don't act like that's a function of intelligence, it's purely having been informed about all the the shady shit banks and credit card companies and retail stores do to trick uninformed consumers - plenty of PhDs are ignorant of the time value of money and that they should pay off their credit cards every month, too. It's not like anyone is born with knowledge of correct use of terms like 'gigabyte' and 'bandwidth.'

Anyway, all this to say, smart phones are no more a luxury than a telephone and internet connection combined into one, and can be a very cost effective way to go. So, even if you are insistent on judging poor people for sometimes having nice things, it's ridiculous to knock them for having a decent phone.