My nephew denied a job because of Obamacare!

[zinfamous]

Right, I don't have any figures either but I was just answering your question.

No, you did not answer his question. You responded with your own question.

meaning, you deflected. That is why he, then, deflected. ("see how this works?" and all that...)

 

[werepossum]

I think to say "He didn't get a job because of the Affordable Care Act" is premature.

A more appropriate statement would be "He didn't get a job because of economic uncertainty", which is most likely true. That the ACA contributes to economic uncertainty does not lead to causation as to the statement in the thread title.

Pretty much this, but Obamacare does increase employee costs, which makes businesses look for ways to cut employee costs. It accelerates the trend of rising health care insurance costs, which also makes businesses turn to temps. When (okay, IF) the economy starts again, employers of skilled and semi-skilled employees will start hiring full timers to get the better employees. Unskilled employees won't recover. Whether a fork truck operator falls under skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled depends largely on the local job market and supply of fork truck operators, but given that qualified fork truck operators aren't difficult, costly or time-intensive to produce, it doesn't look good for the nephew.

I look for the Obama administration to impose a legislative or administrative penalty on employers who use a lot of temps to rectify this situation. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail. When (okay, IF) that happens, employers who rely on temps won't have much (if any) competitive advantage.

 

[buckshot24]

No, you did not answer his question. You responded with your own question.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. He asked me a question about the "Bush tax cuts" and I answered him with a "yes".

 

[Rainsford]

The OPs nephew may or may not have lost a job opportunity because of Obamacare.

This much is clear, when you cause employees to cost businesses more money there will be less employees than there otherwise would have been.

That would only be true in cases where an additional employee adds business value greater than their salary + benefits but less than their salary + benefits + new health care law costs. Businesses will add new works (or at least keep the ones they have) as long as each employee adds enough value to justify their cost. I know I might be speaking insanity here, but maybe businesses will even see a reduction in profits for those at the top to support this new law but still hire employees because they're still making money.

And for that matter, you're also assuming that one additional job is always worth it, even if the cost of that job is that nobody gets health care. I'm not so sure it's that simple.

 

[Schmide]

Why is this thread even here? Penalties don't go into effect till 2014. Dude could easily exploit your nephew for 13 months before falsely sacking him because of the Affordable Care Act.

 

[blankslate]

Why is this thread even here? Penalties don't go into effect till 2014. Dude could easily exploit your nephew for 13 months before falsely sacking him because of the Affordable Care Act.

They probably weren't going to hire the nephew anyways and just gave him a B.S. reason.

 

[sactoking]

Why is this thread even here? Penalties don't go into effect till 2014. Dude could easily exploit your nephew for 13 months before falsely sacking him because of the Affordable Care Act.

Not necessarily. 13 months is well outside of any waiting periods that may exist if the job is union (given that it's labor/machinery, it's possible) and the employer may want to hire people but "can't" because if things change the employee will be difficult to get rid of in 13 months.

 

[3chordcharlie]

The nerve to suggest the nephew is to blame. That pos obama has no right to put in obamacare and stuff like this is going to become more common

My understanding is that each and every person who works at Walmart is conclusively and individually to blame for their plight.

Yet MeowKat's nephew is not, because he says, that he says, that he was told that Obama is to blame?

Okay cool, just making sure I understand.

 

[werepossum]

That would only be true in cases where an additional employee adds business value greater than their salary + benefits but less than their salary + benefits + new health care law costs. Businesses will add new works (or at least keep the ones they have) as long as each employee adds enough value to justify their cost. I know I might be speaking insanity here, but maybe businesses will even see a reduction in profits for those at the top to support this new law but still hire employees because they're still making money.

And for that matter, you're also assuming that one additional job is always worth it, even if the cost of that job is that nobody gets health care. I'm not so sure it's that simple.

It's certainly not that simple, but there are other factors than just whether the new worker generates sufficient new profit to cover his salary. Can the business get by with temporary workers? Can the business make more money by outsourcing some or all work to a cheaper nation? What risks are associated with hiring that new employee? Is the rate of return for the cost of that new hire less than the rate of return for some other use of that money? Would I be better served looking at automation? If I hire this man and have to lay him off in a few months or a year, have I done him a favor, or a disservice? If I hire this man and have to lay him off in a few months or a year, will I even still have that freedom, or will I be forced to pay him (or at east his health care) until he finds other employment? Keep in mind that costs are generally fixed, whereas benefits are an unknown when hiring.

Liberals tend to see the business equation as simple; as long as the employee still produces some profit, we can add cost with him with no effect other than reduced profit for those at the top. In the real world it's not nearly that simple. Jobs don't exist to fund government or provide health care, they exist because someone needs something done and is willing to pay to have it done, and the higher the cost of getting that something done, the greater the chance of deciding that it isn't worth the price after all.

 

[dmcowen674]

My nephew denied a job because of Obamacare!

My nephew has been applying for a forklift job but has been told that they are only hiring temps right now on occassion as needed because its too expensive to hire with Obamacare looming.

The Black Magic Kenyan is going to run up another trillion in debt and force people to work as temps. :'(

Did he leave the country yet?

 

[OutHouse]

right. blame Obamacare.

Perhaps your nephew should re-invest in a more modern skill set?

elitist much?

 

[OutHouse]

Because he imposed extra costs on a business,

see that one little sentence is the one that the libtards can not wrap their puny brains around. They have no concept of money or how a business gets it or spends it, its mind boggling.

 

[IGBT]

middle class / lower middle class / the poor will feel the economic whip of the liberal / obama agenda. You voted for this.

 

[buckshot24]

That would only be true in cases where an additional employee adds business value greater than their salary + benefits but less than their salary + benefits + new health care law costs. Businesses will add new works (or at least keep the ones they have) as long as each employee adds enough value to justify their cost.

Sure but at the company level there are limits as to what percentage of the gross sales can be allocated for labor. On an individual level you can make these judgements but on a company level its all just numbers. Plus adding cost of hiring workers makes it more critical to project whether they are providing value or not, many employers will simply err on the side of caution and not hire as many people.

I know I might be speaking insanity here, but maybe businesses will even see a reduction in profits for those at the top to support this new law but still hire employees because they're still making money.

Maybe but I think the net result will be to reduce cost of their labor force instead by either cutting wages or hours or something else. Increasing cost makes it harder to make a profit which will keep some (not many admittedly) ventures from ever getting off of the ground.

And for that matter, you're also assuming that one additional job is always worth it, even if the cost of that job is that nobody gets health care. I'm not so sure it's that simple.

Not really.

I'm assuming that demand for your product or service is not limitless and that there are only so many sales that you can expect to achieve no matter how many employees you have.

 

[fskimospy]

It's certainly not that simple, but there are other factors than just whether the new worker generates sufficient new profit to cover his salary. Can the business get by with temporary workers? Can the business make more money by outsourcing some or all work to a cheaper nation? What risks are associated with hiring that new employee? Is the rate of return for the cost of that new hire less than the rate of return for some other use of that money? Would I be better served looking at automation? If I hire this man and have to lay him off in a few months or a year, have I done him a favor, or a disservice? If I hire this man and have to lay him off in a few months or a year, will I even still have that freedom, or will I be forced to pay him (or at east his health care) until he finds other employment? Keep in mind that costs are generally fixed, whereas benefits are an unknown when hiring.

Liberals tend to see the business equation as simple; as long as the employee still produces some profit, we can add cost with him with no effect other than reduced profit for those at the top. In the real world it's not nearly that simple. Jobs don't exist to fund government or provide health care, they exist because someone needs something done and is willing to pay to have it done, and the higher the cost of getting that something done, the greater the chance of deciding that it isn't worth the price after all.

Lots of people can play this game. Conservatives tend to see the business equation as one without negative externalities. That business was simply freeloading off the government sponsorship of health care for the people that they employed. Now Obamacare is working to have business owners take responsibility.

Sure the guy might still attempt to freeload, but it sounds like that business was a government health care welfare case already. Personal responsibility, right?

 

[buckshot24]

Lots of people can play this game. Conservatives tend to see the business equation as one without negative externalities. That business was simply freeloading off the government sponsorship of health care for the people that they employed. Now Obamacare is working to have business owners take responsibility.

Sure the guy might still attempt to freeload, but it sounds like that business was a government health care welfare case already. Personal responsibility, right?

Therefore fewer jobs...

 

[Incorruptible]

see that one little sentence is the one that the libtards can not wrap their puny brains around. They have no concept of money or how a business gets it or spends it, its mind boggling.

Which is why they shouldn't be making decisions that affect businesses and the jobs, they are one of the biggest threats to the US

 

[TheVrolok]

So to be clear, poor people are poor because they're lazy, unless they're Republican or family members of Republicans, in which case they're poor because Obamacare.

Bingo.

 

[fskimospy]

Therefore fewer jobs...

lol, so now you support government welfare spending in order to create jobs?

 

[Yreka]

PBS... INDEPENDENT LENS:
Park Avenue: Money, Power and The American Dream.

Airs again thursday 11/29 7am est (re-check local listings) on pbs channel 11.3.

This PBS special is not what you'd think.
Its how the top 1% of the top1% looks at the rest of society.
And how they enjoy making people miserable when that 1% don't get their way.
And its not just the republicans in congress on the hook here.
Plenty of democrats in power playing the same game.

Probably the most revealing and depressing documentary I've seen.

I always wondered with so many brains in government, presidencies, congress, how have we come to down this in todays world?
Now I know.
WATCH IT! PBS.

Found it online too.. Will give it a look later this evening.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2300849486

 

[buckshot24]

lol, so now you support government welfare spending in order to create jobs?

It doesn't matter what I support. You just outlined one way that jobs are going to decrease because of this law.

 

[Engineer]

I'll say the same thing that most of the people here say about Walmart employees....tell the guy to get an education and upgrade his career if he wants a better (or even a) job.

 

[MtnMan]

My nephew has been applying for a forklift job but has been told that they are only hiring temps right now on occassion as needed because its too expensive to hire with Obamacare looming.

The Black Magic Kenyan is going to run up another trillion in debt and force people to work as temps. :'(

Who would want to work for a stupid republican that doesn't have a clue in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

It doesn't matter what I support. You just outlined one way that jobs are going to decrease because of this law.

What a completely stupid point. Nice try on having it both ways though.

If you are trying to argue that you wish government subsidies to continue for these businesses then say so. If you think they should stop, then say so.

 

[buckshot24]

What a completely stupid point. Nice try on having it both ways though.

If you are trying to argue that you wish government subsidies to continue for these businesses then say so. If you think they should stop, then say so.

I'm not having it either way. I'm just telling you the effect of what you just described.

If you insist. It shouldn't be the responsibility of employers to provide health insurance in the first place. That isn't a subsidy.

If it is the responsibility of the employer to provide health insurance then you may have a point but why the fuck should it be? I completely reject the whole premise of your point, why should I pick a "side"?

And don't start in on other things that increase costs employers that I may be in favor of because I'm not the "higher employment" no matter what guy.