Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Schadenfreude time: Unions cry that ObamaCare will shatter their benefits and destroy the 40 hour work week. You supported it, you live with it   (forbes.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, obamacare, United Food, health insurance, Richard Trumka, perverse incentives, American middle class, UFCW, Teamsters  
•       •       •

2774 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 2:31 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



357 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-15 01:00:55 PM  
Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 01:02:20 PM  
So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

www.strangecosmos.com
 
2013-07-15 01:03:14 PM  
Conservatives: Outraged about how bad something it will be, until they realize it could be bad for someone they don't like. At which point, they're OK with it.
 
2013-07-15 01:03:26 PM  
Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?
 
2013-07-15 01:04:01 PM  
Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt
 
2013-07-15 01:04:26 PM  

vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.


Yup. Everything everywhere is Obamas fault. The fact that corporations are dicking over us workers just to be spiteful biatches is ENTIRELY Obamas fault as well.
 
2013-07-15 01:05:50 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?


Because obamacare will end all life in the universe and bring about the end times.
 
2013-07-15 01:10:34 PM  

Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

Because obamacare will end all life in the universe and bring about the end times.


Truly, history's greatest monster.
 
2013-07-15 01:11:25 PM  
"The percentage of workers employed part-time has been rising since 2007, increasing from 16.7 percent to 22.2 percent in 2011, the EBRI said. Over that period, the nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute found part-time workers experienced a much larger decline in health coverage than fulltime workers. Between 2007 and 2011, full-time workers experienced a 2.8 percent reduction in the likelihood of having coverage from their own jobs, while part-time workers suffered a 15.7 percent decline."

http://www.benefitspro.com/2013/05/28/shift-to-part-time-workers-beg an -pre-ppaca
 
2013-07-15 01:15:36 PM  

Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

Because obamacare will end all life in the universe and bring about the end times.


If the end times means I get to watch St. Peter laugh in a Republican's face when they ask to get into heaven, then bring 'em on.
 
2013-07-15 01:17:15 PM  

SilentStrider: Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

Because obamacare will end all life in the universe and bring about the end times.

If the end times means I get to watch St. Peter laugh in a Republican's face when they ask to get into heaven, then bring 'em on.


I think it means they all get raptured, and we get some peace and quiet here on earth.
 
2013-07-15 01:25:55 PM  
In other news, conservatives confused about opposition to the ACA after finding out it damages unions.
 
2013-07-15 01:27:43 PM  

vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]


Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers.
After Obamacare: health care costs go up and Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result.

Definitely could be because of Obamacare.
 
2013-07-15 01:32:52 PM  

Weaver95: Yup. Everything everywhere is Obamas fault. The fact that corporations are dicking over us workers just to be spiteful biatches is ENTIRELY Obamas fault as well.


I love a "lets throw the evil fat cat CEOs under the bus" thread just as much as the next guy but you'd think that if the head of a Union could blame a company he would blame a company. That way he could demand more money/time off/other benefits for his members. But he's not?! He's blaming the people he helped elect. What good is that doing his members? Or himself? He's not going to get a better contract from anyone because of his actions on this matter. So why do it? Could it be that Obamacare is the nightmare that we have been saying it was? No that can't be it.

Sorry about trying to make comments about the article, I've interrupted the boss bashing thread. My bad
 
2013-07-15 01:37:50 PM  

SlothB77: health care costs go up


Happened before Obamacare as well. Like, you know, for the last few decades. Consistently.
 
2013-07-15 01:37:54 PM  
Forget odumbocare, just go to single payer and be done with it. fark the reoubs. Make it an executive order.
 
2013-07-15 01:46:02 PM  
Did the author of that piece include a You Tube video of himself in the middle of the article?
 
2013-07-15 01:46:29 PM  

SlothB77: After Obamacare: health care costs go up


no kidding. healthcare costs were totally stable before obamacare. totally.
 
2013-07-15 01:51:37 PM  
If you want to stop this.....Start publishing the names of companies that do this and start boycotting them.

Consumer spending makes up more than 70 percent of our economy. Even a small shift in public perception can really effect the bottom line.

Papa John's founder figured this out pretty quick.
 
2013-07-15 01:56:25 PM  
Health benefits shouldn't be tied to your job anyway.
 
2013-07-15 02:11:20 PM  
I was at a party this weekend and Obamacare showed up and double dipped
 
2013-07-15 02:12:53 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: Yup. Everything everywhere is Obamas fault. The fact that corporations are dicking over us workers just to be spiteful biatches is ENTIRELY Obamas fault as well.

I love a "lets throw the evil fat cat CEOs under the bus" thread just as much as the next guy but you'd think that if the head of a Union could blame a company he would blame a company. That way he could demand more money/time off/other benefits for his members. But he's not?! He's blaming the people he helped elect. What good is that doing his members? Or himself? He's not going to get a better contract from anyone because of his actions on this matter. So why do it? Could it be that Obamacare is the nightmare that we have been saying it was? No that can't be it.

Sorry about trying to make comments about the article, I've interrupted the boss bashing thread. My bad


You know what, it was big bosses bad decisions that lead us to this place.

Corporations had had the biggest profits ever historically. They refuse to share the wealth with the laborers who help them gain that wealth.

So fark em. When there was commies in this world corporations HAD to provide a better living conditions to keep from political overthrow from happening. Now there is no threat.
 
2013-07-15 02:21:26 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: So fark em. When there was commies in this world corporations HAD to provide a better living conditions to keep from political overthrow from happening. Now there is no threat.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-15 02:33:34 PM  
Sigh. Avik, you have proven time and time again that you are a moronic hack who carries water for the GOP. I refuse to read your articles anymore unless given cause.
 
2013-07-15 02:34:25 PM  

Weaver95: Because obamacare will end all life in the universe and bring about the end times.


frankly I don't think that would be a bad idea at this point
 
2013-07-15 02:35:40 PM  

SlothB77: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]

Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers.
After Obamacare: health care costs go up and Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result.

Definitely could be because of Obamacare.


Correlation: proof of causation
 
2013-07-15 02:36:25 PM  
Major moderate union leaders who are strong Democratic supporters are calling for minor adjustments in ACA implementation while still supporting ACA as a whole. Wow. I'm... *yawn* shocked.
 
2013-07-15 02:37:28 PM  

SlothB77: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]

Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers.
After Obamacare: health care costs go up and Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result.

Definitely could be because of Obamacare.


Because health care prices were not going up at all before the ACA right?
 
2013-07-15 02:37:30 PM  
Seems like single payer is the answer.
 
2013-07-15 02:38:07 PM  
Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.
 
2013-07-15 02:38:32 PM  

SlothB77: Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers. Health care costs were high
After Obamacare: health care costs continue to go up and Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result of being assholes. Workers find new and better jobs. Company A dies of talent attrition.


Edited for accuracy.
 
2013-07-15 02:38:52 PM  
This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.
 
2013-07-15 02:40:20 PM  

SlothB77: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]

Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers.
After Obamacare: health care costs go up and Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result.

Definitely could be because of Obamacare.



From the man that considers Ayn Rand "fun".
 
2013-07-15 02:40:30 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.


Except when it doesn't.
 
2013-07-15 02:40:30 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.


That has never been true in the whole history of the modern world. Not ever.
 
2013-07-15 02:42:01 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.


You should take another economics class, it is a lot more complicated than that.
 
2013-07-15 02:43:29 PM  
So it's Obama's fault that some CEOs are assholes who refuse to take care of their employees?
 
2013-07-15 02:43:39 PM  

SlothB77: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]

Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers.
After Obamacare: health care costs go up and Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result.

Definitely could be because of Obamacare.


www.washingtonpost.com

Wow "Obmacare" is so horrible it went back in time and raised healthcare spending.
 
2013-07-15 02:43:48 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.


Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.
 
2013-07-15 02:43:58 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.


Since we can look at corporate profits and the implementation of the minimum wage, unemployment and subsequent increases, can you provide evidence to support your first assertion?

If it is Economics 101 I'm sure a simple graph is out there, the same way it is easy to find images of basics for Math 101.
 
2013-07-15 02:44:24 PM  

Corvus: SlothB77: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]

Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers.
After Obamacare: health care costs go up and Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result.

Definitely could be because of Obamacare.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x454]

Wow "Obmacare" is so horrible it went back in time and raised healthcare spending.


Damn President Fart and his FARTARDIS.
 
2013-07-15 02:45:50 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.


In before "Then why not raise it to $1,000,000 an hour?" hyperbole
 
2013-07-15 02:45:58 PM  

Testiclaw: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Since we can look at corporate profits and the implementation of the minimum wage, unemployment and subsequent increases, can you provide evidence to support your first assertion?

If it is Economics 101 I'm sure a simple graph is out there, the same way it is easy to find images of basics for Math 101.


It is pretty simple, he went to a top 5 economics school. You have to think in terms of an island where the coconuts represent healthcare...
 
2013-07-15 02:46:24 PM  
There is an easy solution, like deciding the rest of the civilized world aren't all dumbasses and starting a public healthcare system.

OMG! SOSIALLIZM!
 
2013-07-15 02:46:57 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Health benefits shouldn't be tied to your job anyway.


It's a historical accident that we rely on jobs to provide health care benefits. Now path dependence forces us into maintaining it basically forever.
 
2013-07-15 02:46:59 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Corvus: SlothB77: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]

Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers.
After Obamacare: health care costs go up and Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result.

Definitely could be because of Obamacare.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x454]

Wow "Obmacare" is so horrible it went back in time and raised healthcare spending.

Damn President Fart and his FARTARDIS.



img827.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-15 02:47:12 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: So it's Obama's fault that some CEOs are assholes who refuse to take care of their employees?


Must be the week where Obama is God Emperor of the planet. Next week will be empty suit week.
 
2013-07-15 02:47:28 PM  

Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.


I was in a walmart last weekend and it was ghost town.  No clerks on the floor at all and only a few registers open.
 
2013-07-15 02:47:40 PM  

jst3p: Testiclaw: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Since we can look at corporate profits and the implementation of the minimum wage, unemployment and subsequent increases, can you provide evidence to support your first assertion?

If it is Economics 101 I'm sure a simple graph is out there, the same way it is easy to find images of basics for Math 101.

It is pretty simple, he went to a top 5 economics school. You have to think in terms of an island where the coconuts represent healthcare...


Water  ALL UP ONthese monitors.
 
2013-07-15 02:48:37 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Corvus: SlothB77: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]

Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers.
After Obamacare: health care costs go up and Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result.

Definitely could be because of Obamacare.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x454]

Wow "Obmacare" is so horrible it went back in time and raised healthcare spending.

Damn President Fart and his FARTARDIS.


Michelle is a little too old to be a companion of the Doctor. Sasha and Malia are a bit young, but that's never stopped a black man before...
 
2013-07-15 02:48:55 PM  

jst3p: Testiclaw: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Since we can look at corporate profits and the implementation of the minimum wage, unemployment and subsequent increases, can you provide evidence to support your first assertion?

If it is Economics 101 I'm sure a simple graph is out there, the same way it is easy to find images of basics for Math 101.

It is pretty simple, he went to a top 5 economics school. You have to think in terms of an island where the coconuts represent healthcare...


I bundle a few bad coconuts together with passable ones and use them as leverage for my banana default swaps, and run a tiki-derivative against the entire scheme.

Mary-Ann is my secretary.

Ginger my lobbyist.
 
2013-07-15 02:50:18 PM  
You Farkers and Farkettes are welcome to some of my health care. I got lots.
 
2013-07-15 02:50:48 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?


...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.
 
2013-07-15 02:50:55 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: You Farkers and Farkettes are welcome to some of my health care. I got lots.


Free healthcare if you end every sentence with "eh"?
 
2013-07-15 02:51:12 PM  

OregonVet: Darth_Lukecash: So fark em. When there was commies in this world corporations HAD to provide a better living conditions to keep from political overthrow from happening. Now there is no threat.


That's your best response?

Historically speaking, communism and fascism were the response to social woes of the time. Especially when the Great Depression hit. Corporations learned very quickly that the only way they could retain any amount of stability and influence was to have democracies and republics. Otherwise the would no longer exist under Communist Rule, or be at the mercy of a dictators mad whim.

Some countries took a socialist bent, America took a more capitalist approach. That means competition. Commies got free health care. Socialism provided it. Capitalist offered it as a benefit

Now that communistic revolution is less likely- all corporations are now dropping healthcare as a benifit. A bribery to placate their workers to do be good productive workers..
 
2013-07-15 02:53:48 PM  
Also: in before, "the average American is better off than a lower caste worker in India, so stop complaining."
 
2013-07-15 02:55:32 PM  
Any failings in the Affordable Care Act could be fixed by Congress, it is after all their job, but the Republicans absolutely refuse to do anything that will benefit the non-rich.
 
2013-07-15 02:55:51 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: You Farkers and Farkettes are welcome to some of my health care. I got lots.


That would be cheating your system... We're in pretty bad shape.
 
2013-07-15 02:56:32 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: So it's Obama's fault that some CEOs are assholes who refuse to take care of their employees? Human Resources?  HR?  HR Department ID?


CEOs only care about quality  workmanship reputation child labor laws in 3rd world countriesstock price..
 
2013-07-15 02:57:56 PM  

jst3p: Testiclaw: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Since we can look at corporate profits and the implementation of the minimum wage, unemployment and subsequent increases, can you provide evidence to support your first assertion?

If it is Economics 101 I'm sure a simple graph is out there, the same way it is easy to find images of basics for Math 101.

It is pretty simple, he went to a top 5 economics school. You have to think in terms of an island where the coconuts represent healthcare...


Oh man. You know, I was convinced he was an intellectually-challenged wingnut. But I'd completely forgotten about the coconuts.
 
2013-07-15 02:58:00 PM  

Testiclaw: jst3p: Testiclaw: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Since we can look at corporate profits and the implementation of the minimum wage, unemployment and subsequent increases, can you provide evidence to support your first assertion?

If it is Economics 101 I'm sure a simple graph is out there, the same way it is easy to find images of basics for Math 101.

It is pretty simple, he went to a top 5 economics school. You have to think in terms of an island where the coconuts represent healthcare...

I bundle a few bad coconuts together with passable ones and use them as leverage for my banana default swaps, and run a tiki-derivative against the entire scheme.

Mary-Ann is my secretary.

Ginger my lobbyist.


That leaves Mrs Howell as your sex slave...
 
2013-07-15 02:59:08 PM  

Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.


Just a guess: cutting manpower is what makes the district manager look when it comes to bonus time.
 
2013-07-15 02:59:48 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: "The percentage of workers employed part-time has been rising since 2007, increasing from 16.7 percent to 22.2 percent in 2011, the EBRI said. Over that period, the nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute found part-time workers experienced a much larger decline in health coverage than fulltime workers. Between 2007 and 2011, full-time workers experienced a 2.8 percent reduction in the likelihood of having coverage from their own jobs, while part-time workers suffered a 15.7 percent decline."

http://www.benefitspro.com/2013/05/28/shift-to-part-time-workers-beg an -pre-ppaca


Let's look at it from the flip side then.

- Businesses with 20 to 99 employees, those with the most impetus to either stop hiring or fire people to get under the 50 employee threshold, make up only 9% of American businesses.
- Just more than six out of seven businesses with 25 to 49 employees offer health insurance as a benefit.
- Just fewer than nineteen out of twenty businesses with 50 to 199 employees offer health insurance as a benefit.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/relax-obamacare-s-employer -m andate-affects-few-businesses-20130703
 
2013-07-15 03:00:23 PM  

qorkfiend: Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.

Just a guess: cutting manpower is what makes the district manager look when it comes to bonus time.


look best when it comes to bonus time.
 
2013-07-15 03:01:45 PM  

IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.


The ACA defines "full time" as 30-hours per week, per month, on average. Good luck trying to run a competitive business without full time employees under that definition.
 
2013-07-15 03:02:22 PM  

Corvus: Wow "Obmacare" is so horrible it went back in time and raised healthcare spending.


Yes, but let's not overlook like some Saudi Shiek will go into MD Anderson to raise his chances of survival from pancreatic cancer from 1% to 1.25%, therefore we have the greatest system in the world that best serves the needs for for  300 million Americans.
 
2013-07-15 03:02:33 PM  
Hold on, didn't the ACA or some followup bill REDEFINE "full-time" as closer to 30 hours and up, precisely so employers wouldn't be able to pull this shiat?
 
2013-07-15 03:02:45 PM  
"...shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class."

Wasn't part of the point that you wanted to move to a system in which health benefits aren't, "earned?"

Connecting health care to our jobs was always a silly idea from the start. I wish there was a way we could get rid of that without too much turmoil.
 
2013-07-15 03:05:07 PM  
But now, unions are waking up to the fact that Obamacare is heavily disruptive to the health benefits of their members.

Well, I'm not a part of a union, but my wife's insurance open enrollment just ended, meaning that the new insurance plan rates went into effect. As a result:

1. I got a $25 check for an out of pocket co-pay at some point.
2. My Chiro comped me, and told me that I had 6 more free visits coming because the insurance rebated a lot of money to him.
3. My 'scripts that cost $3 each(Still a great price) cost $4.17 to fill THREE. One was as low as 72 cents.

I just for the life of me can't figure out what happened in the last year to cause me to get all of these benefits. The insurance increase also wasn't wny more than normal.

/Weird, isn't it? I was supposed to be selling organs just to cover a medical copay at this point, according to the Right.
 
2013-07-15 03:05:20 PM  

red5ish: IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.

The ACA defines "full time" as 30-hours per week, per month, on average. Good luck trying to run a competitive business without full time employees under that definition.


YES!!!! Thank you, red5ish, for beating me to the punch with cold, hard facts.

(Small quibble - I think it has to be *greater than* 30, not greater-or-equal-to, but I don't have the details on hand.)
 
2013-07-15 03:07:16 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Testiclaw: jst3p: Testiclaw: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Since we can look at corporate profits and the implementation of the minimum wage, unemployment and subsequent increases, can you provide evidence to support your first assertion?

If it is Economics 101 I'm sure a simple graph is out there, the same way it is easy to find images of basics for Math 101.

It is pretty simple, he went to a top 5 economics school. You have to think in terms of an island where the coconuts represent healthcare...

I bundle a few bad coconuts together with passable ones and use them as leverage for my banana default swaps, and run a tiki-derivative against the entire scheme.

Mary-Ann is my secretary.

Ginger my lobbyist.

That leaves Mrs Howell as your sex slave...


What can I say?

I grew up poor, so sticking it to the wealthy is a fetish.
 
2013-07-15 03:07:24 PM  
The Unions are just being unpatriotic, American hating bastards:

Nancy Pelosi: On 4th of July, celebrate Obamacare

"Next week, when we celebrate Independence Day we'll also be observing health independence," Pelosi told reporters today, explaining that "this week marks one year since the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. It captures the spirit of our founders," she added, citing the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence."So, we've had Social Security, Medicare, and now health independence, so that's something our members will take home to celebrate over this Independence Day."
 
2013-07-15 03:10:28 PM  
So it's not ObamaCare that's doing this, but rather the companies are finding every trick and loophole they can to continue to dick over the workforce in order to scrounge out every last greasy penny they can? Gee, wonder why Forbes didn't report that.
 
2013-07-15 03:11:00 PM  

hasty ambush: The Unions


Why did you capitalize "unions" here?
 
2013-07-15 03:11:16 PM  
What's amazing is that there is still all this backlash for a program that isn't implemented yet. But everything's going wrong because of it, oh yes indeed.
 
2013-07-15 03:11:24 PM  

Scrotastic Method: So it's not ObamaCare that's doing this, but rather the companies are finding every trick and loophole they can to continue to dick over the workforce in order to scrounge out every last greasy penny they can? Gee, wonder why Forbes didn't report that.


Because this way they can have an article that whines about ACA and unions both. It's like a right-wing coffin-fodder win-win.
 
2013-07-15 03:13:07 PM  

SlothB77: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]

Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers.
After Obamacare: health care costs go up and Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result.

Definitely could be because of Obamacare.


Hitting the ol paint chip bucket early today, are we?
 
2013-07-15 03:13:13 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: hasty ambush: The Unions

Why did you capitalize "unions" here?


Some refer to them as "The Unions", but I prefer to more accurate term:

"The Groups of Workers' Aggression"
 
2013-07-15 03:13:53 PM  
The author of the editorial is classic concern trolling, a member of Mitt Romney's losing team...
 
2013-07-15 03:14:22 PM  
This is just like when Obama made insurance companies raise rates for the first time ever.
 
2013-07-15 03:15:55 PM  

Headso: The author of the editorial is classic concern trolling, a member of Mitt Romney's losing team...


But surely a reputable journalistic publication such as Forb...

You know what, I can't say it with a straight face. Sorry. I will pretend to be a space alien dictator, but I won't call Forbes reputable.
 
2013-07-15 03:18:14 PM  
Unions:  "I got mine, so fark you!"

/the shills are conspicuously absent from this thread.
 
2013-07-15 03:19:10 PM  

Serious Black: Michelle is a little too old to be a companion of the Doctor. Sasha and Malia are a bit young, but that's never stopped a black man before...


Didn't stop this honky either...
www.upl.co
 
2013-07-15 03:19:34 PM  
Hate to you know, have to always point this out, but "Obamacare" is the bloody abortion forced on us by the right. Liberals wanted a public buy in to medicare. Key word there being BUY. Why? Medicare is just farmed out to existing HMO's anymore, except the government is able to, you know, buy in massive bulk and gets a good deal.

But that might have cut down on some fat rich farkers profit margin and made him wait till next month to buy his golden toilet seat and matching bidet. So we got the GOP abortion you all stupidly call "Obamacare" in your 5th grade effort to project.

Thanks for the Heritage Foundation right wing keep the poor folks still away from health care act. Dicks.
 
2013-07-15 03:20:11 PM  

GoldSpider: Unions:  "I got mine negotiated via collective bargaining, so fark you you should unionize too!"

 
2013-07-15 03:22:33 PM  
It is so cute that the union leaders and other uninformed people didn't understand the line: "if you like your plan, you can keep it".

no where was it ever promised that the employer has to keep providing that plan.
 
2013-07-15 03:22:38 PM  
"You supported it, you live with it."  What a great principle.  I'd like to see it applied universally.  For example, many of the people who were shrieking with horror about Obummercare were the same types who goosestepped with ejaculatory glee back in the Iraq Murder Party days.  Too day we couldn't take all of those Mom's-basement-dwelling chickenhawk stormtroopers, shove rifles in their hands, and drop them off in Fallujah, the last words they heard spoken in English to be, "You supported it, you live with it."

But then, they were patriotic Real Murcans, instead of America-hating unions.
 
2013-07-15 03:22:44 PM  

xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...


I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.
 
2013-07-15 03:22:47 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: GoldSpider: Unions:  "I got mine negotiated via collective bargaining, so fark you you should unionize too!"


I have hesitated with GS going on my ignore list for a while, now.

He will throw in a great, concise post now and again, but he sandwiches them between nine or ten derpfests.

I can't decide.
 
2013-07-15 03:26:08 PM  

hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.


Hey! Those are Sloth's paint chips. You give them back.
 
2013-07-15 03:27:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: It is so cute that the union leaders and other uninformed people didn't understand the line: "if you like your plan, you can keep it".

no where was it ever promised that the employer has to keep providing that plan.


that's a good point, "your" plan isn't the same as an "employer provided" plan.  Hey, if you've got the money you can keep whatever you want, if you rely on your employer to provide Insurance to you, well... i guess you'll take what you can get & GBTW.
 
2013-07-15 03:27:57 PM  

hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.



It is amazing at how much the liberals keep going with their victim mentality.
"This wasn't our plan, it was Heritage's"
"But...but...but...Bush"
"Halliburton!"
"7.5% unemployment, declining wages, underemployment and more people quitting the workforce is great because it could have been worse"

This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.
 
2013-07-15 03:28:39 PM  

TALES FROM THE HASTY AMBUSH BUG



img5.imageshack.us

hasty ambush: .

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.

 
2013-07-15 03:28:44 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?


Because it's not the much simpler and less confusing single-payer method which would undoubtedly provide cheaper better care as has been proven in most of Europe.
 
2013-07-15 03:29:26 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.


Sooooo.. let's go felate some CEOs?

Isn't that the political answer for everything right now?
 
2013-07-15 03:29:28 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: SilentStrider: Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

Because obamacare will end all life in the universe and bring about the end times.

If the end times means I get to watch St. Peter laugh in a Republican's face when they ask to get into heaven, then bring 'em on.

I think it means they all get raptured, and we get some peace and quiet here on earth.


One can only hope.
 
2013-07-15 03:33:34 PM  

hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.


Name them, then tell us why the GOP and teabaggers would support them.
 
2013-07-15 03:34:16 PM  

SlothB77: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]

Before Obamacare: Company A hired full-time workers.
After Obamacare: health care costs go up and Those at the top see an excuse to raise their yearly bonus. Company A decides to change their workers to part-time as a result.

Definitely could be because of Obamacare.


FTFY
 
2013-07-15 03:34:21 PM  

Mikey1969: But now, unions are waking up to the fact that Obamacare is heavily disruptive to the health benefits of their members.

Well, I'm not a part of a union, but my wife's insurance open enrollment just ended, meaning that the new insurance plan rates went into effect. As a result:

1. I got a $25 check for an out of pocket co-pay at some point.
2. My Chiro comped me, and told me that I had 6 more free visits coming because the insurance rebated a lot of money to him.
3. My 'scripts that cost $3 each(Still a great price) cost $4.17 to fill THREE. One was as low as 72 cents.

I just for the life of me can't figure out what happened in the last year to cause me to get all of these benefits. The insurance increase also wasn't wny more than normal.

/Weird, isn't it? I was supposed to be selling organs just to cover a medical copay at this point, according to the Right.


It is infuriating that insurance companies or the government pays for Chiropractors.
 
2013-07-15 03:35:03 PM  

d23: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Sooooo.. let's go felate some CEOs?

Isn't that the political answer for everything right now?


depends if you prefer to have a job or be spied on by the NSA.
 
2013-07-15 03:35:38 PM  
Yes, let me read Forbes for accurate analysis of labor issues.
 
2013-07-15 03:36:43 PM  

Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.


Those benefits make up for public employees salaries being on average 20% below comparable positions in the private sector. Whereas many public sector employees get bonuses or raises annually, most public sector employees do not. At my last job at a K-12 district, I hadn't seen a raise in over 5 years. The current job just got 3%, but that was after a salary survey said we were over 10% lower than the industry average in wages and that 3% was the first raise in years. And I know for every multi-billion dollar CEO salary out there, someone will point out how one public-sector person is making a huge amount, but it's really not the norm. Most of us don't make that much for what we do. Myself, I'm a Lotus Notes/server administrator that normally pulls about $75-80K a year in the private sector. My salary is under $60K after a one time raise of 3%, which was the first in almost 6 years.

So, sometimes that lower pay scale is compensated with a better healthcare package but when money problems happen, as they always do in public sector, then the first thing to get more expensive for employees is health care and benefits are routinely trimmed back and employee costs and co-pays almost always increase.

The problem people don't seem to see is that public sector entities don't make a profit like private sector does. If public sector costs rise, same as private sector, public sector entities cannot just increase the cost of their services because they don't really make anything tangible for sale. This is especially true with school districts. Schools produce learning, intelligence, and hopefully, diplomas. If their costs rise, all they can do is cut unless the public votes to give them more money. So they cut teachers, they cut classes, they cut wages, and they cut benefits. If Ford loses a fight about insurance with their unions, Ford can tack on a few dollars to each car and make up the losses. A school can try and raise fees, but that only means people aren't going to vote in a new levy because the schools raised their fees.
 
2013-07-15 03:37:27 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: Yup. Everything everywhere is Obamas fault. The fact that corporations are dicking over us workers just to be spiteful biatches is ENTIRELY Obamas fault as well.

I love a "lets throw the evil fat cat CEOs under the bus" thread just as much as the next guy but you'd think that if the head of a Union could blame a company he would blame a company. That way he could demand more money/time off/other benefits for his members. But he's not?! He's blaming the people he helped elect. What good is that doing his members? Or himself? He's not going to get a better contract from anyone because of his actions on this matter. So why do it? Could it be that Obamacare is the nightmare that we have been saying it was? No that can't be it.

Sorry about trying to make comments about the article, I've interrupted the boss bashing thread. My bad


Get back to boss bashing you lout! What do you think you're in, some sort of fact based argument?
 
2013-07-15 03:37:50 PM  

b2theory: It is infuriating that insurance companies or the government pays for Chiropractors.


Why?
 
2013-07-15 03:39:11 PM  

hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.


That do-nothing empty-suit has swindled us with another brilliant scheme!  Why is Obama so incompetent at incompetence?
 
2013-07-15 03:39:27 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: It is so cute that the union leaders and other uninformed people didn't understand the line: "if you like your plan, you can keep it".

no where was it ever promised that the employer has to keep providing that plan.


If providing health care coverage for employees is a union negotiated part of the worker's compensation then any changes will have to be negotiated as well. Do you know what a contract is or how contracts work?
 
2013-07-15 03:44:43 PM  

Rapmaster2000: hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.

That do-nothing empty-suit has swindled us with another brilliant scheme!  Why is Obama so incompetent at incompetence?


To be fair he had a lot of help
 
2013-07-15 03:45:06 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.

Name them, then tell us why the GOP and teabaggers would support them.


I too would read with keen interest the many simpler and less costly ways to bring insurance to the masses. Please educate us.
 
2013-07-15 03:47:04 PM  

Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.


He's trying to punish the store managers without actually punishing them.  In theory (don't know Dollar Tree policies) managers are salaried with performance incentives.  Here's what is running through that District Manager's mind:

The store must do X, Y and Z.  There are managers not pulling their weight/performing correctly.  So I will cut the available workforce so those managers have to pick up the slack.  Ie. instead of working 56 hours a week, they'll have to work 80 to get things done.  They will stop slacking off, then I can reward them with additional worker hours.

This of course does not work.  What should happen is that the DM has a long talk with the store manager why his store is not performing correctly.  This gives the store manager an opportunity to ask for changes - ie. get rid of the slacker.

Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job.  I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer.  The stupid in her management chain is endemic, and probably infects the entire company.  The two retailers I'm familiar with didn't exhibit this level of stupidity - they had other odious policies.
 
2013-07-15 03:50:54 PM  

jst3p: Testiclaw: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Since we can look at corporate profits and the implementation of the minimum wage, unemployment and subsequent increases, can you provide evidence to support your first assertion?

If it is Economics 101 I'm sure a simple graph is out there, the same way it is easy to find images of basics for Math 101.

It is pretty simple, he went to a top 5 economics school. You have to think in terms of an island where the coconuts represent healthcare...


Dont forget the bridge paid for with pineapples...
 
2013-07-15 03:51:07 PM  

MadHatter500: Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job. I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer. The stupid in her management chain is endemic, and probably infects the entire company. The two retailers I'm familiar with didn't exhibit this level of stupidity - they had other odious policies.


I understand where "get another job" idea comes from... I really do, because that is how a functioning economy is supposed to work.  But most people don't get it: we're not in a functioning capitalistic economy right now.  Corporatism and capitalism aren't the same thing.  Jobs don't grow on trees. (pun intended)
 
2013-07-15 03:52:07 PM  

qorkfiend: Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.

Just a guess: cutting manpower is what makes the district manager look when it comes to bonus time.


In general, that only "looks good" if the top line year over year improves.  Anything that impacts top line in retail is "BAD BAD BAD!".  Authorizing insufficient manhours to stock and cashier positions results in lost sales.  This is very bad.  Sales gain is first, margin is second.
 
2013-07-15 03:52:10 PM  

Serious Black: Sigh. Avik, you have proven time and time again that you are a moronic hack who carries water for the GOP. I refuse to read your articles anymore unless given cause.


But they write for Forbes.  Certainly, no one that writes for Forbes would try to falsely present arguments in favor of business interests?  Certainly Forbes isn't the type of magazine to be read by the type of people that would love to blame everything on Obama?
 
2013-07-15 03:53:13 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.


Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?
 
2013-07-15 03:55:56 PM  

Weaver95: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

Yup. Everything everywhere is Obamas fault. The fact that corporations are dicking over us workers just to be spiteful biatches is ENTIRELY Obamas fault as well.


Well, it's mostly the same reason that the dotcom crash is GWBs fault
 
2013-07-15 03:56:09 PM  

hasty ambush: It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.


Power which, according to the Supreme Court, Congress always had.
 
2013-07-15 03:57:19 PM  

Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?


I'd much rather live in an oligarhy.
 
2013-07-15 03:59:43 PM  
Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?
 
2013-07-15 04:00:58 PM  

IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.


Planned Parenthood should look into the rules about being a hospital.  Knowing how much Texas likes regulations (they don't for those who aren't paying attention) I'm pretty sure those clinics can add some staff and qualify easily.  It will take the legislature down there about 50 years to figure that one out.  I'm pretty sure that the federal rules will be more onerous than the local ones.  Heck, piss off the conservatives even more by accepting medicare and medicaid patients - that would be counter to the narrative that says choice in that area is also going away.

If I had a background in the medical field (I don't) I think I'd be moving to Texas to open a new chain of hospitals right about now...
 
2013-07-15 04:02:49 PM  

Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?



Because commie nazi socialisms!
 
2013-07-15 04:06:04 PM  

Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?


Joke answer: Soshamalizms.
Real answer: path dependence.
 
2013-07-15 04:06:14 PM  
If you thought politicians in DC could find a solution to the ridiculous cost of healthcare in the United States, then I have some prime swampland in Florida you might be interested in buying.
 
2013-07-15 04:07:01 PM  

Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?


can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?
 
2013-07-15 04:07:46 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt


so the plagarizing democrats didn't add one thing to make their plan better?
 
2013-07-15 04:10:07 PM  

SauronWasFramed: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt

so the plagarizing democrats didn't add one thing to make their plan better?


Well, originally it had a public option. It got watered down to the current state to "negotiate" with the Republicans...who mostly voted against it anyway.
 
2013-07-15 04:11:02 PM  

MadHatter500: Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.

He's trying to punish the store managers without actually punishing them.  In theory (don't know Dollar Tree policies) managers are salaried with performance incentives.  Here's what is running through that District Manager's mind:

The store must do X, Y and Z.  There are managers not pulling their weight/performing correctly.  So I will cut the available workforce so those managers have to pick up the slack.  Ie. instead of working 56 hours a week, they'll have to work 80 to get things done.  They will stop slacking off, then I can reward them with additional worker hours.

This of course does not work.  What should happen is that the DM has a long talk with the store manager why his store is not performing correctly.  This gives the store manager an opportunity to ask for changes - ie. get rid of the slacker.

Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job.  I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer.  The stupid in her m ...


Only the store manager is salaried. My mother is hourly.
 
2013-07-15 04:11:07 PM  
How just like the modern union management. So caught up in their own affairs they failed to notice that other business's
have been reducing hourly worker to part time for the last 10 years in order to avoid have to give them health or any other
benefits.
 
2013-07-15 04:11:37 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?


Taxes, the way most things are paid for.

I didn't want to pay for the bailout, Iraq, Afghanistan or big oil subsidies.  Too bad?

I won't, personally, but the IRS and courts might.

How do we enforce things like that, now?
 
2013-07-15 04:11:49 PM  

Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?


I don't know what republicans wanted.
 
2013-07-15 04:12:27 PM  
repeal ACA
repeal Medicare
repeal Social Security
repeal seat belt laws
repeal helmet laws
Open Funereal home
PROFIT!
 
2013-07-15 04:12:52 PM  

d23: MadHatter500: Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job. I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer. The stupid in her management chain is endemic, and probably infects the entire company. The two retailers I'm familiar with didn't exhibit this level of stupidity - they had other odious policies.

I understand where "get another job" idea comes from... I really do, because that is how a functioning economy is supposed to work.  But most people don't get it: we're not in a functioning capitalistic economy right now.  Corporatism and capitalism aren't the same thing.  Jobs don't grow on trees. (pun intended)


I wasn't saying that because it's easy to get another job - I'm saying it because it will help her in many ways.  Stress kills, and being in such an environment is very stressful.  It could easily knock 5 years off her life.  The current corporatist environment is deadly and pervasive, but still, she should be looking elsewhere.
 
2013-07-15 04:13:06 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?



Step 1: invent time machine.
Step 2: alter time line to avoid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Step 3: Profit.
 
2013-07-15 04:13:58 PM  

BlastYoBoots: Hold on, didn't the ACA or some followup bill REDEFINE "full-time" as closer to 30 hours and up, precisely so employers wouldn't be able to pull this shiat?


That's why everyone is now working 28 hours a week and not 30
 
2013-07-15 04:14:03 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay? how would you enforce that?


You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

theincidentaleconomist.com
 
2013-07-15 04:14:43 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.



But you sure seem to know all the talking points.
 
2013-07-15 04:15:16 PM  

jst3p: Seems like single payer is the answer.


zOMG SOOOOOOOOCIALISM!
 
2013-07-15 04:15:28 PM  

FunkyBlue: Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.

Those benefits make up for public employees salaries being on average 20% below comparable positions in the private sector. Whereas many public sector employees get bonuses or raises annually, most public sector employees do not. At my last job at a K-12 district, I hadn't seen a raise in over 5 years. The current job just got 3%, but that was after a salary survey said we were over 10% lower than the industry average in wages and that 3% was the first raise in years. And I know for every multi-billion dollar CEO salary out there, someone will point out how one public-sector person is making a huge amount, but it's really not the norm. Most of us don't make that much for what we do. Myself, I'm a Lotus Notes/server administrator that normally pulls about $75-80K a year in the private sector. My salary is under $60K after a one time raise of 3%, which was the first in almost 6 years.

So, sometimes that lower pay scale is compensated with a better healthcare package but when money problems happen, as they always do in public sector, then the first thing to get more expensive for employees is health care and benefits are routinely trimmed back and employee costs and co-pays almost always increase.

The problem people don't seem to see is that public sector entities don't make a profit like private sector does. If public sector costs rise, same as private sector, public sector entities cannot just increase the cost of their services because they don't really make anything tangible for sale. This is especially true with school districts. Schools produce learning, intelligence, and hopefully, diplomas. If their costs rise, all they can do is cut unless the public votes to give them more money. So they cu ...


That would be a nice recitation of the union position, for sure. But unfortunately for that position, public salary information is public record. You can find our exactly how your private sector pay compares. Many times, the public employees make more, plus have a wide array of benefits. A lot of private-sector employees haven't received pay increases since the recession started and have seen their share of health care costs rise.
 
2013-07-15 04:17:12 PM  

Scrotastic Method: HotWingConspiracy: hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.

Name them, then tell us why the GOP and teabaggers would support them.

I too would read with keen interest the many simpler and less costly ways to bring insurance to the masses. Please educate us.





Many ways no of which would involve the creation of a huge bureaucracy with the IRS as its enforcement branch.

You could address the rising costs by going after were the real problem lays , not with insurance companies, but with what healthcare providers charge. Labs typically charge insurance companies 4 times as much as the lab work really costs. Hospitals charge $10 force couple of Tylenol. And do not forget the Federal governments' own complicity in setting this costs.

You could have expanded MEDICAID with means with tested premium rates based on ability to pay.

Individual states could have offered the same plans they do for state employees again with the same type of means tested system. Any individual state plan would be better than a one size fits all plan imposed by the feds.

Many doctors are opting out of insurance plans all together offering patients fixed monthly rates for non-catastrophic care leaving patients needing only to buy catastrophic health insurance.
 
2013-07-15 04:17:41 PM  

Testiclaw: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

Taxes, the way most things are paid for.

I didn't want to pay for the bailout, Iraq, Afghanistan or big oil subsidies.  Too bad?

I won't, personally, but the IRS and courts might.

How do we enforce things like that, now?


What taxes?  payroll?  income?  VAT?  magic wand?

you didnt pay enough taxes to cover bailout, Iraq, Afganistan or big oil Subsidies.. thats why we add to the debt, so you didnt pay for it at all

so expand the IRS who dont care if you owe anything until its worth their while.. how does that help find people who dont pay?

we dont enforce  thats why so much money is lost..
 
2013-07-15 04:18:57 PM  
So employers being cheap asses and using farked-over part time workers instead is a new thing?
/get me mah faintin' couch
 
2013-07-15 04:19:07 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


a low info voter?
 
2013-07-15 04:19:34 PM  

Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


But you sure seem to know all the talking points.


So what?
I know the liberals talking points too..."but...but...but...BUSH!"
 
2013-07-15 04:20:48 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


But you sure seem to know all the talking points.

So what?
I know the liberals talking points too..."but...but...but...BUSH!"



Actually you only seem to know Parodies of liberal talking points.
 
2013-07-15 04:21:47 PM  

hasty ambush: Government sizes control of 10% of the economy


O RLY?  We have single payer now?
 
2013-07-15 04:22:21 PM  

Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


But you sure seem to know all the talking points.

So what?
I know the liberals talking points too..."but...but...but...BUSH!"


Actually you only seem to know Parodies of liberal talking points.


He knows what Fox, Limbaugh and Beck tell him the liberal talking points are.
 
2013-07-15 04:22:22 PM  

Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]


reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people
 
2013-07-15 04:23:19 PM  

rewind2846: So employers being cheap asses and using farked-over part time workers instead is a new thing?
/get me mah faintin' couch


The funny thing is that the huge spike in people being employed part-time for economic reasons completely precedes Obama being in office (not that that ever stopped the GOP from asserting Obama has a time machine before):

www.slate.com

/I believe the notations in red were put there by Matt Yglesias
//or maybe some liberal concern troll
 
2013-07-15 04:23:52 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: So what?
I know the liberals talking points too..."but...but...but...BUSH!"


"But Bush" is just as stupid as "But Obama."  They are both over the top corporatists when it come to this sort of thing.  That is why the idea that Obama is a socialist is so laughable.  Someone making one of these arguments without the other is the mark of a stooge.

The *very* first plans Obama made as president elect was how to help his banker buddies.
 
2013-07-15 04:24:35 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Could it be that Obamacare is the nightmare that we have been saying it was? No that can't be it.


The ACA is not the problem. Farked up employers who don't know sh*t about the ACA and who squeeze a farking quarter so hard they make George Washington sh*t himself is the problem.
Using part time workers and changing full time workers to part time has been going on for a long time, and employers are using the ACA as just another excuse to do their dirty sh*t.
 
2013-07-15 04:24:49 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people


A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.
 
2013-07-15 04:25:30 PM  
What no one here has mentioned is that none of this is of importance to unions with any power.  Most unions (at least in manufacturing) have multi-year contracts that would not be able to be legally broken requiring them to continue the same hours. Also unions would go on strike if the companies tried to cut hours and healthcare.

Along with these features of unions, manufacturing requires X number of man hours per week (all 168 usually).  If a company has 4 shifts (days, afternoons, nights and off) each day each shift will work 42 hours per week in order to keep the machines running 24/7.  This means the company would have to hire 1 person for every 5 already working at the company in order to keep manufacturing at the same pace.
 
2013-07-15 04:25:32 PM  

Summercat: My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.

He's trying to punish the store managers without actually punishing them. In theory (don't know Dollar Tree policies) managers are salaried with performance incentives. Here's what is running through that District Manager's mind:

The store must do X, Y and Z. There are managers not pulling their weight/performing correctly. So I will cut the available workforce so those managers have to pick up the slack. Ie. instead of working 56 hours a week, they'll have to work 80 to get things done. They will stop slacking off, then I can reward them with additional worker hours.

This of course does not work. What should happen is that the DM has a long talk with the store manager why his store is not performing correctly. This gives the store manager an opportunity to ask for changes - ie. get rid of the slacker.

Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job. I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer. The stupid in her m ...

Only the store manager is salaried. My mother is hourly.


Then the situation is even worse than I thought.  The District manager will risk store top line sales to punish a store manager.  Besides finding another job (not easy to replace income with a job change given the way companies like to think these days) the best advice is "Stop caring, have a beer".

The district manager is trying to take a short cut on getting rid of a manager that he doesn't like.  Six months from now either the store manager will have quit (he finally got the memo), or since sales fell like a stone (no shiat - all the stock is in the back still boxed) will have been fired.  Is the assistant manager that is slacking off a "good friend" of the current store manager?
 
2013-07-15 04:27:49 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


www.demotivationalposters.org
 
2013-07-15 04:29:12 PM  

Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.


200 million then..
 
2013-07-15 04:31:06 PM  

Alphakronik: Yes, let me read Forbes for accurate analysis of labor issues.


I'll give a summary: The plebs should take what we think right to give them, and adore us for it.
 
2013-07-15 04:32:48 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..


I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.
 
2013-07-15 04:33:00 PM  

Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.


Here's a thought... instead of trying to pull someone else down, why not boost yourself up?

Folks like you bending over and taking whatever your employers want to give them (or being a cheap ass if you are an employer) are what is destroying unions and making decent benefits and pensions, once a norm in the private sector, as rare as he's teeth today. You gave that all up on purpose, and now you want to take from those few who still have because you no longer have.

The ultimate in selfishness.
 
2013-07-15 04:34:51 PM  

FunkyBlue: Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.

Those benefits make up for public employees salaries being on average 20% below comparable positions in the private sector. Whereas many public sector employees get bonuses or raises annually, most public sector employees do not. At my last job at a K-12 district, I hadn't seen a raise in over 5 years. The current job just got 3%, but that was after a salary survey said we were over 10% lower than the industry average in wages and that 3% was the first raise in years. And I know for every multi-billion dollar CEO salary out there, someone will point out how one public-sector person is making a huge amount, but it's really not the norm. Most of us don't make that much for what we do. Myself, I'm a Lotus Notes/server administrator that normally pulls about $75-80K a year in the private sector. My salary is under $60K after a one time raise of 3%, which was the first in almost 6 years.

So, sometimes that lower pay scale is compensated with a better healthcare package but when money problems happen, as they always do in public sector, then the first thing to get more expensive for employees is health care and benefits are routinely trimmed back and employee costs and co-pays almost always increase.

The problem people don't seem to see is that public sector entities don't make a profit like private sector does. If public sector costs rise, same as private sector, public sector entities cannot just increase the cost of their services because they don't really make anything tangible for sale. This is especially true with school districts. Schools produce learning, intelligence, and hopefully, diplomas. If their costs rise, all they can do is cut unless the public votes to give them more money. So they cut teachers, they cut classes, they cut wages, and they cut benefits. If Ford loses a fight about insurance with their unions, Ford can tack on a few dollars to each car and make up the losses. A school can try and raise fees, but that only means people aren't going to vote in a new levy because the schools raised their fees.


Do you have a pension?
 
2013-07-15 04:34:55 PM  
Unions are the free market's response to corporate power. If employees can't turn to unions for help leveling the playing field, then they'll turn to the government. Don't want the government mucking about in your business? Let unions do what they're designed to do.
 
2013-07-15 04:35:08 PM  

rewind2846: as rare as hen's teeth today.


/FTFM
 
2013-07-15 04:35:57 PM  
img.weiku.com
 
2013-07-15 04:38:11 PM  

b2theory: Do you have a pension?


1. What does that have to do with it?
2. You do know that many public sector employees contribute to their pensions, right?
3. You also know that many of those same employees will never collect social security as well?

Trying to get more for yourself instead of taking from someone else can be a good thing.
 
2013-07-15 04:38:15 PM  

Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.


ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?
 
2013-07-15 04:39:26 PM  
You supported it; you live with it.

Okay. Yes. That's the idea.
 
2013-07-15 04:39:28 PM  

xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...


butt,butt, BUSH!
 
2013-07-15 04:40:10 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt


butt, butt, BUSH!
 
2013-07-15 04:40:48 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?


The dark blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through public means. The light blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through private means. The very light bar for the Netherlands represents direct out-of-pocket expenses that they cull out of private means. There is no relationship between the size of the bars and how large a proportion of the country's population has health insurance.
 
2013-07-15 04:43:39 PM  
Are we allowed to take this mentality and use it against people who were for The Patriot Act before they were against it?
 
2013-07-15 04:44:21 PM  

trey101: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt

butt, butt, BUSH!


It was actually the Republican answer to HillaryCare... It was between the Bushes
 
2013-07-15 04:48:34 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?   students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private  ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?


1)  Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker.

2) If public poeple on Medicar/Medicade, how girrl get praegnent?
 
2013-07-15 04:49:40 PM  

Aarontology: Conservatives: Outraged about how bad something it will be, until they realize it could be bad for someone they don't like. At which point, they're OK with it.


Well, yeah. Just like for liberals: launching the IRS at their friends is bad, launching the IRS at their enemies is good.
 
2013-07-15 04:52:48 PM  

Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?


In other words, let's fix the problem we lefties created by doing exactly what we've wanted since the beginning?
 
2013-07-15 04:53:11 PM  
All I know is... if you dont get picked up and cant pay them dues... the union disappears like a fart in a wind storm... For some union's, the concept has decayed into a business model where it looks after itself first...
 
2013-07-15 04:56:10 PM  

Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?

The dark blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through public means. The light blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through private means. The very light bar for the Netherlands represents direct out-of-pocket expenses that they cull out of private means. There is no relationship between the size of the bars and how large a proportion of the country's population has health insurance.


yes.. i can understand that.  my point about population is the top 5 counties by population are China, India, USA, Indonesia and Brazil.  its alot of people to cover and understanding the economy of scale  does it apply for Healthcare?  is it apples to apples?  even percentage wise..

everyone has babies.. is there a chart on the cost of delivering a baby as a percentage of annual salary?  and does the costs include the same items as other countries?    i can see charts for the USA but comparing to the rest of the world I find counter productive in the ACA discussion.
 
2013-07-15 04:58:23 PM  
I might cry, too, if I cared about what Unions thought.
 
2013-07-15 04:58:30 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?

The dark blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through public means. The light blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through private means. The very light bar for the Netherlands represents direct out-of-pocket expenses that they cull out of private means. There is no relationship between the size of the bars and how large a proportion of the country's population has health insurance.

yes.. i can understand that.  my point about population is the top 5 counties by population are China, India, USA, Indonesia and Brazil.  its alot of people to cover and understanding the economy of scale  does it apply for Healthcare?  is it apples to apples?  even percentage wise..

everyone has babies.. is there a chart on the cost of delivering a baby as a percentage of annual salary?  and does the costs include the same items as other countries?    i can see charts for the USA but comparing to the rest of the world I find counter productive in the ACA discussion.


What specific graphs would you concede to; list them.

Until then it's going to be a lot of information posts and you rejecting every single one of them.
 
2013-07-15 04:58:42 PM  

red5ish: tenpoundsofcheese: It is so cute that the union leaders and other uninformed people didn't understand the line: "if you like your plan, you can keep it".

no where was it ever promised that the employer has to keep providing that plan.


This is true, Obamacare or not.  Actually, most employers have been offering less and less and many have been eliminating coverage altogether.  That is why Obama was elected twice, running on platforms of healthcare reform.  Most people realize there is a need to increase access and contain costs.The Holy Free Market is not providing for efficient allocation in this area.
 
2013-07-15 05:02:52 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?

The dark blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through public means. The light blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through private means. The very light bar for the Netherlands represents direct out-of-pocket expenses that they cull out of private means. There is no relationship between the size of the bars and how large a proportion of the country's population has health insurance.

yes.. i can understand that.  my point about population is the top 5 counties by population are China, India, USA, Indonesia and Brazil.  its alot of people to cover and understanding the economy of scale  does it apply for Healthcare?  is it apples to apples?  even percentage wise..

everyone has babies.. is there a chart on the cost of delivering a baby as a percentage of annual salary?  and does the costs include the same items as other countries?    i can see charts for the USA but co ...


I can't do all of your research for you. There's a pile of information the size of a mountain range about the health care and insurance systems in first-world countries around the globe freely available on the internet. If you want it, you should look for it yourself.

Now if you want to pay me, I'll consider widening my stance...
 
2013-07-15 05:03:30 PM  
my point was just don't post graphs and point and say "look!!!"

How about a graph of UHC vs ACA vs Current Costs for a baby delivery?

Premiums of UHC vs ACA vs Medicare?   (Medicare just as a $100 a month baseline)
 
2013-07-15 05:04:07 PM  
I have a theory that unions knew perfectly well that this was going to happen. Unions membership has been dropping for years so they didn't fight a bad consequence that was obviously going to happen. Jobs get crappier, hours drop, and the unions stand by ready to swoop in and make everything better.
 
2013-07-15 05:05:16 PM  

Raharu: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?


Step 1: invent time machine.
Step 2: alter time line to avoid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Step 3: Profit Hitler and the Nazis win World War 2.


FTFY
 
2013-07-15 05:06:34 PM  

Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?

The dark blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through public means. The light blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through private means. The very light bar for the Netherlands represents direct out-of-pocket expenses that they cull out of private means. There is no relationship between the size of the bars and how large a proportion of the country's population has health insurance.

yes.. i can understand that.  my point about population is the top 5 counties by population are China, India, USA, Indonesia and Brazil.  its alot of people to cover and understanding the economy of scale  does it apply for Healthcare?  is it apples to apples?  even percentage wise..

everyone has babies.. is there a chart on the cost of delivering a baby as a percentage of annual salary?  and does the costs include the same items as other countries?    i can see charts for the USA but co ...

I can't do all of your research for you. There's a pile of information the size of a mountain range about the health care and insurance systems in first-world countries around the globe freely available on the internet. If you want it, you should look for it yourself.

Now if you want to pay me, I'll consider widening my stance...


He is a pigeon on a chessboard, at this point.

I'd forget it, personally.
 
2013-07-15 05:10:20 PM  

jjorsett: Aarontology: Conservatives: Outraged about how bad something it will be, until they realize it could be bad for someone they don't like. At which point, they're OK with it.

Well, yeah. Just like for liberals: launching the IRS at their friends is bad, launching the IRS at their enemies is good.


When did that happen?
 
2013-07-15 05:10:57 PM  

rewind2846: b2theory: Do you have a pension?

1. What does that have to do with it?
2. You do know that many public sector employees contribute to their pensions, right?
3. You also know that many of those same employees will never collect social security as well?

Trying to get more for yourself instead of taking from someone else can be a good thing.


A_1: It makes a huge difference as nearly all private sector employees don't have defined benefits package. You are on your own. The reality is that if most private sector workers want to retire between 55-60 they are going to have to save much of that "additional" salary.

A_2: While it is true that many public sector employees pay into their pension, typically the government makes the lion share of the contribution. Also, if the investments that make up my 401k don't appreciate then I am SOL. If a public sector pension fund underperforms the shortfall will be made up by the tax payers(if they can afford it)

A_3: By many you mean roughly a quarter. If they won't receive Social Security that typically means they didn't pay SS taxes and their plans have been compensated.

I don't want to take anything away. I just think people with pensions should recognize that they have something of serious value.
 
2013-07-15 05:14:01 PM  

jjorsett: Well, yeah. Just like for liberals: launching the IRS at their friends is bad, launching the IRS at their enemies is good.


This is just sad.
No liberal ever supported that, and it didn't even happen.

Have to get in that BSABSVR quota, right?
 
2013-07-15 05:19:15 PM  

Testiclaw: He is a pigeon on a chessboard, at this point.


I've never heard this phrase before.  Then I interneted it, and find it appropriate.
 
2013-07-15 05:20:41 PM  

born_yesterday: Testiclaw: He is a pigeon on a chessboard, at this point.

I've never heard this phrase before.  Then I interneted it, and find it appropriate.


Verbing weirds things.
 
2013-07-15 05:21:03 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-15 05:21:27 PM  

rewind2846: Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.

Here's a thought... instead of trying to pull someone else down, why not boost yourself up?

Folks like you bending over and taking whatever your employers want to give them (or being a cheap ass if you are an employer) are what is destroying unions and making decent benefits and pensions, once a norm in the private sector, as rare as he's teeth today. You gave that all up on purpose, and now you want to take from those few who still have because you no longer have.

The ultimate in selfishness.


Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.
 
2013-07-15 05:22:31 PM  

SilentStrider: Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

Because obamacare will end all life in the universe and bring about the end times.

If the end times means I get to watch St. Peter laugh in a Republican's face when they ask to get into heaven, then bring 'em on.


I always imagined the Rapture as some sort of Outer Limits episode where the self-righteous get removed to their own world and it turns into hell while the Left Behind benefit from their departure.
 
2013-07-15 05:25:00 PM  

Cletus C.: Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.


And he's wrong because...?
 
2013-07-15 05:28:24 PM  

b2theory: I don't want to take anything away. I just think people with pensions should recognize that they have something of serious value.


They do have something of value... and so did a good portion of the people in the private sector at one time, along with high union membership. Yet in the decades after the 1960's they chose to give those things away, and now whine that they no longer exist. Or more precisely, that someone else has them.

Employers chose to implement 401k plans instead of defined benefits, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to redefine benefits packages to eliminate dental and vision plans, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to outsource and send as many jobs overseas as possible, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to cut hours and pay, citing "business reasons", code for "we have to buy the CEO another gold yacht and get shareholders another nickel per share", employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers now choose to blame the ACA for all their assholiness, and as usual employees will bend over and say "okay".

The private sector has given up it's most powerful force for equality, the union. It is their fault they have lost whatever little that public sector employees still have, and it is not right to try and take from those workers because of this.
My aunt calls this train of thought "crabs in a bucket", where in trying to get out of the trap crabs will fight and kill each other to get to the opening, dragging the other crabs down where they are.
 
2013-07-15 05:32:35 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: I have a theory that unions knew perfectly well that this was going to happen. Unions membership has been dropping for years so they didn't fight a bad consequence that was obviously going to happen. Jobs get crappier, hours drop, and the unions stand by ready to swoop in and make everything better.


Perhaps...  Health insurance is supposed to be a Union-negotiated benefit.  Now that everyone must have health insurance and anyone who cant afford it goes on a state exchange, there's no point in paying dues to get what you could get for free anyway.

Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?


Healthcare used to be an untaxed benefit that an employer would throw into your compensation package as an added bonus - so in a sense, the income tax is to thank for us even looking to our employers for health insurance.

Why I cant consult my doctor, buy an insurance plan that they suggest I get, pay for it, take it across state lines if I need to, change it as my health needs change, and keep all information between myself, my doctor and my family makes too much sense.  Thats why we cant have it.
 
2013-07-15 05:34:10 PM  

Cletus C.: Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.


I'm not in any union, and I'm not a public employee. I work in the private sector, and am fortunate enough to be employed by a place where they have a full benefits package plus a 401k and a company paid for pension plan.

What you need to do is to realize that over the last 30 or so years your employers and their puppetmasters on Wall street have f*cked you raw and bleeding, and you let them. At least a union would have given you a condom and some lube.
 
2013-07-15 05:38:39 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Cletus C.: Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.

And he's wrong because...?


Well, lets rewind (Ha!) the conversation if we're going to do that.

rewind2846: Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.

Here's a thought... instead of trying to pull someone else down, why not boost yourself up?

Folks like you bending over and taking whatever your employers want to give them (or being a cheap ass if you are an employer) are what is destroying unions and making decent benefits and pensions, once a norm in the private sector, as rare as he's teeth today. You gave that all up on purpose, and now you want to take from those few who still have because you no longer have.

The ultimate in selfishness.


Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.
First, I was making an observation that I expect some backlash against government union employees as the ACA kicks in. The deals they have negotiated will look pretty darn nice compared with the level of coverage and cost many, many employees outside government will be up against.

Just an observation.

Then it becomes me attacking unions, being jealous of union workers, me trying to destroy unions, me bending over and taking it from the man because I'm not in a union. And I apparently gave something up on purpose and now resent unions and union workers because of that.

It's pure union dogma. Not based in fact, personal or otherwise, in this case. In a union hall it's something you can nod your head, chant, dance and more to. But in this context it's just a slab of rotting hyperbole slapped down by rote.
 
2013-07-15 05:39:31 PM  

jst3p: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

You should take another economics class, it is a lot more complicated than that.


Next semester he'll get to take ECON 102-Macroeconomics. I predict he still won't understand.
 
2013-07-15 05:41:14 PM  
Well the dreams of our grandfathers ("The Jetsons and all that") were that we would all work 20 hours a week jobs has finally come true!

The reality that is our nightmare is that you need three of them just to survive.
 
2013-07-15 05:43:21 PM  

rewind2846: Cletus C.: Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.

I'm not in any union, and I'm not a public employee. I work in the private sector, and am fortunate enough to be employed by a place where they have a full benefits package plus a 401k and a company paid for pension plan.

What you need to do is to realize that over the last 30 or so years your employers and their puppetmasters on Wall street have f*cked you raw and bleeding, and you let them. At least a union would have given you a condom and some lube.


Actually, I'm good. Financially and mentally.
 
2013-07-15 05:45:07 PM  

trey101: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

butt,butt, BUshia


trey101: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt

butt, butt, BUSH!


inigomontoya.jpg
 
2013-07-15 05:51:23 PM  

rewind2846: b2theory: I don't want to take anything away. I just think people with pensions should recognize that they have something of serious value.

They do have something of value... and so did a good portion of the people in the private sector at one time, along with high union membership. Yet in the decades after the 1960's they chose to give those things away, and now whine that they no longer exist. Or more precisely, that someone else has them.

Employers chose to implement 401k plans instead of defined benefits, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to redefine benefits packages to eliminate dental and vision plans, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to outsource and send as many jobs overseas as possible, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to cut hours and pay, citing "business reasons", code for "we have to buy the CEO another gold yacht and get shareholders another nickel per share", employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers now choose to blame the ACA for all their assholiness, and as usual employees will bend over and say "okay".

The private sector has given up it's most powerful force for equality, the union. It is their fault they have lost whatever little that public sector employees still have, and it is not right to try and take from those workers because of this.
My aunt calls this train of thought "crabs in a bucket", where in trying to get out of the trap crabs will fight and kill each other to get to the opening, dragging the other crabs down where they are.


Something to keep in mind: the growth and proftability of publically-traded private sector companies is what funds most pensions public/private.

For example, the pension fund for Minnesota's teachers has to have annual returns in excess of 9% in order to be solvent over the long term. Since they are at the same trough as everyone else, they are drivers of the behavior you describe.

The rules are simple: maximize returns for your shareholders. It sucks when you are in a stagnant company. It is great when you are a shareholder. It's amusing when most people forget that they are the share holders.
 
2013-07-15 05:52:00 PM  

Cletus C.: Then it becomes me attacking unions, being jealous of union workers, me trying to destroy unions, me bending over and taking it from the man because I'm not in a union. And I apparently gave something up on purpose and now resent unions and union workers because of that.

It's pure union dogma. Not based in fact, personal or otherwise, in this case. In a union hall it's something you can nod your head, chant, dance and more to. But in this context it's just a slab of rotting hyperbole slapped down by rote.


You keep telling yourself that. The rest of us have actually noticed as the private sector gave up their pensions, benefits, and job security.
 
2013-07-15 05:58:01 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Company A dies of talent attrition.

Edited for accuracy.


Not if it's big enough to buy congressmen. See GM. A company large enough to buy congressmen and threaten everyone by holding a knife to the throats of a million jobs.
 
2013-07-15 05:59:42 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Cletus C.: Then it becomes me attacking unions, being jealous of union workers, me trying to destroy unions, me bending over and taking it from the man because I'm not in a union. And I apparently gave something up on purpose and now resent unions and union workers because of that.

It's pure union dogma. Not based in fact, personal or otherwise, in this case. In a union hall it's something you can nod your head, chant, dance and more to. But in this context it's just a slab of rotting hyperbole slapped down by rote.

You keep telling yourself that. The rest of us have actually noticed as the private sector gave up their pensions, benefits, and job security.


Here's a hint for you. Your job is only as secure as your employer. Your pension and benefits, much the same, though in a more complicated and varying way.
 
2013-07-15 06:03:05 PM  

Serious Black: Sigh. Avik, you have proven time and time again that you are a moronic hack who carries water for the GOP. I refuse to read your articles anymore unless given cause.


Yeah. I read the article long enough to figure out he was full of shiat. Hoffa isn't blaming Obamacare for union workers losing benefits. He's pointing out there's a loophole that employers are beginning to exploit, that part-time workers don't have to be provided insurance. Then, he's urging them to act on it.

But it's a much better talking point to say "Look. Obama sighObummer sigh 0bummercare is so bad even the Unions hate it."

This is why I have no respect for conservatives.
 
2013-07-15 06:05:22 PM  

b2theory: If you want to stop this.....Start publishing the names of companies that do this and start boycotting them.

Consumer spending makes up more than 70 percent of our economy. Even a small shift in public perception can really effect the bottom line.

Papa John's founder figured this out pretty quick.


No silly, that's bullying and totally doesn't do anything to get your point across AND it hurts a business owner's precious feewers. Can't have that.
 
2013-07-15 06:07:48 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.


How dare you sully the good name of Choo Choo Bear with your outright lies. For shame.
 
2013-07-15 06:11:04 PM  

IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.


If you really think that corporations haven't already been pulling the "part-time no benefits" stunt, then I have a bridge on the moon to sell you.

/nice assumption, but it makes your butt look big
 
2013-07-15 06:11:05 PM  

b2theory: The rules are simple: maximize returns for your shareholders. It sucks when you are in a stagnant company. It is great when you are a shareholder. It's amusing when most people forget that they are the share holders.


Most private companies have always had to deal with shareholders, both internal and external. Problem is there used to be more of a balance between shareholder expectations and the needs of employees. Make no mistake, the corporations still owned the field and they still held the majority of power vs employees, but the "shareholders always come first at all cost" mentality wasn't as widespread or virulent as it is today. That is where the problem lies, and that is how the employees get screwed.

The purpose of a business is to provide goods and services to its customers, and make a profit in doing so. Those profits then are used to hire and train new employees for expanding production, increasing the pay of employees who show initiative and/or are loyal to the company and its goals, investing in the physical plant to streamline that same production, and pay shareholders. The shareholder comes last because in a system where all the other parts are working correctly they can be guaranteed good returns.

Customers, employees, workplace, shareholders - in that order.
That paradigm has been farked five ways to infinity, and it's the employees who get the shaft.
 
2013-07-15 06:16:26 PM  

dehehn: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

Because it's not the much simpler and less confusing single-payer method which would undoubtedly provide cheaper better care as has been proven in most of Europe.


It's still a step up from what we had. Most Americans are still stupid enough to think that even this is socialism.

Baby steps. Baby steps so we don't scare the precious simpletons.
 
2013-07-15 06:20:25 PM  
tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


Can I just... that was said today... it's fascinating, really. Glad we've had discussions about these things before when a certain someone just doesn't know.
 
2013-07-15 06:20:30 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.

If you really think that corporations haven't already been pulling the "part-time no benefits" stunt, then I have a bridge on the moon to sell you.

/nice assumption, but it makes your butt look big


Now they have an extra bargaining chip. "I can only offer you part time. My hands are tied. You know, Obamacare. That's the way it is with everyone now. "
 
2013-07-15 06:23:12 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: everyone has babies..


No.
 
2013-07-15 06:23:57 PM  

jigger: The My Little Pony Killer: IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.

If you really think that corporations haven't already been pulling the "part-time no benefits" stunt, then I have a bridge on the moon to sell you.

/nice assumption, but it makes your butt look big

Now they have an extra bargaining chip. "I can only offer you part time. My hands are tied. You know, Obamacare. That's the way it is with everyone now. "


"That's fine. I was holding out for another position with a different company anyway, and their hands definitely aren't tied by this. Good luck with your search for applicants!"
 
2013-07-15 06:34:05 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: "That's fine. I was holding out for another position with a different company anyway, and their hands definitely aren't tied by this. Good luck with your search for applicants!"


Not everyone has this option. That is why the bargaining chip works. The individual means nothing to the corporation, and never has. The group, on the other hand...
 
2013-07-15 06:43:17 PM  
The truthiest part has yet to be realized by those who still support Obamacare: it is completely unsustainable.
 
2013-07-15 06:44:41 PM  

highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.


Prove it.
 
2013-07-15 06:50:15 PM  

WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.


Google it.
 
2013-07-15 06:52:58 PM  

vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]


[bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jp g ] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg]

Seriously, these people act like strategically keeping workers just below full time so they don't qualify for benefits is a new thing.  It's not; just ask the folks who work at Wal-Mart.
 
2013-07-15 06:53:36 PM  

highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.


FTFY.
 
2013-07-15 06:53:39 PM  
Unions seemed to do a great job in Detroit , that and years of democratic leadership...they must be doing great
 
2013-07-15 06:57:01 PM  

tbhouston: Unions seemed to do a great job in Detroit , that and years of democratic leadership...they must be doing great


That and the inept leadership at the big three in Detroit as well as the failure of local and state leaders to help diversify the economy more to get it beyond being totally dependent on one segment of the manufacturing industry. But we never seem to blame those factors as much as they deserved to be blamed huh?

But I won't let you get in the way of your "HURR DURR DEMOCRATZ AND UNIONZ SUX!!!!1111!!!"
 
2013-07-15 06:58:05 PM  

HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.


Denier.
 
2013-07-15 06:59:26 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt


B-b-b-but Romney!
 
2013-07-15 07:01:33 PM  

tbhouston: Unions seemed to do a great job in Detroit , that and years of democratic leadership...they must be doing great


I really like it when people blame unions for Detroit's problems.
It's not as if the industrial base drying up and population/tax base rapidly diminishing as car manufacturers' management pissed away a 90% market share can be pinned solely on the guys who made the cars.
I know these people don't know their head from their ass, so I don't make the mistake of taking them seriously.
 
2013-07-15 07:02:20 PM  

highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.


Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?
 
2013-07-15 07:04:40 PM  

highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

Denier.


What have I denied, pray tell?
 
2013-07-15 07:04:47 PM  

HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.


I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.
 
2013-07-15 07:05:35 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: tbhouston: Unions seemed to do a great job in Detroit , that and years of democratic leadership...they must be doing great

I really like it when people blame unions for Detroit's problems.
It's not as if the industrial base drying up and population/tax base rapidly diminishing as car manufacturers' management pissed away a 90% market share can be pinned solely on the guys who made the cars.
I know these people don't know their head from their ass, so I don't make the mistake of taking them seriously.


"But...but...Unions!!!" is all they know. We can't speak ill of the Job Creators (ie: the inept leadership of Detroit's Big 3).

Pittsburgh had that same problem with the steel industry in the 1970's as that worked moved off shore. Pittsburgh then decided to invest in its schools and hospitals and now it's become more of a green biotech city than the steel city it once was. Detroit would be doing ok if it had a much more diversified economy even with the Big 3's piss-poor leadership.
 
2013-07-15 07:05:35 PM  

Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?


What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?
 
2013-07-15 07:07:39 PM  

highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.


Well, if it's so easy, why don't you Google it?  And come back and tell us what you found.  You know, rather than making bare assertions and engaging in a variety of other logical fallacies.
 
2013-07-15 07:08:15 PM  

highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?

What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?


What makes you think you can make an argument and not support it?
 
2013-07-15 07:09:02 PM  

highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?

What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?


Sanity and common sense is what makes me think that asking someone to "prove it" is valid. Asking someone for proof of an assertion is always valid.

You seem to now have a clue how debate on a subject works. When you make an assertion, it is your responsibility to back it up. If you cannot even make the slightest attempt to support your assertions, you get rightly laughed out of the room.
 
2013-07-15 07:09:55 PM  

HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?

What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?

What makes you think you can make an argument and not support it?


And what makes me think that someone who has made up their mind on the other side of the argument would appreciate the sources that I cite?
 
2013-07-15 07:10:24 PM  
I tried to tell you people long before Bush signed Obamacare into law that it was a bad idea but you wouldn't listen.
 
2013-07-15 07:11:03 PM  

highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?

What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?

What makes you think you can make an argument and not support it?

And what makes me think that someone who has made up their mind on the other side of the argument would appreciate the sources that I cite?


I don't know.  Why don't you cite some and we'll see how credible they are, instead of repeatedly poisoning the well and lobbing ad hominems?
 
2013-07-15 07:12:15 PM  

highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.


And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.
 
2013-07-15 07:14:19 PM  

highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?

What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?

What makes you think you can make an argument and not support it?

And what makes me think that someone who has made up their mind on the other side of the argument would appreciate the sources that I cite?


Ah yes, the old "I'd cite sources but you won't believe them so I won't! Harumph!" A great way to loudly proclaim "I got nothing" while at the same time demonstrating the maturity of a ninth grader.

Please, do go on.
 
2013-07-15 07:14:29 PM  

Thrag: highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.

And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.


It's a terrible debate strategy.  I didn't want to debate.  I stated an opinion based upon what I have read in the past four years or so.  I stated my opinion that it is unsustainable.  You guys are the one's who want to debate it.
 
2013-07-15 07:15:06 PM  

rewind2846: b2theory: The rules are simple: maximize returns for your shareholders. It sucks when you are in a stagnant company. It is great when you are a shareholder. It's amusing when most people forget that they are the share holders.

Most private companies have always had to deal with shareholders, both internal and external. Problem is there used to be more of a balance between shareholder expectations and the needs of employees. Make no mistake, the corporations still owned the field and they still held the majority of power vs employees, but the "shareholders always come first at all cost" mentality wasn't as widespread or virulent as it is today. That is where the problem lies, and that is how the employees get screwed.

The purpose of a business is to provide goods and services to its customers, and make a profit in doing so. Those profits then are used to hire and train new employees for expanding production, increasing the pay of employees who show initiative and/or are loyal to the company and its goals, investing in the physical plant to streamline that same production, and pay shareholders. The shareholder comes last because in a system where all the other parts are working correctly they can be guaranteed good returns.

Customers, employees, workplace, shareholders - in that order.
That paradigm has been farked five ways to infinity, and it's the employees who get the shaft.


First, "the shareholders always come first at all cost" has always been there going back to English Common Law. The officers of a company have a fiduciary responsibility to them.

Second, you have outlined a cartoonish description of what is to be done with profits. The first thing to remember is that they belong to the shareholder's and not to anyone else (from line worker to the CEO). The leadership of the company(corporate officers and board) should allocate that capital if there is a justifiable return on its allocation. Otherwise, that capital should be returned to the shareholders.

My point earlier is this: most retirement schemes are not pay as you go. They require gradual savings and (primarily) compounding returns on the accumulating principle. If corporate leadership stopped delivering that return then the compounding would stop.

Another way of looking at it: It is highly likely that Exxon Mobile's profits help pay for California Teachers to retire.
 
2013-07-15 07:18:37 PM  

highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.

And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.

It's a terrible debate strategy.  I didn't want to debate.  I stated an opinion based upon what I have read in the past four years or so.  I stated my opinion that it is unsustainable.  You guys are the one's who want to debate it.


Ah, so you just wanted to take a dump on the thread and run since you have neither the ability or inclination to support your statements.
 
2013-07-15 07:20:33 PM  

highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.

And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.

It's a terrible debate strategy.  I didn't want to debate.  I stated an opinion based upon what I have read in the past four years or so.  I stated my opinion that it is unsustainable.  You guys are the one's who want to debate it.


Ah, I see.  So you just came into this thread to sniff your own farts.
 
2013-07-15 07:26:25 PM  

b2theory: The first thing to remember is that they belong to the shareholder's


The first thing to remember is that without the company, the employee, and the customer, the shareholder has precisely dick, and that is precisely what they should be owed until those things are taken care of.
 
2013-07-15 07:36:21 PM  

highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.


Hitchen's Razor
 
2013-07-15 07:41:34 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: The first thing to remember is that they belong to the shareholder's

The first thing to remember is that without the company, the employee, and the customer, the shareholder has precisely dick, and that is precisely what they should be owed until those things are taken care of.


Thanks for getting to this before i did, Sarge. Perhaps b2 missed the part where I wrote "The shareholder comes last because in a system where all the other parts are working correctly they can be guaranteed good returns." If all the other parts are working correctly - good profits from hard workers who are paid decently and like their jobs, return customers from the sale of good products and services, and a corporate structure that rewards people for hard work and loyalty, the shareholders get profits. If they are not, the shareholders get dick - unless they are willing to cannibalize the company.

Unfortunately those corporate shareholders have turned to downsizing/rightsizing/layoffs/outsourcing, cutting back on benefits for the employees that are left, cutting corners on quality and service and general assholiness to make short term share value increases, instead of using long term strategies like the ones I mentioned for continuous and steady shareholder returns. The employee has once again be relegated to the bottom of the sh*tpile, as it was before unions, in the gilded age when robber barons not only ran government - in may cases they were the government (Tammany Hall is a good example).
 
2013-07-15 07:42:27 PM  
We should go single payer and save hundreds of billions of dollars. It works in many places around the world.
 
2013-07-15 07:48:19 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.


That's some cutting-edge original material right there, dick.
 
2013-07-15 07:49:07 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: The first thing to remember is that they belong to the shareholder's

The first thing to remember is that without the company, the employee, and the customer, the shareholder has precisely dick, and that is precisely what they should be owed until those things are taken care of.


You're free to feel that way, but it isn't reality.

I don't like it. It doesn't fit my own idealized vision for our economy. However, it is the way things are.
 
2013-07-15 07:51:21 PM  

rewind2846: Employers chose to implement 401k plans instead of defined benefits, employees bent over and said "okay".


Fark yeah.  I don't trust that anyone will be there to pay my pension in 40 years.  I do trust that my 401K will be (barring MAJOR financial issues or 30-40 years of the hardcore leftist wing of the Democratic Party Rule).  So gimme, gimme, gimme.
 
2013-07-15 07:51:43 PM  

Phil McKraken: We should go single payer and save hundreds of billions of dollars. It works in many places around the world.


While single payer would be great, I believe that the German sickness fund model might work better here. Or at the very least be something that will be easier to enact than single payer given America's very special political climate.

Private insurance companies that have to offer a fairly complete basic insurance package on a not for profit basis. Supplemental insurance can operate on a for profit basis. Insurance plans for the poor are subsidized.
 
2013-07-15 07:57:32 PM  

Thrag: While single payer would be great, I believe that the German sickness fund model might work better here. Or at the very least be something that will be easier to enact than single payer given America's very special political climate.


It's okay, you're among friends. You can say retarded.
 
2013-07-15 08:03:01 PM  

xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...


Obamacare has about 1% in common with the Heritage plan.  Other than that, totes the same.
 
2013-07-15 08:03:37 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt


Things a low information voter would say for 500 alex.
 
2013-07-15 08:09:18 PM  

rewind2846: Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: The first thing to remember is that they belong to the shareholder's

The first thing to remember is that without the company, the employee, and the customer, the shareholder has precisely dick, and that is precisely what they should be owed until those things are taken care of.

Thanks for getting to this before i did, Sarge. Perhaps b2 missed the part where I wrote "The shareholder comes last because in a system where all the other parts are working correctly they can be guaranteed good returns." If all the other parts are working correctly - good profits from hard workers who are paid decently and like their jobs, return customers from the sale of good products and services, and a corporate structure that rewards people for hard work and loyalty, the shareholders get profits. If they are not, the shareholders get dick - unless they are willing to cannibalize the company.

Unfortunately those corporate shareholders have turned to downsizing/rightsizing/layoffs/outsourcing, cutting back on benefits for the employees that are left, cutting corners on quality and service and general assholiness to make short term share value increases, instead of using long term strategies like the ones I mentioned for continuous and steady shareholder returns. The employee has once again be relegated to the bottom of the sh*tpile, as it was before unions, in the gilded age when robber barons not only ran government - in may cases they were the government (Tammany Hall is a good example).


Go back and read my post. If that was your only take away than you are hopeless.

While customers and employees are both extremely important, a public company places shareholder value above both. If you don't like that, don't work for one and don't own one. The company does not exist to enrich the employee. It will do that if it is successful!

You don't owe the company anything! Nor does it owe you anything other than what it has agreed to pay you.

I have worked for both giant public companies and small private shops. I personally prefer the small shop. I know the owner(s) and I have a relationship beyond my employment.

You need to acknowledge that this system is what facilitates "lavish" union pensions.
 
2013-07-15 08:09:29 PM  

Thrag: highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.

And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.

It's a terrible debate strategy.  I didn't want to debate.  I stated an opinion based upon what I have read in the past four years or so.  I stated my opinion that it is unsustainable.  You guys are the one's who want to debate it.

Ah, so you just wanted to take a dump on the thread and run since you have neither the ability or inclination to support your statements.


HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.

And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.

It's a terrible debate strategy.  I didn't want to debate.  I stated an opinion based upon what I have read in the past four years or so.  I stated my opinion that it is unsustainable.  You guys are the one's who want to debate it.

Ah, I see.  So you just came into this thread to sniff your own farts.


I can't stand political snobs who put the burden of proof on people who disagree with their POV.  So here's your damned proof:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

in case you're too lazy/ignorant to click:  FTFA:

"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.  "

So, please, PROVE where that revenue will come from.

/How bout them apples!?!?
//white-knight.
 
2013-07-15 08:09:33 PM  

MyRandomName: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

Obamacare has about 1% in common with the Heritage plan.  Other than that, totes the same.


What isn't in common with the Heritage plan?
 
2013-07-15 08:11:56 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: in case you're too lazy/ignorant to click:  FTFA:

"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.  "

So, please, PROVE where that revenue will come from.

/How bout them apples!?!?
//white-knight.


From your link:

"Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade "

I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?
 
2013-07-15 08:12:44 PM  

MyRandomName: Obamacare has about 1% in common with the Heritage plan.


The mandate for starters...
 
2013-07-15 08:13:02 PM  
Also, from the CBO scoring of one of the ACA repeal bills, HR 6079:


What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
 
2013-07-15 08:13:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mr Rogers is aroused: in case you're too lazy/ignorant to click:  FTFA:

"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.  "

So, please, PROVE where that revenue will come from.

/How bout them apples!?!?
//white-knight.

From your link:

"Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade "

I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?


we were talking about whether ACA is sustainable.  Which would mean it would need to generate revenues equal to its expenditures.  You are claiming that it will reduce the deficits by $142 billion per year FY 14-19.

Prove it.
 
2013-07-15 08:14:48 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: we were talking about whether ACA is sustainable.  Which would mean it would need to generate revenues equal to its expenditures.  You are claiming that it will reduce the deficits by $142 billion per year FY 14-19.

Prove it.


How is reducing the federal budget deficit unsustainable?
 
2013-07-15 08:15:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Also, from the CBO scoring of one of the ACA repeal bills, HR 6079:


What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.


thank you.  Im sure HBK and Thrag thank you more though.  You white-knighted them out of a hypocritical corner.

/Has no dog in this fight.
 
2013-07-15 08:17:01 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: thank you.  Im sure HBK and Thrag thank you more though.  You white-knighted them out of a hypocritical corner


What are you talking about?
 
2013-07-15 08:21:30 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mr Rogers is aroused: thank you.  Im sure HBK and Thrag thank you more though.  You white-knighted them out of a hypocritical corner

What are you talking about?


im thanking you for using data to support your differing opinion.  It's like a unicorn here, i know.
 
2013-07-15 08:22:44 PM  

b2theory: While customers and employees are both extremely important, a public company places shareholder value above both. If you don't like that, don't work for one and don't own one. The company does not exist to enrich the employee. It will do that if it is successful!


I've got a comparison of worker productivity and wages graph lying around here someplace that would seem to disagree. Ah here it is...

thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-15 08:23:16 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: cameroncrazy1984: Mr Rogers is aroused: thank you.  Im sure HBK and Thrag thank you more though.  You white-knighted them out of a hypocritical corner

What are you talking about?

im thanking you for using data to support your differing opinion.  It's like a unicorn here, i know.


It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
 
2013-07-15 08:23:32 PM  

b2theory: You're free to feel that way, but it isn't reality.

I don't like it. It doesn't fit my own idealized vision for our economy. However, it is the way things are.


The reality is that shareholders are cannibalizing the economy because they're given preference over the company, the employees, and the customers with none of the responsibilities. You can cling to the fiduciary duty bullshiat all you like, but if you keep giving a non-productive, non-responsible party the lion's share of profits, you're never going to approach anything that resembles sustainability. It's a recipe for disaster and it gets a little closer to the brink every time they roll back worker protections.
 
2013-07-15 08:31:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Also, from the CBO scoring of one of the ACA repeal bills, HR 6079:


What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.


Ah.. i misread your quote.  There's the confusion.  The OP argued that obamacare is unsustainable.  Thrag and HBK tried to argue that he must prove it's unsustainable.

My link proved that -> " In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period."

You tried to interject, making this really farking confusing.  The point remains.  It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue.  Therefore... wait for it.... IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.  Can we just go have a beer now?  This is a useless tangent.  I was merely trying to prove, and did with your help, to Thrag, HBK and co that whilst I couldnt care less either way, the idea that it was on the 'unsustainable' crowd to prove anything was silly.  If you support ACA, you must prove it's not another debt to our children...
 
2013-07-15 08:36:34 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: cameroncrazy1984: Also, from the CBO scoring of one of the ACA repeal bills, HR 6079:


What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

Ah.. i misread your quote.  There's the confusion.  The OP argued that obamacare is unsustainable.  Thrag and HBK tried to argue that he must prove it's unsustainable.

My link proved that -> " In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period."

You tried to interject, making this really farking confusing.  The point remains.  It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue.  Therefore... wait for it.... IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.  Can we just go have a beer now?  This is a useless tangent.  I was merely trying to prove, and did with your help, to Thrag, HBK and co that whilst I couldnt care less either way, the idea that it was on the 'unsustainable' crowd to prove anything was silly.  If you support ACA, you must prove it's not another debt to our children...


lol, i get what you were saying after re-re-re-reading.  IF HR 6079 is passed, CBO is saying it would have an increase of 109 billion.  I see what you're doing there.  But we aren't talking about 6079.  We're talking about ACA and it's $142billion a year price tag....
 
2013-07-15 08:37:53 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: You tried to interject, making this really farking confusing.  The point remains.  It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue.  Therefore... wait for it.... IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.


For a very restricted value of unsustainable I suppose that's true. The question is whether the difference between the cost and what it saves / produces in revenue is a good value and benefits the nation. Honestly, based on your usage of the word, it can be easily argued the that pre-Obamacare health care system was unsustainable as well. In fact, I believe that was one of the primary motivators for health care reform.
 
2013-07-15 08:38:04 PM  
so, to all of the ACA supporters:  How does it create $142billion a year in revenues/deficit reductions?  I'm not trying to troll.  If you can show me the money, I will support it.  Otherwise, it's a bill for my kids.
 
2013-07-15 08:40:30 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Mr Rogers is aroused: You tried to interject, making this really farking confusing.  The point remains.  It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue.  Therefore... wait for it.... IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.

For a very restricted value of unsustainable I suppose that's true. The question is whether the difference between the cost and what it saves / produces in revenue is a good value and benefits the nation. Honestly, based on your usage of the word, it can be easily argued the that pre-Obamacare health care system was unsustainable as well. In fact, I believe that was one of the primary motivators for health care reform.


my opinion would be that because it's centralized, mandated, and govt run, it's a guarantee that it will be a DIRECT EXPENSE on me and my children.  Vs the old system that was so indirect in it's cost to me that it was invisible.
 
2013-07-15 08:43:29 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue


No it won't. It will reduce deficits. Did you even read my citations? The federal budget deficit is made up of more than just healthcare-related expenses.
 
2013-07-15 08:44:45 PM  

vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.


So if there's a fire and someone throws gasoline on it, that's OK because the fire was already there?
 
2013-07-15 08:45:51 PM  

b2theory: You need to acknowledge that this system is what facilitates "lavish" union pensions.


You need to acknowledge that those "lavish" pensions (I have a pension and am non union - did I just divide by zero in your head?) are what people in the private sector used to have and took for granted as a normal course of doing business, until they let their employers, corporations and wall street f*ck them out of it.

The solution is not to tear everyone else down, but to build yourself up. If you want some of those "lavish union pensions" (which aren't), them form a union and get them.
 
2013-07-15 08:46:11 PM  

BMFPitt: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

So if there's a fire and someone throws gasoline on it, that's OK because the fire was already there?


Who's throwing gasoline on it? You're saying that we shouldn't be trying to provide health insurance for everybody?
 
2013-07-15 08:46:36 PM  

rewind2846: If you want some of those "lavish union pensions" (which aren't), then form a union and get them.


/FTFM
 
2013-07-15 08:46:44 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: so, to all of the ACA supporters:  How does it create $142billion a year in revenues/deficit reductions?  I'm not trying to troll.  If you can show me the money, I will support it.  Otherwise, it's a bill for my kids.


That's probably wrapped up a combination of the mandate and the fact that the federal government currently subsidizes hospitals for unpaid emergency care services.

Our health care system is in a death spiral. An increasing number of people are going without health care coverage, medical cost related bankruptcies are up, costs to people who do carry insurance is increasing to help cover costs for those who don't which drives increasing numbers out of the pool of people with coverage. Obamacare will slow the spiral by getting an increased number of people back into the system but honestly that just sets the clock back a few decades. We'll need to go to government backed single payer or, eventually, the entire system will collapse.
 
m00
2013-07-15 08:48:18 PM  

Scrotastic Method: So it's not ObamaCare that's doing this, but rather the companies are finding every trick and loophole they can to continue to dick over the workforce in order to scrounge out every last greasy penny they can? Gee, wonder why Forbes didn't report that.


Loopholes exist to be used. They are written specifically so they can be used, lobbied for by corporations with the intent of using them.
The problem isn't that corporations will use these loopholes, the problem is Obamacare was written with them.
 
2013-07-15 08:51:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: BMFPitt: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

So if there's a fire and someone throws gasoline on it, that's OK because the fire was already there?

Who's throwing gasoline on it? You're saying that we shouldn't be trying to provide health insurance for everybody?


"Insurance" as it exists in the US currently? Fark no.

Nationalized catastrophic health coverage? Sure, I'd be fine with that.
 
2013-07-15 08:55:40 PM  

m00: The problem isn't that corporations will use these loopholes, the problem is Obamacare was written with them.


I'd say that both of those are problems. The idea that corporations have a responsibility to essentially be sociopathic monsters needs to go. Corporations originally had a very limited lifespan, a very narrow purvue, and were required to operate in the public interest. It might be a good idea to turn the clock back a bit and require that corporations operate not only in the interest of their shareholders but in the interest of their employees and the larger community.
 
2013-07-15 08:55:54 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: I can't stand political snobs who put the burden of proof on people who disagree with their POV. So here's your damned proof:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

in case you're too lazy/ignorant to click: FTFA:

"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. "


How exactly does that constitute proof that the ACA is unsustainable? From what you quoted it seems the estimated cost has been reduced from $759b to $710b. So the estimated cost going down makes something unsustainable? What is your argument exactly?
 
2013-07-15 08:56:27 PM  

m00: The problem isn't that corporations will use these loopholes, the problem is Obamacare was written with them.


Which the corporations instructed their republican puppets to insist that they be included or the ACA would not pass. It's like making sure that I contribute lots of money to my local politician's re-election fund in return for her vote on whether the new road to be built in my city runs right past the empty plot of land I just bought. Land which will be a new shopping center by the time the road in complete.

If the loopholes weren't there, there would be no ACA. That's how politics works.
 
2013-07-15 08:58:13 PM  
In Pelosi's own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

/The unions are going to love Immigration Reform once we find out what's in it.
//Lower wages and a higher supply of labor. Simple economics.
 
2013-07-15 08:59:10 PM  

Thrag: How exactly does that constitute proof that the ACA is unsustainable? From what you quoted it seems the estimated cost has been reduced from $759b to $710b. So the estimated cost going down makes something unsustainable? What is your argument exactly?


As best I can tell, his argument is that it isn't revenue neutral and is therefore unsustainable. A few of his tax dollars might go to pay for the health care of one of his fellow citizens and he cannot abide the thought of it.
 
2013-07-15 08:59:44 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: thank you. Im sure HBK and Thrag thank you more though. You white-knighted them out of a hypocritical corner.

/Has no dog in this fight.


Hypocritical corner? How exactly? Can you explain what is hypocritical about asking someone to support the statements they make?

You not only don't have a dog in this fight, you don't have an argument or it seems a firm grasp on reality. I mean, your "proof" that it is unsustainable is that the cost estimate has dropped. What sort of twisted logic is involved in thinking that a cost estimate being reduced makes something unsustainable?
 
2013-07-15 09:02:28 PM  

Thrag: Mr Rogers is aroused: I can't stand political snobs who put the burden of proof on people who disagree with their POV. So here's your damned proof:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

in case you're too lazy/ignorant to click: FTFA:

"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. "

How exactly does that constitute proof that the ACA is unsustainable? From what you quoted it seems the estimated cost has been reduced from $759b to $710b. So the estimated cost going down makes something unsustainable? What is your argument exactly?


If the ACA costs $142 billion a year to sustain, where does that money come from?  I would assert as a proponent of this new expenditure, it is YOUR duty to prove where that money comes from.  But you and I know where it comes from if it can't be made through operational procedures (co-pays, cancellation fees, etc).  It comes from the taxpayers.  Because it's a federally backed program.

So will it be sustained?  Of course.  It's too big to fail.  So lets stop arguing about the ins-and-outs of the word sustainable.  It's not about that.  It's about who sustains it, how much it costs, and WHY WE NEED IT.  All of that lies on the proponent's shoulders to prove.  I'm not against this.  I just don't understand it's details enough to say "sign me up".  Please, in all sincerity, enlighten me.  I love knowledge, and i'll change my opinion almost instantly if it can be taught to me in a no BS kind of way.
 
2013-07-15 09:02:37 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: Ah.. i misread your quote. There's the confusion. The OP argued that obamacare is unsustainable. Thrag and HBK tried to argue that he must prove it's unsustainable.


I didn't "try to" argue anything. I asked someone to support their statements. Is the concept of asking someone to back their assertions strange to you? Here in reality it is pretty much standard operating procedure for people with the capacity for critical thought. When someone makes a bold claim, it is their responsibility to support the claim. What problem do you have with this concept?
 
2013-07-15 09:07:56 PM  

Thrag: Mr Rogers is aroused: Ah.. i misread your quote. There's the confusion. The OP argued that obamacare is unsustainable. Thrag and HBK tried to argue that he must prove it's unsustainable.

I didn't "try to" argue anything. I asked someone to support their statements. Is the concept of asking someone to back their assertions strange to you? Here in reality it is pretty much standard operating procedure for people with the capacity for critical thought. When someone makes a bold claim, it is their responsibility to support the claim. What problem do you have with this concept?


it's an equally bold claim to make that it is sustainable in the fact that the ACA wouldn't tax the people where we haven't been taxed before.  So to see you in your glass house throwing rocks, I feel it is my job to not let that go unnoticed.  What is your proof that this isn't a form of elaborate cronyism that will be added to the debt clock?
 
2013-07-15 09:13:10 PM  

rewind2846: b2theory: You need to acknowledge that this system is what facilitates "lavish" union pensions.

You need to acknowledge that those "lavish" pensions (I have a pension and am non union - did I just divide by zero in your head?) are what people in the private sector used to have and took for granted as a normal course of doing business, until they let their employers, corporations and wall street f*ck them out of it.

The solution is not to tear everyone else down, but to build yourself up. If you want some of those "lavish union pensions" (which aren't), them form a union and get them.


Christ, you are a fool. I wish I had one. I'm not arguing against them. I am just pointing out the fact that your pension fund is causing public companies to behave this way. Your pension pays you primarily from investment returns. It was only able to do that because it was a shareholder in a company that had increasing shareholder value.

Pension funds are the largest group of shareholders on the planet.
 
2013-07-15 09:18:55 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: b2theory: While customers and employees are both extremely important, a public company places shareholder value above both. If you don't like that, don't work for one and don't own one. The company does not exist to enrich the employee. It will do that if it is successful!

I've got a comparison of worker productivity and wages graph lying around here someplace that would seem to disagree. Ah here it is...


Welcome to global competition. Bomb our global competitors out of the game like the 40s if you want a change
 
m00
2013-07-15 09:19:34 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I'd say that both of those are problems. The idea that corporations have a responsibility to essentially be sociopathic monsters needs to go. Corporations originally had a very limited lifespan, a very narrow purvue, and were required to operate in the public interest. It might be a good idea to turn the clock back a bit and require that corporations operate not only in the interest of their shareholders but in the interest of their employees and the larger community.


Actually, the purpose of a public corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's it. Anything else would be fraud. Imagine if you invested savings Random Corp's stock and and one day they gave all their money to charity so your stock was worth nothing. That's an extreme example to illustrate a point, but even if your stock lost 10% of it's value because Random Corp gave it back to the community, etc. They would be guilty of mismanaging your stock. Even if it was 5%. Private corporations can do what they want, but public corporations have a specific duty not to rip off shareholders.

So of course corporations are amoral entities. That is to say, they operate without morals either good or bad. They are focused on making money for shareholders. If left to their own devices, corporations would turn a capitalist system into an anti-capitalist system through monopolies, and price fixing and engaging in anti-competitive behavior with respect to labor (this is what Obamacare essentially is allowing). This is why we have regulations.

In short, regulations exist exactly to prevent a corporation's amoral behavior from becoming immoral behavior. As a Libertarian-minded person, in my mind "immoral behavior" in the legal sense refers specifically to violating people's individual rights (theft), or violating common rights of citizens (polluting ground water, etc), or engaging in anti-competitive behavior (which this is). You can define "immoral behavior" however you want in your mind -- and vote for the party that best represents your definitions -- but the principle is the same. The fact is, government dropped the ball here.
 
2013-07-15 09:24:43 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: You're free to feel that way, but it isn't reality.

I don't like it. It doesn't fit my own idealized vision for our economy. However, it is the way things are.

The reality is that shareholders are cannibalizing the economy because they're given preference over the company, the employees, and the customers with none of the responsibilities. You can cling to the fiduciary duty bullshiat all you like, but if you keep giving a non-productive, non-responsible party the lion's share of profits, you're never going to approach anything that resembles sustainability. It's a recipe for disaster and it gets a little closer to the brink every time they roll back worker protections.


They aren't "given" preference. They HAVE preference because they own the company.

I'm not a happy evangelist! I just hate when people refuse to recognize reality and the trade-offs that are being made.

My advice: if you want to change things, start a private business and don't take it public.
 
2013-07-15 09:25:01 PM  

b2theory: rewind2846: b2theory: You need to acknowledge that this system is what facilitates "lavish" union pensions.

You need to acknowledge that those "lavish" pensions (I have a pension and am non union - did I just divide by zero in your head?) are what people in the private sector used to have and took for granted as a normal course of doing business, until they let their employers, corporations and wall street f*ck them out of it.

The solution is not to tear everyone else down, but to build yourself up. If you want some of those "lavish union pensions" (which aren't), them form a union and get them.

Christ, you are a fool. I wish I had one. I'm not arguing against them. I am just pointing out the fact that your pension fund is causing public companies to behave this way. Your pension pays you primarily from investment returns. It was only able to do that because it was a shareholder in a company that had increasing shareholder value.

Pension funds are the largest group of shareholders on the planet.


You seem to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that rewind and I think shareholders should get nothing, ever. If so, you'd be wrong.
Increasing the share price above all else rather than building a sustainable business is poison that looks good in the short term, terrible in the long term. It will ultimately result in a loss to the shareholders when the business can no longer support itself.
 
m00
2013-07-15 09:26:14 PM  

rewind2846: Which the corporations instructed their republican puppets to insist that they be included or the ACA would not pass. It's like making sure that I contribute lots of money to my local politician's re-election fund in return for her vote on whether the new road to be built in my city runs right past the empty plot of land I just bought. Land which will be a new shopping center by the time the road in complete.

If the loopholes weren't there, there would be no ACA. That's how politics works.


I want to take the time to debunk this.


ACA didn't need Republicans to pass. At the time, both the house and the senate were Democrat controlled. You CANNOT blame Obamacare on Republicans. That's disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Democrats controlled 58.8% of the House and 58% of the Senate.

The good Senator from Delaware has a nice simple explanation of how a Bill becomes Law

http://www.coons.senate.gov/learn/bills/

Note you need a simple majority to turn a Bill into Law, which the Democrats easily had in both houses.
 
2013-07-15 09:26:15 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: If the ACA costs $142 billion a year to sustain, where does that money come from? I would assert as a proponent of this new expenditure, it is YOUR duty to prove where that money comes from. But you and I know where it comes from if it can't be made through operational procedures (co-pays, cancellation fees, etc). It comes from the taxpayers. Because it's a federally backed program.


I haven't made any assertions so it is not my duty to prove anything. However since I'm such a nice guy I'll help you out and answer your question with actual details instead of "google it" like the idiot you are white knighting for.

The ACA will be paid for by a combination of things. One of the largest factors is medicare cost savings. Fixing the so call "doughnut hole" is a major part of that reduced medicare spending. Adjustments to medicare advantage rates is another place where savings on that program will help pay for the provisions in the ACA. Reductions in other areas such as home health care reimbursements, what is called "disproportionate share hospital" reimbursements, the part D premium subsidy for high income earners, and reduced spending on the medicare improvement fund will also contribute to offsetting the costs of the ACA. In addition to saving in other areas, there will be increased revenue to help pay for the ACA. Medicare tax will be increased for high income earners. There are also taxes and fees on medical device makers, an excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans, and some addition fees that insurers will pay. The fines that individuals and businesses will end up paying for not getting or not providing (respectively) coverage will also help pay for the program.

Here's a page from the IRS that has information on all the new tax provisions.

So will it be sustained? Of course. It's too big to fail. So lets stop arguing about the ins-and-outs of the word sustainable. It's not about that. It's about who sustains it, how much it costs, and WHY WE NEED IT. All of that lies on the proponent's shoulders to prove. I'm not against this. I just don't understand it's details enough to say "sign me up". Please, in all sincerity, enlighten me. I love knowledge, and i'll change my opinion almost instantly if it can be taught to me in a no BS kind of way.

Nobody is arguing the "the ins-and-outs of the word sustainable ". At this point your argument seems to be "I'm totally ignorant, prove everything to me".
 
2013-07-15 09:33:10 PM  

b2theory: They aren't "given" preference. They HAVE preference because they own the company.


A shareholder isn't an owner, nor should they be treated like one.
If they want more of the rewards, they should accept more of the responsibility.

Oh, look at that...

b2theory: start a private business and don't take it public.


What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, amirite?

b2theory: I'm not a happy evangelist! I just hate when people refuse to recognize reality and the trade-offs that are being made.


Yes, reality sucks. I'm not arguing against its existence, just that the reality is self-destructive. What possible trade off is there in letting a non-productive, non-responsible shareholder have command over a business's money to the detriment of the business itself? As we were saying, what should happen is the company, employees, and customers come before the shareholder, because without any one of those three, the shareholder has nothing.
 
2013-07-15 09:33:18 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: Thrag: Mr Rogers is aroused: Ah.. i misread your quote. There's the confusion. The OP argued that obamacare is unsustainable. Thrag and HBK tried to argue that he must prove it's unsustainable.

I didn't "try to" argue anything. I asked someone to support their statements. Is the concept of asking someone to back their assertions strange to you? Here in reality it is pretty much standard operating procedure for people with the capacity for critical thought. When someone makes a bold claim, it is their responsibility to support the claim. What problem do you have with this concept?

it's an equally bold claim to make that it is sustainable in the fact that the ACA wouldn't tax the people where we haven't been taxed before.  So to see you in your glass house throwing rocks, I feel it is my job to not let that go unnoticed.  What is your proof that this isn't a form of elaborate cronyism that will be added to the debt clock?


So because I haven't proven a claim that I haven't made, I'm in a glass house throwing rocks? And after complaining that I haven't supported an argument I never made you ask me to prove a negative? Are you high?

Let's recap. You jumped into a conversation to white knight someone, posted "proof" of his claim that was not in any way shape or form actually proof of his claim (at best it was just the opposite). Called people hypocrites for not providing proof of assertions they did not make. Proclaimed your complete ignorance of the topic. Then put words into people mouths and complained that people have not proven your newly invented strawman arguments. Finally, asked people to prove a vague negative.

What do you do for your next trick?
 
2013-07-15 09:34:49 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: I was at a party this weekend and Obamacare showed up and double dipped


Probably something foreign-sounding, like Copenhagen.

Then again, using Red Man would probably cause a kerfuffle in the Democratic party. He really can't win.

/Especially when Michelle finds out.
 
m00
2013-07-15 09:36:26 PM  

m00: rewind2846: Which the corporations instructed their republican puppets to insist that they be included or the ACA would not pass. It's like making sure that I contribute lots of money to my local politician's re-election fund in return for her vote on whether the new road to be built in my city runs right past the empty plot of land I just bought. Land which will be a new shopping center by the time the road in complete.

If the loopholes weren't there, there would be no ACA. That's how politics works.

I want to take the time to debunk this.


ACA didn't need Republicans to pass. At the time, both the house and the senate were Democrat controlled. You CANNOT blame Obamacare on Republicans. That's disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Democrats controlled 58.8% of the House and 58% of the Senate.

The good Senator from Delaware has a nice simple explanation of how a Bill becomes Law

http://www.coons.senate.gov/learn/bills/

Note you need a simple majority to turn a Bill into Law, which the Democrats easily had in both houses.


This is actually how you know Obama's administration is not what Obama claimed it would be in the 2008 election
.
The Democrats held both houses by wide margins. They could have passed any bill they wanted. They could have passed national healthcare (true national healthcare) modeled on Canada's system or any European country. They could have passed true social security, and not this pyramid scheme we now have.

What instead they passed was the Republican proposal (handout to insurance companies) that Romney implemented. Democrats then blamed Republican obstructionism that it wasn't the perfect socialist system, and instead was just another corporate handout. right.

That should have told you how Obama would govern.
 
2013-07-15 09:37:14 PM  

m00: rewind2846: Which the corporations instructed their republican puppets to insist that they be included or the ACA would not pass. It's like making sure that I contribute lots of money to my local politician's re-election fund in return for her vote on whether the new road to be built in my city runs right past the empty plot of land I just bought. Land which will be a new shopping center by the time the road in complete.

If the loopholes weren't there, there would be no ACA. That's how politics works.

I want to take the time to debunk this.


ACA didn't need Republicans to pass. At the time, both the house and the senate were Democrat controlled. You CANNOT blame Obamacare on Republicans. That's disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Democrats controlled 58.8% of the House and 58% of the Senate.

The good Senator from Delaware has a nice simple explanation of how a Bill becomes Law

http://www.coons.senate.gov/learn/bills/

Note you need a simple majority to turn a Bill into Law, which the Democrats easily had in both houses.


So you are totally unaware of the existence of the filibuster and the recent history of the GOP using it to make it so that nothing can pass without 60 votes? Did you pay any attention to the actual events surrounding the debate over and eventual passage of the ACA?

If you want to play teacher, it helps to actually know what the fark you are talking about. Your attempt to educate others only demonstrates your ignorance.
 
2013-07-15 09:37:19 PM  

m00: Actually, the purpose of a public corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's it. Anything else would be fraud.


You need to study the history of the corporation as a business entity.

m00: Imagine if you invested savings Random Corp's stock and and one day they gave all their money to charity so your stock was worth nothing


You're purposefully distorting my point into a straw man. Currently corporations have only a single consideration: increasing shareholder value. This results in some pretty negative behavior as externalities are pushed on to the community and employees interests are a cost to be minimized. I was proposing that in addition to maximizing shareholder value, corporate charters could be modified to include not only shareholder but employee and community interests as well. Employee interests could be met by profit sharing. Community interests could be met by reducing externalities.

Now the first reaction to this is of course "how ever will we compete if shareholder value is not given absolute preeminence" but improving the position of workers strengthens the working and middle class who are the groups which engage in the lions share of economic activity.

I'd go so far as to speculate that the single minded focus on maximizing shareholder value has actually undermined long term stability and profitability of the entire business ecosystem with the exception of a small number of very large corporations.
 
2013-07-15 09:43:48 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: They aren't "given" preference. They HAVE preference because they own the company.

A shareholder isn't an owner, nor should they be treated like one.
If they want more of the rewards, they should accept more of the responsibility.

Oh, look at that... b2theory: start a private business and don't take it public.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, amirite?

b2theory: I'm not a happy evangelist! I just hate when people refuse to recognize reality and the trade-offs that are being made.

Yes, reality sucks. I'm not arguing against its existence, just that the reality is self-destructive. What possible trade off is there in letting a non-productive, non-responsible shareholder have command over a business's money to the detriment of the business itself? As we were saying, what should happen is the company, employees, and customers come before the shareholder, because without any one of those three, the shareholder has nothing.


First, the shareholder is the legal owner.

The trade-off I am pointing out is that pensions funds are allowed to prosper. We are our masters (worst enemies)
 
2013-07-15 09:44:40 PM  
To follow up my brief summary of the various ways the ACA will be paid for, here's a nice pie from the tax foundation:

taxfoundation.org

Details here
 
2013-07-15 09:50:54 PM  

b2theory: First, the shareholder is the legal owner.


And this is a terrible thing, because they do nothing to act like it. Non-productive, non-responsible. They're capital, nothing more, and putting capital before labor just leaves you with a pile of capital doing nothing.

b2theory: The trade-off I am pointing out is that pensions funds are allowed to prosper.


You've gone off the derp end. There's nothing about a focus on sustainable businesses (vs. maximizing shareholder value in the short term) that is anathema to pensions prospering. One could argue that a long term, lucrative businesses are ultimately better for investments for the pensions.
 
2013-07-15 09:58:45 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: If the ACA costs $142 billion a year to sustain, where does that money come from? I would assert as a proponent of this new expenditure, it is YOUR duty to prove where that money comes from. But you and I know where it comes from if it can't be made through operational procedures (co-pays, cancellation fees, etc). It comes from the taxpayers. Because it's a federally backed program.


What copays or cancellation fees?  The ACA isn't an insurance provider.  The ACA does mainly the following things:

A. Bunch of Medicare / Medicaid changes, overall saving a lot of money.
B. Penalties for middle- or high-income individuals that don't have health insurance, and medium to large businesses that don't offer health insurance.  Another major source of revenue.
C. Creates exchanges where people without insurance can purchase insurance at group rates.  The overhead here is paid for by fees for the insurance companies for listing their policies on the exchange, so this is revenue neutral.
D. A lot of new regulations on what insurance policies must cover.  No government spending here.
E. Tax credits for low and middle-income individuals and families who are purchasing their own health care.  Paid for by a combination of the Medicare changes + the penalties.
 
2013-07-15 10:05:42 PM  
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Choke on it, union biatches. It's what you wanted. So choke on it.
 
2013-07-15 10:15:34 PM  

Aarontology: Conservatives: Outraged about how bad something it will be, until they realize it could be bad for someone they don't like. At which point, they're OK with it.


No, we still hate it ... we just like the fact that the thing we hate is also screwing the people we hate (and that they are just figuring out they were used like pawns).
 
2013-07-15 10:19:19 PM  

SunsetLament: No, we still hate it ... we just like the fact that the thing we hate is also screwing the people we hate (and that they are just figuring out they were used like pawns).


Jesus, you can't even tell the truth without tacking on an additional lie.
 
2013-07-15 10:19:43 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: A shareholder isn't an owner, nor should they be treated like one.


I'm going to have to upgrade your Favorite tag from Economic Illiterate (Orange 5) to something stronger.
 
2013-07-15 10:24:12 PM  

BMFPitt: I'm going to have to upgrade your Favorite tag from Economic Illiterate (Orange 5) to something stronger.


Won't change the fact that value for the shareholder above all else is killing our economy, and if it's not stopped, capitalism.
 
2013-07-15 10:31:36 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: SunsetLament: No, we still hate it ... we just like the fact that the thing we hate is also screwing the people we hate (and that they are just figuring out they were used like pawns).

Jesus, you can't even tell the truth without tacking on an additional lie.


You do realize who you are talking to right?
 
2013-07-15 10:33:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You do realize who you are talking to right?


Some trolls have style. The ones who don't even try are just surprising.
 
2013-07-15 10:35:39 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: First, the shareholder is the legal owner.

And this is a terrible thing, because they do nothing to act like it. Non-productive, non-responsible. They're capital, nothing more, and putting capital before labor just leaves you with a pile of capital doing nothing.

b2theory: The trade-off I am pointing out is that pensions funds are allowed to prosper.

You've gone off the derp end. There's nothing about a focus on sustainable businesses (vs. maximizing shareholder value in the short term) that is anathema to pensions prospering. One could argue that a long term, lucrative businesses are ultimately better for investments for the pensions.


Capital doesn't do anything but pay for everything.

Towards your other point you are right and wrong. I have not gone full derp. Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.
 
2013-07-15 10:41:52 PM  
Duh!!!
 
2013-07-15 10:42:56 PM  

b2theory: Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.


If only that were true.
Growing and sustainable until next quarter, maybe. Anything that takes longer or doesn't produce exponential growth? Not so much.
 
2013-07-15 11:02:58 PM  
And then there's this take on the whole thing:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/15/temp-j15.html

/it may not be what you expect
//and far less cheerful if you want to think it forward
///blessed be spellcheck...a bad cold and the local pharmacy are working together in interesting ways
 
m00
2013-07-15 11:06:22 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: m00: Actually, the purpose of a public corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's it. Anything else would be fraud.

You need to study the history of the corporation as a business entity.


The last refuge of the ignorant and lazy farker: "study it out" :)
 
2013-07-15 11:07:23 PM  

Thrag: So you are totally unaware of the existence of the filibuster and the recent history of the GOP using it to make it so that nothing can pass without 60 votes? Did you pay any attention to the actual events surrounding the debate over and eventual passage of the ACA?

If you want to play teacher, it helps to actually know what the fark you are talking about. Your attempt to educate others only demonstrates your ignorance.


Got to it before I did. Dangit!
Yeah it's a damn shame when some people missed out on that first grade math class which should have taught them that 58 does not equal 60. Thanks for the schooling. The morons need it every once in awhile.
 
2013-07-15 11:09:53 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.

If only that were true.
Growing and sustainable until next quarter, maybe. Anything that takes longer or doesn't produce exponential growth? Not so much.


Again, who are the largest shareholder groups in the world........ Pension funds!

I also think leadership can be short sighted. However, pensions (along with everyone else that wants to retire) have ROE expectations. The pensions are insolvent with out it.
 
2013-07-15 11:25:29 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-15 11:25:48 PM  

b2theory: Again, who are the largest shareholder groups in the world........ Pension funds!

I also think leadership can be short sighted. However, pensions (along with everyone else that wants to retire) have ROE expectations. The pensions are insolvent with out it.


Doesn't really matter who the shareholder is if the expectation is unrealistic or even destructive over the long term.
 
2013-07-15 11:26:49 PM  

b2theory: Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.


And a growing, long term sustainable business requires investment in employees, investment in your physical plant, and investment in quality control and R+D. If all you're concerned with is the next quarter or the next cycle, then shareholders and their short-term take-the-money-and-run attitudes should come first.
When a business puts it's shareholders demands first (those demands being "more money NOW!"), the other three legs of the table are neglected with the employee leg usually neglected first, being the easiest to sever.
 
2013-07-15 11:30:07 PM  

m00: Monkeyhouse Zendo: m00: Actually, the purpose of a public corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's it. Anything else would be fraud.

You need to study the history of the corporation as a business entity.

The last refuge of the ignorant and lazy farker: "study it out" :)


Just pointing out that your assertion that corporations were always operated as they currently are is incorrect. Whether you bother to learn about US history is up to you.
 
2013-07-15 11:31:02 PM  

Mr Rogers is aroused: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Mr Rogers is aroused: You tried to interject, making this really farking confusing.  The point remains.  It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue.  Therefore... wait for it.... IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.

For a very restricted value of unsustainable I suppose that's true. The question is whether the difference between the cost and what it saves / produces in revenue is a good value and benefits the nation. Honestly, based on your usage of the word, it can be easily argued the that pre-Obamacare health care system was unsustainable as well. In fact, I believe that was one of the primary motivators for health care reform.

my opinion would be that because it's centralized, mandated, and govt run, it's a guarantee that it will be a DIRECT EXPENSE on me and my children.  Vs the old system that was so indirect in it's cost to me that it was invisible.


It was invisible right up until you got a bill each year stating that your premiums were going up again, and usually they went up a lot.  You're paying no matter what, and prior to the ACA, they just shunted the cost of those who couldn't pay their medical bills onto those people who have insurance.  Why else do you think medical services are so damn high?  You were already paying for the 'free riders' through higher premiums and higher costs for medical procedures/care.

But you go right on beveling that those costs were 'invisible' and you weren't paying for anyone but yourself.  You're deluded if you believe it, but I sure as hell won't stop you.
 
2013-07-15 11:49:52 PM  

rewind2846: b2theory: Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.

And a growing, long term sustainable business requires investment in employees, investment in your physical plant, and investment in quality control and R+D. If all you're concerned with is the next quarter or the next cycle, then shareholders and their short-term take-the-money-and-run attitudes should come first.
When a business puts it's shareholders demands first (those demands being "more money NOW!"), the other three legs of the table are neglected with the employee leg usually neglected first, being the easiest to sever.


I agree with your points about how to sustainably grow a business. I tend to find rational shareholders to be long term investors.
 
2013-07-16 12:03:26 AM  

b2theory: I agree with your points about how to sustainably grow a business. I tend to find rational shareholders to be long term investors.


Then most of the market is not rational.

Fifty years ago, the average share of stock would be held for eight years before being sold.  Today the average share is not even held four months.

The market today is dominated by the short-term gain and the next quarter's income, because that's as long as the current investors are going to stick it out.
 
2013-07-16 12:04:11 AM  
Here's what it will do, Union Crybabies:

Give everyone access to medical benefits that you have been demanding out of your employers for decades.

So, what this will do, effectively, is loosen your control.


(incidentally, my girlfriend just got her first copy of the UAW's quarterly magazine .. she worked a Union job back about 5 years ago, for a year... so she's been out of the Union for 3 years.. )
 
2013-07-16 12:17:03 AM  

MadHatter500: Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.

He's trying to punish the store managers without actually punishing them.  In theory (don't know Dollar Tree policies) managers are salaried with performance incentives.  Here's what is running through that District Manager's mind:

The store must do X, Y and Z.  There are managers not pulling their weight/performing correctly.  So I will cut the available workforce so those managers have to pick up the slack.  Ie. instead of working 56 hours a week, they'll have to work 80 to get things done.  They will stop slacking off, then I can reward them with additional worker hours.

This of course does not work.  What should happen is that the DM has a long talk with the store manager why his store is not performing correctly.  This gives the store manager an opportunity to ask for changes - ie. get rid of the slacker.

Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job.  I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer.  The stupid in her m ...


This is a disease that gets in when you manage by numbers, which is unfortunately, something that tends to happen at levels when you're not in the trenches all the time.  The numbers say you don't need as many hours, because your business is falling.  Of course, your business is falling may have to do with the specific people or the number of people that you have not being sufficient, neither of which are addressed by this particular solution.
 
2013-07-16 01:14:16 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: SunsetLament: No, we still hate it ... we just like the fact that the thing we hate is also screwing the people we hate (and that they are just figuring out they were used like pawns).

Jesus, you can't even tell the truth without tacking on an additional lie.


No, actually I'm one of the foremost authorities on my own opinion ... I assure, I still hate it.  And I can also assure you that I like lower middle-class liberal union pawns getting screwed by their own union, too.
 
2013-07-16 01:44:56 AM  

tjfly: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 297x383]


Wow I'll bet you thought you were funny or entertaining with that total waste of a post.
Imagine all the cool shiat you could have posted instead.
Oh well.
 
m00
2013-07-16 02:44:39 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Just pointing out that your assertion that corporations were always operated as they currently are is incorrect. Whether you bother to learn about US history is up to you.


I know what you were doing, and it's not that :)
 
2013-07-16 03:01:43 AM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Mike Chewbacca: So it's Obama's fault that some CEOs are assholes who refuse to take care of their employees? Human Resources?  HR?  HR Department ID?

CEOs only care about quality  workmanship reputation child labor laws in 3rd world countriesstock price..



That's all they are hired to do: make money for the stockholders
 
2013-07-16 05:41:37 AM  

m00: The fact is, government dropped the ball here.

 Corporations are composed of people.

Being part of a corporation does not relieve these people of moral and ethical obligation.

Does being part of a lynch mob mean you're not guilty of murder?
 
2013-07-16 05:43:30 AM  

SunsetLament: And I can also assure you that I like lower middle-class liberal union pawns getting screwed by their own union, too.


Because poor people, and their children, not having health care is hilarious!

You are excrement.
 
m00
2013-07-16 06:05:02 AM  

Without Fail: Corporations are composed of people.

Being part of a corporation does not relieve these people of moral and ethical obligation.


Actually, if you are part of a public corporation you have a fiduciary duty to your shareholders. You have legal obligations. But you don't have moral or ethical obligations, because having these obligations conflicts with your duty to shareholders. It is what it is. I realize this sounds awful, but the counter-balance is government which creates regulations to align a corporation's legal obligations with the moral and ethical values of society.

Does being part of a lynch mob mean you're not guilty of murder?

Murder is illegal. Using a loophole isn't illegal, that's why it's a loophole. It's necessarily legal.
 
2013-07-16 07:09:00 AM  

m00: It is what it is. I realize this sounds awful, but the counter-balance is government which creates regulations to align a corporation's legal obligations with the moral and ethical values of society.


Bullshiat. The fact that something is not illegal does not make it right.
The very same people who claim that it was the governments job to stop them are constantly trying to reduce regulations and get smaller government.
 'The government didn't stop me' is morally equivalent to 'I was just following orders'.


It is a cop out by 'Libertarians' to excuse their own lack of character and personal responsibility.
 
m00
2013-07-16 07:14:08 AM  

Without Fail: m00: It is what it is. I realize this sounds awful, but the counter-balance is government which creates regulations to align a corporation's legal obligations with the moral and ethical values of society.

Bullshiat. The fact that something is not illegal does not make it right.
The very same people who claim that it was the governments job to stop them are constantly trying to reduce regulations and get smaller government.
 'The government didn't stop me' is morally equivalent to 'I was just following orders'.


It is a cop out by 'Libertarians' to excuse their own lack of character and personal responsibility.


you really should try some critical reading/thinking if you want to write a credible outrage post. just some friendly advice :)
 
2013-07-16 07:24:29 AM  

m00: you really should try some critical reading/thinking if you want to write a credible outrage post. just some friendly advice :)


I'm not outraged. Most people will rationalize doing what they want by any means necessary.

I just happen to have a conscience.
 
2013-07-16 09:20:35 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: The first thing to remember is that without the company, the employee, and the customer, the shareholder has precisely dick, and that is precisely what they should be owed until those things are taken care of.


without the factory, equipment, loans, payroll and means to get the product to market, the employee doesn't have dick either.  You can be the most skilled, trained bumper-affixer in the world, without a large, very expensive to operate and maintain facility, your skills arent worth much.

Sergeant Grumbles: And this is a terrible thing, because they do nothing to act like it. Non-productive, non-responsible.


Yes this is entirely what happens.  The board of a company sits on their ass and stares at a large pile of money.  The fact that you say this means you havent a freaking clue what you're talking about.

Its not like they meet and discuss mergers and acquisitions that might benefit the company, enabling it to hire more people
Or put their capital to work buying new facilities, expanding, buying licenses to operate.

Yes, they are sooooo greedy and evil that they want to sit around and do absolutely everything but try to make more money.
The fact that you vote scares me and makes me weep for society.
 
2013-07-16 09:44:54 AM  

Cletus C.: That would be a nice recitation of the union position, for sure. But unfortunately for that position, public salary information is public record. You can find our exactly how your private sector pay compares. Many times, the public employees make more, plus have a wide array of benefits. A lot of private-sector employees haven't received pay increases since the recession started and have seen their share of health care costs rise.


Not all public employees are union. Also, not all unions are the same, especially private sector and public sector. Private sector unions tend to want more and more. Public unions basically want to try and not lose as much as they can. It's a stark difference between a UAW worker picketing because they want a 10% raise and two more vacation days a year versus a teacher's union trying to keep class sizes manageable and not get stuck with a horrible insurance plan that rivals Walmart's.

The difference on wages here is that the private company sees raises as a cost and to save money, or simply make more money, one of the first ways to do so is avoid giving pay raises. Anymore, those wages are being used to pay CEOs huge sums of money.

That being said, I started in private companies and always got a raise every year. It may have been menial, but we got them. On the public side, it was because the money wasn't there. The unions started negotiating a 3% raise, which they got for a couple years, but then the district hit hard financial times and they agreed that they would forgo pay raises and did for for 5+ years.

See the difference? The public union voted to not take a pay raise because it was what was necessary and because they knew it was for the good of the organization. They didn't shut down an entire automotive plant for weeks because they didn't get that raise. The only time they ever got close to striking was when the school district was wanting to go to outsourcing and eliminate almost the entire union staff. The school district won mainly because the union didn't provide strike pay like private unions might do and the workers simply couldn't afford to go on strike for weeks or months. And it would have been months because the district would have brought in contractors to take on their responsibilities, which is exactly what they wanted to do in the first place and as such be in no hurry or need to bring anyone back to the table.
 
2013-07-16 10:19:17 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Major moderate union leaders who are strong Democratic supporters are calling for minor adjustments in ACA implementation while still supporting ACA as a whole. Wow. I'm... *yawn* shocked.


But NOOOOOOOOOOOO, in 2013 America you have to with us or against us, NO COMPROMISE.
 
2013-07-16 03:55:50 PM  

m00: The Democrats held both houses by wide margins.


Farkin' filibusters, how do they work?
 
2013-07-16 05:43:27 PM  

red5ish: IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.

The ACA defines "full time" as 30-hours per week, per month, on average. Good luck trying to run a competitive business without full time employees under that definition.


Simple: Workers work 4-hour days, 7 days a week. Now, not only are they working 28 hours per week, they don't get weekends off. Problem solved.

/And you just know Wal-Mart will try this, too.
 
2013-07-16 05:52:45 PM  

b2theory: Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.


Bullshiat.  They want the biggest profit they can get. If that means destroying a company and looting the corpse, then so be it.
 
2013-07-16 06:39:54 PM  

IlGreven: red5ish: IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.

The ACA defines "full time" as 30-hours per week, per month, on average. Good luck trying to run a competitive business without full time employees under that definition.

Simple: Workers work 4-hour days, 7 days a week. Now, not only are they working 28 hours per week, they don't get weekends off. Problem solved.

/And you just know Wal-Mart will try this, too.


So I worked at a golf course one summer.  They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.
 
2013-07-16 06:50:50 PM  

meyerkev: So I worked at a golf course one summer. They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.


So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?
 
2013-07-16 07:18:25 PM  

HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: So I worked at a golf course one summer. They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.

So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?


Because at $8/hour/5-6 months a year, it's hard to convince people to drive out into the middle of farking nowhere and only work 4 hours.  Heck, I only got the job because of nepotism.

And since we didn't have enough people to get everything done before the golfers came out, we had no choice but to keep going after the golfers came out (Only got hit twice.  Thank god I'm fat and they both hit me in the gut.)

At max, there was:

Super (who actually did work on the course unlike a lot of other courses)
Asst Super (who was the only person who was legally allowed to spray pesticides and as such had job security)
Mechanic (who was always behind because 15-20 year old mowers break more often than 15-20 year old cars)
The farking spy who didn't do any farking work and was only there to tell on us to the boss, that farker.
The rough mower guy.
5 fulltimers working 6 days a week (4 weekdays plus 2 halfs which should have made 40) 3 of whom were part-time college students.

Of course because everyone took really short lunches (I had it down to 7 minutes), every once in a while we'd work 16 hour Saturdays, and 2 guys decided to take the entire month of July off (to go make more money as extras on some movie), so everyone else worked 7 days while they were gone.   I think I averaged 55 hours a week all the time I was there* and once bounced off 70.

*and that was only because when it broke 100, the boss would let everyone go early because we weren't getting anything done.
 
2013-07-16 08:22:58 PM  

meyerkev: HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: So I worked at a golf course one summer. They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.

So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?

Because at $8/hour/5-6 months a year, it's hard to convince people to drive out into the middle of farking nowhere and only work 4 hours.  Heck, I only got the job because of nepotism.


And since we didn't have enough people to get everything done before the golfers came out, we had no choice but to keep going after the golfers came out (Only got hit twice.  Thank god I'm fat and they both hit me in the gut.)

At max, there was:

Super (who actually did work on the course unlike a lot of other courses)
Asst Super (who was the only person who was legally allowed to spray pesticides and as such had job security)
Mechanic (who was always behind because 15-20 year old mowers break more often than 15-20 year old cars)
The farking spy who didn't do any farking work and was only there to tell on us to the boss, that farker.
The rough mower guy.
5 fulltimers working 6 days a week (4 weekdays plus 2 halfs which should have made 40) 3 of whom were part-time college students.

Of course because everyone took really short lunches (I had it down to 7 minutes), every once in a while we'd work 16 hour Saturdays, and 2 guys decided to take the entire month of July off (to go make more money as extras on some movie), so everyone else worked 7 days while they were gone.   I think I averaged 55 hours a week all the time I was there* and once bounced off 70.

*and that was only because when it broke 100, the boss would let everyone go early because we weren't getting anything done.


So what, exactly, is going to change that makes it possible to convince people to accept those terms now?
 
2013-07-16 09:00:02 PM  

DoctorCal: So what, exactly, is going to change that makes it possible to convince people to accept those terms now?


So most golf courses aren't in the middle of farking nowhere (to the extent that that one was anyways.  It was entirely possible to not see a single car on the road on the entire ride there through farm country).

Also, most golf courses don't pay $8/hour (Heck, McDonald'spays $9 for new hires and they've got WAY better working conditions).  I've heard $10-$13 with occasional bumps to $15 for long-term workers at the more exclusive private courses and the ones that do pay $8/hour get skinhead white supremacist ex-cons, college students mooching off their parents for room and board (I made $6K in PROFIT that summer. My CS internships that paid 3x as much couldn't match that), and Latinos (good) who don't speak English (bad).  $12/hour isn't great, but they're working lots of OT (At time and a half.  I cleared $300 on $8/hour over 2.5 days on Memorial Day weekend when we turned the sprinklers on for the first time) and also spending $600/month on a pretty nice 1 BR (or as mentioned, mooching off parents).  .

Also, a lot of these courses give free-ish golf as a benefit, so it's entirely possible to find a bunch of retired dudes who want to get free golf.  I kid you not, we had a 60-year old retired guy on the maintenance crew who had been making $200K/year as an engineer at IBM making $8/hour at the course and the entire front crew (where you don't have to do physical labor all day) was over 55.

So even if they shifted over to mostly part-time crews (with a more-or-less consistent schedule because of the sun which puts it one-up on a lot of other places), it'd be entirely possible to find people who wanted to work 5-9, get free golf, go home, shower, and then go to another job from 10-??? (I know there were a lot of businesses downtown that opened at 10 or 11, so this would at least be possible).
 
2013-07-16 09:01:48 PM  

meyerkev: McDonald'spays


Also, just an FYI to Modmins, this is not the first time I've seen this bug where it strips out the space immediately following the italicized word.
 
2013-07-16 09:50:20 PM  

meyerkev: DoctorCal: So what, exactly, is going to change that makes it possible to convince people to accept those terms now?

So most golf courses aren't in the middle of farking nowhere (to the extent that that one was anyways.  It was entirely possible to not see a single car on the road on the entire ride there through farm country).

Also, most golf courses don't pay $8/hour (Heck, McDonald'spays $9 for new hires and they've got WAY better working conditions).  I've heard $10-$13 with occasional bumps to $15 for long-term workers at the more exclusive private courses and the ones that do pay $8/hour get skinhead white supremacist ex-cons, college students mooching off their parents for room and board (I made $6K in PROFIT that summer. My CS internships that paid 3x as much couldn't match that), and Latinos (good) who don't speak English (bad).  $12/hour isn't great, but they're working lots of OT (At time and a half.  I cleared $300 on $8/hour over 2.5 days on Memorial Day weekend when we turned the sprinklers on for the first time) and also spending $600/month on a pretty nice 1 BR (or as mentioned, mooching off parents).  .

Also, a lot of these courses give free-ish golf as a benefit, so it's entirely possible to find a bunch of retired dudes who want to get free golf.  I kid you not, we had a 60-year old retired guy on the maintenance crew who had been making $200K/year as an engineer at IBM making $8/hour at the course and the entire front crew (where you don't have to do physical labor all day) was over 55.

So even if they shifted over to mostly part-time crews (with a more-or-less consistent schedule because of the sun which puts it one-up on a lot of other places), it'd be entirely possible to find people who wanted to work 5-9, get free golf, go home, shower, and then go to another job from 10-??? (I know there were a lot of businesses downtown that opened at 10 or 11, so this would at least be possible).


*headdesk* *headdesk*  *headdesk*  *headdesk*  *headdesk*

HeartBurnKid: So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?

 
2013-07-16 09:56:52 PM  

meyerkev: HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: So I worked at a golf course one summer. They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.

So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?

Because at $8/hour/5-6 months a year, it's hard to convince people to drive out into the middle of farking nowhere and only work 4 hours.  Heck, I only got the job because of nepotism.


And this is going to change because they need to provide healthcare now?
 
2013-07-16 10:22:09 PM  

HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: So I worked at a golf course one summer. They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.

So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?

Because at $8/hour/5-6 months a year, it's hard to convince people to drive out into the middle of farking nowhere and only work 4 hours.  Heck, I only got the job because of nepotism.

And this is going to change because they need to provide healthcare now?


I think the answer is clearly


fc06.deviantart.net
 
2013-07-16 11:11:05 PM  

HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: So I worked at a golf course one summer. They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.

So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?

Because at $8/hour/5-6 months a year, it's hard to convince people to drive out into the middle of farking nowhere and only work 4 hours.  Heck, I only got the job because of nepotism.

And this is going to change because they need to provide healthcare now?


Yes, I didn't answer the question.  My bad.  

So the basic problem is that if you're going to have 15 guys out on the course (instead of the 6 we normally had), you need to have equipment for 15 guys.  (We could maybe have done 10 at one time, but not all that stuff gets used every day, so once we got past 7 or 8 people, we were doubling up or finding makework)

And when a mower is $25K (plus maintenance), and your workers are at $8/hour, it makes more sense to pay a bunch of guys $8/hour to be full-time (even with OT) and have 17 pieces of equipment (1 sprayer, 2 fairway (6 hours for 18 holes), 2 tee (4-5 hours), 2 green(2-3 hours), 2 bunker rakes (4 hours-ish), 1 rough mower (all day, took about a week to do the whole course in the summer and 2 days to do the non-dead bits in the summer), 2 weedwhackers, 2 rarely used walking mowers, 1 riding mower for the trees, 1 mower for the rough near the greens (6 hours), 1 intermediate mower (5 hours)) breaking down instead of 30.  (And if you're looking at that list going WTF, there's enough mowers for everyone A) Not everything is used on a given day.  B) Maybe 70% of the equipment was up at any given time)

But when a worker is $8/hour (or let's say they bump the pay to $12 to find the people) plus $600/month in health insurance for a single male (not joking, mostly because the job is farking dangerous (sharp blades, people trying to injure you on a daily basis (Seriously, cut that out), trees falling over on your head, dangerous rabid raccoons, geese (Fark geese), poison ivy, etc, etc), involves serious chemicals (It was a good day spraying trees when I didn't end up with RoundUp stains down my back and I wasn't legally allowed to go into the same room as the really dangerous stuff), and has no OSHA compliance, all of which send actuaries running away screaming.  Dad's ALONE is $8,000 - $10,000/year for the aforementioned reasons), the mower just paid for itself in 3 years.  And since the back side crew CANNOT just be old dudes on Medicare since there is some serious physical labor involved (though some of them can be, since they're just riding mowers all day), they're either paying for serious health insurance or hiring more guys to do part-time labor and purchasing (incredibly farking expensive) equipment for them.

Also, since the golfers biatch mercilessly about the noise and the mowers trying to do work while they're playing, they should get a small benefit off doing everything in the mornings.

/Dad's been mildly pushing for this (It just makes sense.  You don't get squat done once the golfers are out) even before Obamacare, so he might be able to get them after they do the math
 
m00
2013-07-17 12:06:40 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: m00: The Democrats held both houses by wide margins.

Farkin' filibusters, how do they work?



DoctorCal was nice enough to point out there was a reply on Fark I had missed. :) Here's what I said on the other thread:

Personally I think if a political party owns both houses of Congress AND the presidency then there really isn't an excuse, even filibusters. I mean... think of it like this. If a political party owns every facet of federal government lawmaking and still can't be held responsible for what happens under their watch, than what are we doing as a country? No politician would ever be responsible for anything. I think Bill Clinton was probably the greatest president of my lifetime, and he had to work with Newt Gingrich who was trying to impeach him at the time. That's leadership.

I just believe if you can't hold a party responsible when they own both houses by wide margins and the presidency, then there's no such thing as accountability. And I think this is exactly the situation both parties want.
 
2013-07-17 12:53:12 AM  

meyerkev: HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: So I worked at a golf course one summer. They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.

So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?

Because at $8/hour/5-6 months a year, it's hard to convince people to drive out into the middle of farking nowhere and only work 4 hours.  Heck, I only got the job because of nepotism.

And this is going to change because they need to provide healthcare now?

Yes, I didn't answer the question.  My bad.  

So the basic problem is that if you're going to have 15 guys out on the course (instead of the 6 we normally had), you need to have equipment for 15 guys.  (We could maybe have done 10 at one time, but not all that stuff gets used every day, so once we got past 7 or 8 people, we were doubling up or finding makework)

And when a mower is $25K (plus maintenance), and your workers are at $8/hour, it makes more sense to pay a bunch of guys $8/hour to be full-time (even with OT) and have 17 pieces of equipment (1 sprayer, 2 fairway (6 hours for 18 holes), 2 tee (4-5 hours), 2 green(2-3 hours), 2 bunker rakes (4 hours-ish), 1 rough mower (all day, took about a week to do the whole course in the summer and 2 days to do the non-dead bits in the summer), 2 weedwhackers, 2 rarely used walking mowers, 1 riding mower for the trees, 1 mower for the rough near the greens (6 hours), 1 intermediate mower (5 hours)) breaking down instead of 30.  (And if you're looking at that list going WTF, there's enough mowers for everyone A) Not everything is used on a given day.  B) Maybe 70% of the equipment was up at any given time)

But when a worker is $8/hour (or let's say they bump the pay t ...


Perhaps, but you're still going to run into the problem you had before -- you have to make the job appealing enough for people to bother coming out, and if that means offering full time, you're going to offer full time.  Labor is a market like any other, and just like there's only so many costs you can pass on to the consumer before you've priced yourself out of the market, there's only so many cutbacks you can make on labor before you've dried up your talent pool.  Personally, if I'm in charge, and I've already done this calculation that I need to offer full time or else I'm not going to get workers, having to offer health care doesn't change that calculus a whole lot.  Hell, I'd raise dues to pay for it; we're talking about a country club here, the members aren't what you'd call price sensitive.
 
2013-07-17 02:37:59 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Hell, I'd raise dues to pay for it; we're talking about a country club here, the members aren't what you'd call price sensitive


Nah.  Public course.  Middle of nowhere.  Mind you, it's a nice public course because they hired 2 ex-private course guys to run it and their definition of slacking off is everyone else's definition of "Holy crap, the fairways are green in July/August for the first time in 35 years" so they've probably got a bit of buffer there.

Mind you, they DON'T have money problems.   40-50,000 rounds (depending on weather (Did we have a rainy April/May, 100F temps in July, a cold October, and snow in November? Yeah, they're lucky to break 35K.  If none of the above, they'll bounce off 55K)) at $35-50/round (depending on day of the week and seniors).  Plus beer at $5/beer (and they can fill 1.5 large trash cans with the empties every day.  Dunno what that means in terms of numbers).

The real problem is that they have an owner who's 3rd generation (1st generation makes the money, 2nd generation respects the money, 3rd generation blows the money) family who also doesn't understand the meaning of the term inflation.  MBA's are bad, 3rd generation family is worse.

A rough mower costs more than the entire course (back in 196X).  So whenever they say "So we can fix the problem where #16 floods and becomes a Par 3 for the first 2 months of the season for $60K by running a pipe down #15", the owner freaks and starts biatching about how everything costs so much these days.  Repeat for EVERYTHING.  (This also has the interesting side effect of making things cost more and suck harder.  If they bought one new mower a year forever, they wouldn't have the massive crippling maintenance problems and they could just fit "New Mower: $25-50K" into the budget.  Same with fixing the bunkers,  etc, etc.  It's a LOT easier to say "We're going to fix up 1 hole a year every year until infinity for $30K" and roll that into the budget than it is to say "Once every 30 years, we're going to get whacked with a half million dollar bill for redoing every single sand trap (poorly.  They shouldn't take 3 hours each to pump out.  In fact, done right, we should never have to pump them out.*)")

/I just wanna see the look on the guy's face when the irrigation system finally goes and/or they can't get parts any more.  It's like $2 Million or MORE for a new irrigation system.

* Also, for people with high school math: The course flooded 4 Saturdays in a row the first year I worked there.  Each time, we spent $600 renting 4 trash pumps from the local-ish Home Depots (Total Cost to buy the same pumps: ~$8K), and an additional 40 hours of hourly overtime ($12/hour + gas, payroll tax, keeping the lights on, extra coffee, water, etc) that would never have been worked plus a redirection of ~60 normal work man-hours ($8/hour) to fixing the bunkers.  Assuming that I want a 5-year payoff, at what point do these things pay for themselves?

1) Buying the pumps ourselves.  Total one-time cost: $8K.  Total Savings: ~$700 in rental fees, gas, etc.
2) Replacing all the bunkers and doing them properly for about $250K so that they don't flood and rebuilding them after a rain storm takes about 25 man-hours.  Total Savings: ~20 overtime hours, 35 normal man-hours, and 2 of the cheaper pumps (so ~$200 in rental fees).
3) Redoing the entire course so it farking drains (Mind you, you'll still get one-off floods, but they should be a RARE OCCURRENCE).  This is an extension of #2, and costs about $1 Million.  Savings: All the pump rental, 35 OT hours, 35 regular hours.
 
Displayed 357 of 357 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report