The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think those are good plans for the most part. I just think people underestimate how much spending you'd have to cut. Closing a few bases overseas is not going to do it. You'd have to dramatically cut military spending. And with that comes the loss of jobs and less tax revenue to pay for the other bills. There are so many jobs tied into our defense spending. And on top of it, a large chunk of our defense spending is legacy costs. Paying the benefits of veterans who fought in wars. How can you cut that?

You keep saying cut back on spending, but there aren't a lot of other areas that would have an impact. It's either got to be defense, social security, or medicare. Now you can cut a research project or something else, but it's insanely small. Sort of like the griping over PBS which would have literally no impact on our overall deficit.

So how do you go about cutting SS and Medicare? You've had people who paid in their entire lives. Cutting their payments would be akin to a company stealing a pension from their employees. Or your financial advisor raiding your IRA. That's why cutting spending is so hard.

Personally I think there are some easy fixes that can be done right away. Medicare could go through a bunch of reforms to reduce costs. One would be opening borders for the trade of prescription drugs (which helps all Americans). The other would be allowing us to negotiate rates with manufacturers (which is insane that we can't do it now). No reason why payroll tax shouldn't be restarted after say $250k and no reason there shouldn't be a Medicare/SS tax on capital gains.

I agree that it's difficult, but wonder what exactly the CBO and others mean when they pretty much universally proclaim that our current path is "unsustainable." I'm no economic genius, and I don't want stuff to be cut just for the sake of cutting and depriving people of things (there used to be a time when you were often accused of the latter if you talked about things like "fiscal responsibility", but now, it seems like it is a much more accepted idea that we need to figure out how to get this under control.) But if our path is "unsustainable", what choice do we have? And, what happens if you just continue down an "unsustainable" path?

Or maybe it doesn't matter at all. Maybe the debt can just get worse every year and it really doesn't matter. But it either matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter, then we shouldn't worry about debt or tax increases. If it does matter, and the path is truly "unsustainable" that tells me we HAVE to make those difficult cuts, or we face some type of economic ruin that would throw us towards something worse like austerity measures.

Instead we're just forever stuck in the middle. Politicians fighting to the death over tiny tax increases and meaningless cuts. It's a chance to throw a lot of money around and for people to debate government philosophy but it's all really meaningless, I mean, we have our path, and unsustainable or not, we're going down it. That's just the way things are setup politically right now. Until and if we have some REAL consequence of public debt, of course.

[DaddyTorgo]

It doesn't matter in the short term. It matters in the longer term. But in the longer term, getting the economy back to something closer to full employment will provide incrased economic activity (by definition) that will go some % of the way towards fixing things. Not to say that cuts/adjustments won't need to be made, but the time to make them isn't now.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

It doesn't matter in the short term. It matters in the longer term. But in the longer term, getting the economy back to something closer to full employment will provide incrased economic activity (by definition) that will go some % of the way towards fixing things. Not to say that cuts/adjustments won't need to be made, but the time to make them isn't now.

Then why is the time to increases taxes now?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Then why is the time to increases taxes now?

What does that change?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What does that change?

What does what change?

If the debt is not a huge problem in the short-term and our "unsustainable" path is not really so "unsustainable" in that short term, and if its OK if we put off cuts indefinitely, what's the urgency in raising taxes immediately? How does that help the stated goal of growing the economy? It's not like our spending is tied to those modest tax increases. We're gonna spend what we're gonna spend regardless of tax revenue.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

What does what change?

If the debt is not a huge problem in the short-term and our "unsustainable" path is not really so "unsustainable" in that short term, and if its OK if we put off cuts indefinitely, what's the urgency in raising taxes immediately? How does that help the stated goal of growing the economy? It's not like our spending is tied to those modest tax increases. We're gonna spend what we're gonna spend regardless of tax revenue.

I guess the tax increases would increase tax revenue. And it shouldn't hurt the economy if it's done properly. Basically just lessens the annual budget deficit.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Then why is the time to increases taxes now?

Ideally it isn't the time to raise taxes, but given the political realities the expiration of the Bush cuts forced action. Personally, I'd like to see us phase in a return to the Clinton rates on everything. It might work to do this based on unemployment rate benchmarks so that it doesn't take too much money out of the economy before the recovery is stable.

But you're right, tax increases and budget cuts both pull money out of the economy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Ideally it isn't the time to raise taxes, but given the political realities the expiration of the Bush cuts forced action. Personally, I'd like to see us phase in a return to the Clinton rates on everything. It might work to do this based on unemployment rate benchmarks so that it doesn't take too much money out of the economy before the recovery is stable.

But you're right, tax increases and budget cuts both pull money out of the economy.

And I'm sure there's plenty of Dems that would also love to see reasonable cuts but politically, they just have to oppose every one which kind of sucks. Just like Republicans politically have to oppose any tax increase.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by molson

And I'm sure there's plenty of Dems that would also love to see reasonable cuts but politically, they just have to oppose every one which kind of sucks. Just like Republicans politically have to oppose any tax increase.

Thus they both are the Party of No. It should make sense that the sensible thing to do is to not to transfer more money from the economy into the federal government for dubious gains.

But you're right, tax increases and budget cuts both pull money out of the economy.

Doesn't one transfer real economic gains to the government (a net loss), while the other simply transfers money to various entities (no net loss)?

[finketr]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Ideally it isn't the time to raise taxes, but given the political realities the expiration of the Bush cuts forced action. Personally, I'd like to see us phase in a return to the Clinton rates on everything. It might work to do this based on unemployment rate benchmarks so that it doesn't take too much money out of the economy before the recovery is stable.

But you're right, tax increases and budget cuts both pull money out of the economy.

Can we return to the Clinton spending on everything as well?

[bhlloy]

So you were bailed out by the government to stop you going out of business, you are running a huge ad campaign to thank the american people and government for the bailout, what's the logical next step? Why join a lawsuit by some of your shareholders that the terms of the bailout were too unfair and it's the governments fault that the shares devalued so much of course!

The banking sector is the most illogical fucking thing in the world. I get the feeling that if an alien race did come to earth they'd just be mindblown at this insane system we have.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Doesn't one transfer real economic gains to the government (a net loss), while the other simply transfers money to various entities (no net loss)?

Only if you assume the market is a purely efficient entity and that the government contributes nothing back to the economy, both of which are completely false.

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

So you were bailed out by the government to stop you going out of business, you are running a huge ad campaign to thank the american people and government for the bailout, what's the logical next step? Why join a lawsuit by some of your shareholders that the terms of the bailout were too unfair and it's the governments fault that the shares devalued so much of course!

The banking sector is the most illogical fucking thing in the world. I get the feeling that if an alien race did come to earth they'd just be mindblown at this insane system we have.

Well, shareholder lawsuits like this are not all that uncommon, and a big part of our economic issues (companies have to think short-term profits and stock price, otherwise they get sued by shareholders). I'm not all that upset that AIG is taking time to think this through before making a decision, but I'll be ticked off if they do join it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

And I'm sure there's plenty of Dems that would also love to see reasonable cuts but politically, they just have to oppose every one which kind of sucks. Just like Republicans politically have to oppose any tax increase.

Twice now the president was willing to agree to substantial cuts to entitlements, but both times the GOP bailed. If the president made the deal enough Dems would have joined to pass it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Twice now the president was willing to agree to substantial cuts to entitlements, but both times the GOP bailed. .

"Willing" only in exchange for tax rates that the Republicans oppose. While at the same time arguing that the Republicans should agree to higher taxes and to raise the debt limit first, and ONLY later once that's resolved discuss cutting as part of a new negotiation separate from the taxes and debt limit. The two sides are doing the same thing.

Edit: Which I understand is something that's necessary in politics but it's something Obama used to rail against and pretend he was above, until his second term when he finally learned how things work. But if Obama believed that reasonable cuts were important on their own, he'd certainly have the votes to get that done.

[JPhillips]

But if all the bad comes from one party that party will get crushed in the election. Look at 2010, the GOP spent a ton of money saying the Dems were going to cut Medicare. If Obama has to own all the tax increases and cuts the Dems will get killed in 2014. It simply isn't realistic to expect one party to do everything unpopular while the other party gets to complain.

As for the willing point, yes, that's the whole point of a grand bargain. Both sides make concessions, only the past two times the GOP has decided to bail.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Both sides make concessions, only the past two times the GOP has decided to bail.

Or in other words, were better at the process and got a better deal the Dems did and a better one than you'd like.

I've read plenty of opinions from Dems who are disappointed in Obama and just thinks that he sucks at this.

Edit: I think you posted at one point that the Dems should just welcome the fiscal cliff if they didn't get what they wanted. If they did bargain harder, bargain better, and engaged in "obstructionism" to let's say, stop the PATRIOT Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, Iraq War funding, or maybe if they got Clinton tax rates for everyone with no cuts whatsoever, would you be here railing against them for their tactics or would you be celebrating in the streets? It's only the loser of a negotiation or a game that complains that there was something structurally wrong with the process. Part of complaining in this instance is saying that the Republicans should gave given the Dems more of what they wanted, and that only the Dems are reasonable. The loser of a negotiation can always portray itself as more reasonable as a way to save face. But the fact is, the Dems oppose all cuts just as the Republicans oppose all tax increases.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Twice now the president was willing to agree to substantial cuts to entitlements

I have yet to see any numbers I'd consider "substantial". And none of the numbers I've seen have had time frames associated with them (cutting $400 million now might be good, cutting $400 million over 10 years is nothing).

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If the last leaked proposal is to be believed,

Chained CPI
A few hundred billion in discretionary cuts
Raising the tax increase level from 250000 to 400000
Lowering overall tax raise from 1.6 trillion to 1.2 trillion
Restoring the defense cuts from the sequester

So for example, the only real spending cut here is "A few hundred billion in discretionary cuts". Over what timeframe?

And excuse my ignorance here as it's been discussed but I haven't seen a definition, what is "Chained CPI"? I presume CPI is Consumer Price Index, but chained to what?

[JPhillips]

Chained CPI would lower the consumer price index increases, which, over time would make fairly substantial cuts to the growth of SS. In essence it's an agreement to cut Social Security.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Or in other words, were better at the process and got a better deal the Dems did and a better one than you'd like.

I've read plenty of opinions from Dems who are disappointed in Obama and just thinks that he sucks at this.

Edit: I think you posted at one point that the Dems should just welcome the fiscal cliff if they didn't get what they wanted. If they did bargain harder, bargain better, and engaged in "obstructionism" to let's say, stop the PATRIOT Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, Iraq War funding, or maybe if they got Clinton tax rates for everyone with no cuts whatsoever, would you be here railing against them for their tactics or would you be celebrating in the streets? It's only the loser of a negotiation or a game that complains that there was something structurally wrong with the process. Part of complaining in this instance is saying that the Republicans should gave given the Dems more of what they wanted, and that only the Dems are reasonable. The loser of a negotiation can always portray itself as more reasonable as a way to save face. But the fact is, the Dems oppose all cuts just as the Republicans oppose all tax increases.

That's a completely different scenario. You complained that the Dems aren't willing to cut anything, but they are and have offered real cuts that have been turned down. The history of these negotiations prove the Dems don't "oppose all cuts". They have offered chained CPI for real SS cuts and in 2011 substantial cuts to Medicare growth including an increase in the age of eligibility.

If you want to argue that the Dems won't propose and push for cuts by themselves, you're right, but that's the whole point of a Grand Bargain. It is unrealistic to ask either party to do all the unpopular things by themselves.

[gstelmack]

The fun part about Medicare cuts is that the way they are doing it is:

- Just paying doctors less for the same care
- Adding onerous rules to medical providers (especially hospitals) that make it easy for them to simply not pay (for example, go to the hospital for something, have to go back within a short time window for something else, that's a readmission and you lose your reimbursement for both incidents).

They aren't doing anything to address why healthcare costs so much in the first place. It's like how they treat states with unfunded mandates: demand the extra care, but pay less than before for it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Or in other words, were better at the process and got a better deal the Dems did and a better one than you'd like.

I've read plenty of opinions from Dems who are disappointed in Obama and just thinks that he sucks at this.

Edit: I think you posted at one point that the Dems should just welcome the fiscal cliff if they didn't get what they wanted. If they did bargain harder, bargain better, and engaged in "obstructionism" to let's say, stop the PATRIOT Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, Iraq War funding, or maybe if they got Clinton tax rates for everyone with no cuts whatsoever, would you be here railing against them for their tactics or would you be celebrating in the streets? It's only the loser of a negotiation or a game that complains that there was something structurally wrong with the process. Part of complaining in this instance is saying that the Republicans should gave given the Dems more of what they wanted, and that only the Dems are reasonable. The loser of a negotiation can always portray itself as more reasonable as a way to save face. But the fact is, the Dems oppose all cuts just as the Republicans oppose all tax increases.

Political negotiation requires both sides to bring something concrete to the table. The Republicans want the Democrats to bring everything to the table for them (and take all the blame for all of it).

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Political negotiation requires both sides to bring something concrete to the table. The Republicans want the Democrats to bring everything to the table for them (and take all the blame for all of it).

Two pages ago you wanted to raise taxes now and not cut anything until some vague point in the future.

Edit: The Dems view any real cut, under any circumstance, as a type of currency that they need to get something for. That's fine if that's the political strategy, just stop pretending that the Dems are from from this higher more reasonable place. They just got less in the negotiation. They got beat. By a party they keep proclaiming is dying.

And what's often ignored is that one of the major reasons the Dems keep getting beat is the presence of the tea party, which gained momentum and continues to exist in its twisted form because many Americans got sick of the Democrats and Republicans ignoring these issues. If the Democrats really were so high and mighty and reasonable, maybe they should have actually worked towards fiscal responsibility and then maybe they wouldn't have had the backlash and the tea party to contend with. Why was there no Democratic version of the "tea party" - why did the Dems completely ignore that entire sentiment that millions had and left everything in the hands of the Republicans? Oh I know, "political reasons." They've ignored fiscal responsibility and they're now paying the price, even when by all accounts society is completely moving away from traditional conservative social ideas. The Dems haven't been able to capitalize on that because the party as a whole, the platform, doesn't give a shit about responsible governing, while millions of Americans (including those who have no problem with gay marriage and such), do.

[JPhillips]

Millions of Americans pretend to want responsible governing, but they also want no cuts or tax increases. The Tea Party isn't a group that wants a balanced budget, they just don't want anyone else to get their government benefits.

edit: The closest thing to a Tea Party plan, the Ryan budget, takes thirty years to balance the budget and relies on very questionable assumptions about medical spending to get there.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Millions of Americans pretend to want responsible governing, but they also want no cuts or tax increases. The Tea Party isn't a group that wants a balanced budget, they just don't want anyone else to get their government benefits.

The thing which amazes me in America is that most people are willing to:

* Cut individuals social security benefits
* Cut individuals medical benefits (ie. Medicare)
* At least discuss tax increases on individuals (even if not for themselves for the 'rich')

Yet I very very very rarely see anyone even propose making corporations pay any more .... is there a specific reason why its considered 'ok' to increase taxes people and not corporations?

(I'm aware some people are against all taxation - this is really a question for those who aren't)

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The thing which amazes me in America is that most people are willing to:

* Cut individuals social security benefits
* Cut individuals medical benefits (ie. Medicare)
* At least discuss tax increases on individuals (even if not for themselves for the 'rich')

Yet I very very very rarely see anyone even propose making corporations pay any more .... is there a specific reason why its considered 'ok' to increase taxes people and not corporations?

(I'm aware some people are against all taxation - this is really a question for those who aren't)

Probably because America is ran more like a Plutocracy than a republic/democracy. You (the politicians) don't bite the hand (corporations) that feeds you.

That's my guess at least.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The thing which amazes me in America is that most people are willing to:

* Cut individuals social security benefits
* Cut individuals medical benefits (ie. Medicare)
* At least discuss tax increases on individuals (even if not for themselves for the 'rich')

Yet I very very very rarely see anyone even propose making corporations pay any more .... is there a specific reason why its considered 'ok' to increase taxes people and not corporations?

(I'm aware some people are against all taxation - this is really a question for those who aren't)

Who isn't, the people or the politicians? I think you know the answer to the second. ($$$$$$$) As for the first, I don't know many people who aren't fed up with the corporate welfare. (Including hardcore Republicans, liberal teacher friends, a big Obama supporter, and of course my Libertarian friends ) The politicians just don't really care what the people want.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Who isn't, the people or the politicians? I think you know the answer to the second. ($$$$$$$) As for the first, I don't know many people who aren't fed up with the corporate welfare. (Including hardcore Republicans, liberal teacher friends, a big Obama supporter, and of course my Libertarian friends ) The politicians just don't really care what the people want.

Yep. We all agree on this.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

Two pages ago you wanted to raise taxes now and not cut anything until some vague point in the future.

Edit: The Dems view any real cut, under any circumstance, as a type of currency that they need to get something for. That's fine if that's the political strategy, just stop pretending that the Dems are from from this higher more reasonable place. They just got less in the negotiation. They got beat. By a party they keep proclaiming is dying.

And what's often ignored is that one of the major reasons the Dems keep getting beat is the presence of the tea party, which gained momentum and continues to exist in its twisted form because many Americans got sick of the Democrats and Republicans ignoring these issues. If the Democrats really were so high and mighty and reasonable, maybe they should have actually worked towards fiscal responsibility and then maybe they wouldn't have had the backlash and the tea party to contend with. Why was there no Democratic version of the "tea party" - why did the Dems completely ignore that entire sentiment that millions had and left everything in the hands of the Republicans? Oh I know, "political reasons." They've ignored fiscal responsibility and they're now paying the price, even when by all accounts society is completely moving away from traditional conservative social ideas. The Dems haven't been able to capitalize on that because the party as a whole, the platform, doesn't give a shit about responsible governing, while millions of Americans (including those who have no problem with gay marriage and such), do.

I disagree. I think the media turned the tea party and the occupy wall street movements into Democrat and GOP things but I think both started and contained a lot of people that are just sick of out of control spending (by both parties), warmongering (by both parties), and corporate welfare (by both parties). The media managed to do its job and spin it into a D vs R thing but it isn't what it started out as. I recall incumbents from both parties getting voted out of office.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The thing which amazes me in America is that most people are willing to:

* Cut individuals social security benefits
* Cut individuals medical benefits (ie. Medicare)
* At least discuss tax increases on individuals (even if not for themselves for the 'rich')

Yet I very very very rarely see anyone even propose making corporations pay any more .... is there a specific reason why its considered 'ok' to increase taxes people and not corporations?

(I'm aware some people are against all taxation - this is really a question for those who aren't)

Ya, it's true, for whatever reason, personal income has been the hot thing for a long time and the thing the debates revolve around, to the extent that the Dems were willing to allow more Wall Street tax loopholes into the fiscal cliff bill in order to achieve that more public "win" with regard to income tax rates. Maybe it's just a simpler language to understand - people making $250k, or $400k, and "Clinton tax rates". How Exxon or Google makes its money and how its taxed (and not taxed) is a lot harder to wrap your head around.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Yet I very very very rarely see anyone even propose making corporations pay any more .... is there a specific reason why its considered 'ok' to increase taxes people and not corporations?

Here on FOFC, we've had long discussions about the corporate loopholes that allow GE, Apple, Google, etc to get away with minimal tax hit. Of course when "jobs" are all important, that's part of the answer (in addition to what others have said).

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

So you were bailed out by the government to stop you going out of business, you are running a huge ad campaign to thank the american people and government for the bailout, what's the logical next step? Why join a lawsuit by some of your shareholders that the terms of the bailout were too unfair and it's the governments fault that the shares devalued so much of course!

The banking sector is the most illogical fucking thing in the world. I get the feeling that if an alien race did come to earth they'd just be mindblown at this insane system we have.

Might want to read up on the case a little more-it's a shareholder lawsuit.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The fun part about Medicare cuts is that the way they are doing it is:

- Just paying doctors less for the same care
- Adding onerous rules to medical providers (especially hospitals) that make it easy for them to simply not pay (for example, go to the hospital for something, have to go back within a short time window for something else, that's a readmission and you lose your reimbursement for both incidents).

They aren't doing anything to address why healthcare costs so much in the first place. It's like how they treat states with unfunded mandates: demand the extra care, but pay less than before for it.

And doctors and hospitals are just going to opt out of Medicare more and more.

The tax on all medical devices in Obama's health care laws isn't going to help, either.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The thing which amazes me in America is that most people are willing to:

* Cut individuals social security benefits
* Cut individuals medical benefits (ie. Medicare)
* At least discuss tax increases on individuals (even if not for themselves for the 'rich')

Yet I very very very rarely see anyone even propose making corporations pay any more .... is there a specific reason why its considered 'ok' to increase taxes people and not corporations?

(I'm aware some people are against all taxation - this is really a question for those who aren't)

Medicare/medical benefits is the big elephant in the room.

Corporations can move to other jurisdictions. Increasing tax rates and closing loopholes on them will just push them to countries that are much more tax-friendly. Not to mention increasing taxes on them just trickles down the cost of those taxes to the consumers. Not saying it's right, but that is what happens.

[JPhillips]

But at the end of the day there's only two ways to bring down per capita medical costs, either you limit access or you reduce the growth of payments to providers.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But at the end of the day there's only two ways to bring down per capita medical costs, either you limit access or you reduce the growth of payments to providers.

And the second one just pushes more doctors and hospitals to accept Medicare.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think we'll see a lot more of this moving forward. Health care avoidance is going to become as common as tax avoidance. Worst part is that the new law not only doesn't help these people, it also causes their hours to be cut by 10 hours a week, thereby reducing their take home wages as well.

Fast-Food Worker Hours Cut, New Health Care Law Blamed

[JPhillips]

The employer mandate doesn't kick in until 2014. The owner's just being a dick.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think we'll see a lot more of this moving forward. Health care avoidance is going to become as common as tax avoidance. Worst part is that the new law not only doesn't help these people, it also causes their hours to be cut by 10 hours a week, thereby reducing their take home wages as well.

Fast-Food Worker Hours Cut, New Health Care Law Blamed

My sister recently lost her job as a store manager at a local Dominos. She's looking for pretty much anything she can get until she can find another management job, looking at the standard big chains (dominos/papa johns/pizza hut) and also a number of smaller franchises and mom and pop owned places. I'd say she's probably applied at 15 stores by now and every single one of them that is hiring is telling everyone who applies that they will be limited to 29 hours/week for any sort of non-management position. Some of them are limiting current employee hours already, some have not yet, but all of them are limiting new hire hours.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The employer mandate doesn't kick in until 2014. The owner's just being a dick.

Most aren't going to wait until then. You need to start switching the policies this year so the new scheduling is in place well in advance. I know the art of creating bad guys out of business leaders is a well-entrenched thing now. With that said, they have to start making those decisions as quickly as possible so their aren't any issues when the change takes place. A year is not long when you're planning changes in how you employ and schedule people with that many employees. We're going to see a ton of this in the first half of the year.

Originally Posted by Radii

My sister recently lost her job as a store manager at a local Dominos. She's looking for pretty much anything she can get until she can find another management job, looking at the standard big chains (dominos/papa johns/pizza hut) and also a number of smaller franchises and mom and pop owned places. I'd say she's probably applied at 15 stores by now and every single one of them that is hiring is telling everyone who applies that they will be limited to 29 hours/week for any sort of non-management position. Some of them are limiting current employee hours already, some have not yet, but all of them are limiting new hire hours.

Exactly. The change has to be planned well in advance to entrench that in corporate policy well before the end of the year.

[molson]

Obviously if they made the cutoff 30 hours they would have known that the new service industry standard would become <30 hours (more so than it is already, anyway). My question is why that was considered do-able - is it better to have more people working, albeit part-time, at the sacrifice of some full-time jobs? Maybe it's better just to have more different bodies in there working some amount of hours. It might make the unemployment rate look better.

[stevew]

People will still work the equivalent hours of a 40 hour week, as in they will still have basically the same periods consumed by work, and they will just get paid for/work 30. Instead of working 3-11 they'll get stuck working 5-11 or some such.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

People will still work the equivalent hours of a 40 hour week, they will just get paid for 30. Instead of working 3-11 they'll get stuck working 5-11 or some such.

Huh?

I'm pretty sure that's 40 hours in the first example & 30 hours in the 2nd one.

Are you trying to equate it with them not being able to do much (personally) with those two extra hours or something?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe it's better just to have more different bodies in there working some amount of hours. It might make the unemployment rate look better.

That's exactly what will happen. It will likely lead to more people working two jobs, neither of which will provide health benefits. There will also be a decrease in the official unemployment rate because new workers will be employed to cover the additional hours that become available. The problem is that the underemployement rate (which is not reported in official unemployment numbers), will skyrocket because more people will be taking non-management jobs (in some cases, two non-management jobs) and not working at the level they really want to work.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Huh?

I'm pretty sure that's 40 hours in the first example & 30 hours in the 2nd one.

Are you trying to equate it with them not being able to do much (personally) with those two extra hours or something?

Well, I knew I probably phased it shitty. I mean if I hired a dude (when I worked in restaurant) wed schedule him 5-6 hour shifts with that law vs. 5-8 hour shifts. He makes 75% wages instead, and has to look for another job but still has 5 "working shifts" occupied. It sucks, but it was heading that way anyways. I doubt people schedule 3-10s or 4-7.5 hour shifts.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Well, I knew I probably phased it shitty. I mean if I hired a dude (when I worked in restaurant) wed schedule him 5-6 hour shifts with that law vs. 5-8 hour shifts. He makes 75% wages instead, and has to look for another job but still has 5 "working shifts" occupied. It sucks, but it was heading that way anyways. I doubt people schedule 3-10s or 4-7.5 hour shifts.

Well I at least kinda managed to get the general idea you were shooting for (but was open to the possibility I was really really confused).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think we'll see a lot more of this moving forward. Health care avoidance is going to become as common as tax avoidance. Worst part is that the new law not only doesn't help these people, it also causes their hours to be cut by 10 hours a week, thereby reducing their take home wages as well.

Fast-Food Worker Hours Cut, New Health Care Law Blamed

This has been happening for a long time. Blaming ACA is just a convenient excuse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/bu...anted=all&_r=0

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This has been happening for a long time. Blaming ACA is just a convenient excuse.

A Part-Time Life, as Hours Shrink and Shift for American Workers - NYTimes.com

SI

Yep. I worked for Kroger right out of high school and they deliberately held my weekly hours back to make sure I didn't trigger some kind of benefit requirement. This was in the mid-90s.

[albionmoonlight]

Linking health care to employment is a stupid idea whose time has come and gone anyway. And I say that as someone with a job with a really good health plan.

Putting two of the most important economic eggs of people's lives into the same basket makes little sense.

The only way that health reform would pass is with the promise that "If you like your plan, you won't have to change it." But that was a stupid promise because it kept the skeleton of a fundamentally broken system in place.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This has been happening for a long time. Blaming ACA is just a convenient excuse.

A Part-Time Life, as Hours Shrink and Shift for American Workers - NYTimes.com

SI

So the defense of ACA is that it really doesn't change much. (Except the fact that it appears anecdotal that the service industry IS reacting to it, but we'll have to wait and see actual numbers on that.)

This is the kind of stuff that worried me about this kind of legislation. When there's perceptions or reactions to it that the supporters don't like, they basically say that they don't count. Even if they're real. "These companies are just being jerks, ACA is really great." So we're not supposed to count the realistic outcomes because people aren't acting right. It doesn't really matter though. People have to live in reality. You have to account for perceptions and how people will actually react to things. Some people think that it's possible that if taxes go too high, people won't hire as much, or they'll spend less, or they're move their company. And maybe they don't have to on paper, who knows. But if they did, that's still bad. That still counts. Legislation that only works in a fantasy world isn't that great, that's the basis of a lot of criticism of Democrat-based legislation. We know at the end of the day it won't work and it will be Republicans' fault.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

So the defense of ACA is that it really doesn't change much. (Except the fact that it appears anecdotal that the service industry IS reacting to it, but we'll have to wait and see actual numbers on that.)

This is the kind of stuff that worried me about this kind of legislation. When there's perceptions or reactions to it that the supporters don't like, they basically say that they don't count. Even if they're real. "These companies are just being jerks, ACA is really great." So we're not supposed to count the realistic outcomes because people aren't acting right. It doesn't really matter though. People have to live in reality. You have to account for perceptions and how people will actually react to things. Some people think that it's possible that if taxes go too high, people won't hire as much, or they'll spend less, or they're move their company. And maybe they don't have to on paper, who knows. But if they did, that's still bad. That still counts. Legislation that only works in a fantasy world isn't that great, that's the basis of a lot of criticism of Democrat-based legislation. We know at the end of the day it won't work and it will be Republicans' fault.

Your mistake is in assuming I'm defending ACA. Without a public option, the base structure of the bill makes no sense.

EDIT: Tho there are quite a few useful provisions.

SI