April unemployment numbers

[fskimospy]

Where is this hope and change obama promised us?

The jobs market sure has not changed. Our factories are still in china, wall street is still making massive profits, all while our bridges and roads fall apart.

Not a single person has been charged with the collapse of 2008.

The federal reserve is printing money out of thin air.

We have no hope and all we are being left with is spare change.

Now you're just ranting and babbling.

 

[Bowfinger]

On the other hand, a belief that one party is 100% correct both morally and practically about every conceivable issue and roughly half the nation is either too stupid or too insane to recognize this - yet somehow still able to generate wealth which must of course be seized for their own good - is a perfectly sane and consistent world view.

Who's your straw supplier? I'd like to invest.

 

[Texashiker]

Now you're just ranting and babbling.

Facts hurt?

Obama has done "nothing" to bring our jobs back.

In fact, he has been negotiating the TPP treaty in secret. Where is this transparent government we were promised?

Not only is obama "not" doing anything about free trade with china, he is working on even more free trade treaties.

Obama stands up there and talks about a recovery, while stabbing United States workers in the back.

 

[fskimospy]

Facts hurt?

Obama has done "nothing" to bring our jobs back.

In fact, he has been negotiating the TPP treaty in secret. Where is this transparent government we were promised?

Not only is obama "not" doing anything about free trade with china, he is working on even more free trade treaties.

You're frankly just all over the place. You can't stick to a single topic of discussion, you bring up nonsensical tangents, and you make wild and incoherent statements. You need to focus.

 

[Texashiker]

You're frankly just all over the place. You can't stick to a single topic of discussion, you bring up nonsensical tangents, and you make wild and incoherent statements. You need to focus.

Tangents and incoherent statements?

Bull crap.

You liberal crybabies do not want to hear much less see the facts.

Obama has done "nothing" to bring our factories and jobs back. While on top of doing nothing to bring the jobs back, he is working in a non-transparent treaty to give even more of our jobs away.

How are we supposed to be in a recovery when obama is giving more of our jobs away? We can not be in a recovery. What little recovery there is will be eroded by the next trade treaty.

The only reason there is even mention of a recovery is because the late teens and early 20s gave up looking for jobs. They moved back into mom and dads basement and are spending their days playing video games.

Those who went to college have racked up so much college debt they will probably never be able to buy a home or afford to have kids.

 

[Bowfinger]

We go so little respect from you and Eskimospy and Jhhnn and others like you because you guys are literally unable to even conceive of a situation where the left is not totally and completely correct. After awhile, rational people recognize that arguing with you is a complete waste of time. I'll make my points and move on with the knowledge that providing any sort of proof is akin to taking a photograph for a blind person.

One can write a book on high energy particle physics and present it to a hog, but the hog is never going to progress past recognizing that it isn't a desirable food.

Show me you can support your positions with facts and data instead of emotional supposition, innuendo, outright lies, and conspiracy nonsense, and you will have my great respect. I love having intelligent discussions with informed conservatives, but they've become almost unicorns in P&N.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Tangents and incoherent statements?

Bull crap.

You liberal crybabies do not want to hear much less see the facts.

Obama has done "nothing" to bring our factories and jobs back. While on top of doing nothing to bring the jobs back, he is working in a non-transparent treaty to give even more of our jobs away.

How are we supposed to be in a recovery when obama is giving more of our jobs away? We can not be in a recovery. What little recovery there is will be eroded by the next trade treaty.

The only reason there is even mention of a recovery is because the late teens and early 20s gave up looking for jobs. They moved back into mom and dads basement and are spending their days playing video games.

Those who went to college have racked up so much college debt they will probably never be able to buy a home or afford to have kids.

Sounds like you're a Elizabeth Warren supporter. I find it refreshing to have replacement for Ted Kennedy (yes he was a flawed man) who can finally take up issues that address the common man/woman. No leaning to business and no over the top help the incapable by any means possible.

 

[werepossum]

Who's your straw supplier? I'd like to invest.

Sorry, my supplier cannot possibly supply the quantities you require.

Show me you can support your positions with facts and data instead of emotional supposition, innuendo, outright lies, and conspiracy nonsense, and you will have my great respect. I love having intelligent discussions with informed conservatives, but they've become almost unicorns in P&N.

The ONLY time you've ever recognized any conservative as informed is when she is agreeing with the official proggie line. Every issue, every time. Ergo it is nigh impossible for you to encounter an informed conservative because you frame "informed" as "marching in lockstep with proggies".

 

[Texashiker]

Sounds like you're a Elizabeth Warren supporter.

Besides being a democrat, she sounds like a woman I would vote for.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sorry, my supplier cannot possibly supply the quantities you require.

Really, I know you are but what am I? That's lame even by your ever-lowering standards.

The ONLY time you've ever recognized any conservative as informed is when she is agreeing with the official proggie line. Every issue, every time. Ergo it is nigh impossible for you to encounter an informed conservative because you frame "informed" as "marching in lockstep with proggies".

You're lying again, and you know it. You're butt-hurt because you invented (or parroted) partisan tripe about BLS methodology changes, and you got called in it. You've spent multiple paragraphs since attacking those who disagree with you without even pretending to try to support your BS claim. You've made it clear that facts and truth are immaterial to you. You've become a bad joke, someone who is just as deluded and immune to fact as Stewox and A420.

 

[piasabird]

Unemployment numbers only count people that are looking for work. It doesn't count people on welfare, or those that have given up or spouses married to someone that does work, or disabled people that could perform some kind of light work like a desk job.

We have a big problem with people who have had their work hours reduced due to ACA or Obama Care.

For instance, if we count jobs or better yet Work Hours performed and divide Total work hours by 40 we might bet a better working number. Lots of people don't work or live with a relative. They may be doing odd jobs to get by like mowing lawns or babysitting that is not really reported.

Unemployment numbers isn't a good number to even use. If we let Extended unemployment expire it would cause unemployment numbers to drop. However, that would not really be a good estimate of anything but people on unemployment assistance.

 

[fskimospy]

Unemployment numbers only count people that are looking for work. It doesn't count people on welfare, or those that have given up or spouses married to someone that does work, or disabled people that could perform some kind of light work like a desk job.

We have a big problem with people who have had their work hours reduced due to ACA or Obama Care.

Why would their hours have been reduced?

 

[piasabird]

I think some government assistance for people willing to take a part time job that work for at least 6 months might be beneficial. That is kind of what we do with Earned Income Credit (EIC). However EIC encourages people not to get married so they can receive the credit.

 

[werepossum]

Really, I know you are but what am I? That's lame even by your ever-lowering standards.

You're lying again, and you know it. You're butt-hurt because you invented (or parroted) partisan tripe about BLS methodology changes, and you got called in it. You've spent multiple paragraphs since attacking those who disagree with you without even pretending to try to support your BS claim. You've made it clear that facts and truth are immaterial to you. You've become a bad joke, someone who is just as deluded and immune to fact as Stewox and A420.

lol Every issue, every thread, every time.

Why would their hours have been reduced?

For the people I know whose hours have been cut it was specifically to get under the new, lower Obamacare limit to be classified as full time employees for purposes of benefits. Kind of a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences as employers cut part time employees' hours to avoid reclassification as full time employees, therefore avoiding having to provide them health insurance with other, full time employees.

Also probably futile as the bureaucracy can change the definition at will without resorting to legislation. At some point they'll probably retroactively change the law to punish employers dodging the new requirements. One fairly simple such measure would be to assess the employer a percentage of the health insurance cost based on the hours worked, so that an employer would be assessed 80% of that cost (paid either to the employee or to the government) for an employee working 24 hours with a 30 hour full time definition.

 

[Knowing]

Why would their hours have been reduced?

Full time equivalence exposes their employer to to the teeth of PPACA.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-11-36.pdf

Section 4980H(c)(4) provides that a full-time employee with respect to any month is an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. An applicable large employer with respect to a calendar year is defined in section 4980H(c)(2) as an employer who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.


For purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer, full-time equivalent employees (FTEs), which are determined based on the hours of service of employees who are not full-time, are taken into account.

 

[fskimospy]

For the people I know whose hours have been cut it was specifically to get under the new, lower Obamacare limit to be classified as full time employees for purposes of benefits. Kind of a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences as employers cut part time employees' hours to avoid reclassification as full time employees, therefore avoiding having to provide them health insurance with other, full time employees.

Also probably futile as the bureaucracy can change the definition at will without resorting to legislation. At some point they'll probably retroactively change the law to punish employers dodging the new requirements. One fairly simple such measure would be to assess the employer a percentage of the health insurance cost based on the hours worked, so that an employer would be assessed 80% of that cost (paid either to the employee or to the government) for an employee working 24 hours with a 30 hour full time definition.

Except of course that this provision of the ACA has never been implemented. It hardly makes any sense to cut employee hours years ahead of time in anticipation of a change that stands a considerable likelihood of never happening. So by 'new requirements' we mean 'no new requirements'.

This seems like a far better example of the law of people only hearing what they want to hear.

 

[fskimospy]

Full time equivalence exposes their employer to to the teeth of PPACA.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-11-36.pdf

You should spend some more time on the IRS website:

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Que...lity-Provisions-Under-the-Affordable-Care-Act

The Employer Shared Responsibility provisions generally are not effective until Jan. 1, 2015, meaning that no Employer Shared Responsibility payments will be assessed for 2014.

 

[Knowing]

Except of course that this provision of the ACA has never been implemented. It hardly makes any sense to cut employee hours years ahead of time in anticipation of a change that stands a considerable likelihood of never happening. So by 'new requirements' we mean 'no new requirements'.

This seems like a far better example of the law of people only hearing what they want to hear.

I don't think that's correct.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-11-36.pdf

Section 4980H was added to the Code by § 1513 of the Affordable Care Act enacted March 23, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-148, and amended by § 1003 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, enacted March 30, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152. Section 4980H is effective for months beginning after December 31, 2013.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think that's correct.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-11-36.pdf

See above post.

 

[cabri]

Except of course that this provision of the ACA has never been implemented. It hardly makes any sense to cut employee hours years ahead of time in anticipation of a change that stands a considerable likelihood of never happening. So by 'new requirements' we mean 'no new requirements'.

This seems like a far better example of the law of people only hearing what they want to hear.

Not implemented because Obama wants to ignore it for political expediency.
He could easily reverse his orders - they are in violation of the law anyhow.

Employers figure that they should obey (or plan to) the law; not just want Obama wants to ignore.

They can get burned after the fact if they do not follow the requirements as written.

 

[Knowing]

See above post.

Which changes nothing. Just because they're not assessing fines, er taxes, er penalties, er whatever they're calling them today doesn't mean that they're not going to ever. Employers were in full cover_your_ass mode, they'll probably remain so for the duration.

Quantity demanded for a thing generally falls when price increases. When giving someone an average of 30 hours puts you on the hook for their health insurance too you're going to make damn sure your hindquarters are covered. If they've already discovered that they can produce appropriate quantities of widgets with the labor they have, why would they hire more anyway?

 

[fskimospy]

Not implemented because Obama wants to ignore it for political expediency.
He could easily reverse his orders - they are in violation of the law anyhow.

Employers figure that they should obey (or plan to) the law; not just want Obama wants to ignore.

They can get burned after the fact if they do not follow the requirements as written.

Actually, they can't be. If the government tried to change the regulations to be effective as of say, 1 January, 2014 and then attempted to assess retroactive penalties for businesses who were in compliance with regulations at the time they would be taken to court and they would lose.

If your argument is that businesses are cutting employee's hours out of a fear of a retroactive regulatory changes that will assess court enforceable tax penalties on them I'm going to have to ask for a single credible source that indicates that.

 

[fskimospy]

Which changes nothing. Just because they're not assessing fines, er taxes, er penalties, er whatever they're calling them today doesn't mean that they're not going to ever. Employers were in full cover_your_ass mode, they'll probably remain so for the duration.

Quantity demanded for a thing generally falls when price increases. When giving someone an average of 30 hours puts you on the hook for their healthcare too you're going to make damn sure your hindquarters are covered. If they've already discovered that they can produce appropriate quantities of widgets with the labor they have, why would they hire more anyway?

So the argument was that the employer mandate was causing a reduction in hours. When it turned out that the employer mandate doesn't exist yet, the argument becomes that they are cutting hours now because someday it will.

Uhmm, okay. Needless to say it's hard to take your opinion on the effects of the employer mandate seriously when you have mistakenly thought the employer mandate was in effect for the last five months, despite the announcement of its delay almost a year ago.

 

[Knowing]

So the argument was that the employer mandate was causing a reduction in hours. When it turned out that the employer mandate doesn't exist yet, the argument becomes that they are cutting hours now because someday it will.

Uhmm, okay. Needless to say it's hard to take your opinion on the effects of the employer mandate seriously when you have mistakenly thought the employer mandate was in effect for the last five months, despite the announcement of its delay almost a year ago.

So your argument is that after you react to a law that is allegedly coming down the pipeline and realize that business is still okay, you're going to pay more for more hours for...(what reason exactly?) when they punt the requirement.

Feel free to disregard my opinions, you usually do when they contradict your world view. All I can do is sit here and post facts and my opinion of the results. For a small view of the FTE paranoia just type "full time equivalent" in to google and get gems like this:
Think you are too small to be affected by PPACA? Think again!

Uncertainty is a pretty big deal in business.

 

[fskimospy]

So your argument is that after you react to a law that is allegedly coming down the pipeline and realize that business is still okay, you're going to pay more for more hours for...(what reason exactly?) when they punt the requirement.

So your argument is that businesses in America were being run extremely inefficiently, and the ACA alerted them to this. Uhmm, okay.

According to the BLS the proportion of part time workers has decreased year on year:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm

Additionally, the average hours worked per week has actually gone up slightly, while average hours worked per week in the service industry (which should be most heavily affected by the ACA employer mandate), remain the same. Can you explain how this relates to your theory? Had businesses finished up with all their Obamacare part time work by April of last year and so they didn't have to do any more?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm

All I can do is post facts. I have no doubt that you will ignore them.

Feel free to disregard my opinions, you usually do when they contradict your world view. All I can do is sit here and post facts and my opinion of the results.

Except you posted wrong facts and then when confronted with this declared the reality irrelevant. Can you see why the credibility of your analysis on a particular policy might be called into question when you literally didn't know that it didn't exist yet? That does not imply a strong grasp of the salient facts.

For a small view of the FTE paranoia just type "full time equivalent" in to google and get gems like this:
Think you are too small to be affected by PPACA? Think again!

Uncertainty is a pretty big deal in business.

Most polling on small businesses does not show regulatory uncertainty as their reason for not hiring, they usually say that insufficient demand is the reason.