Obamacare may prompt people to work less

[steven]

Many workers may opt to work less to retain their eligibility for Medicaid or federal subsidies under Obamacare, a new report has found.

The Affordable Care Act could reduce the labor force by the equivalent of 2.5 million workers in 2024, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's annual outlook.

That doesn't mean employers will start swinging the ax or even that that many jobs will be lost, CBO says. Rather, more people will likely opt to reduce their hours, or leave the workforce entirely, so they stay under the income caps for Medicaid and federal subsidies.

"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor," the report says. Therefore, it will more likely show up as a decline in share of the population participating in the labor force and in hours worked, rather than in spikes in unemployment or underemployment.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/04/news...bamacare-work/

[HipKat]

How many companies allow you to reduce your hours?? I'd say none that I ever worked for

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

How many companies allow you to reduce your hours?? I'd say none that I ever worked for

Step 1 - Evaluate the amount of money you're making working full time in wages and the cost of health insurance working full time.

Step 2 - Evaluate how much less you would make if you moved from full time to part time.

Step 3 - Evaluate how much less you would have to pay for heath insurance if you were now a part time working making less money.

Step 4 - Notice that by going part time, you can actually take home around the same amount of money due to qualifying for aid and a lower health insurance rate.

Step 5 - Tell your manager that you want to go to part time.

[nogods]

Step 1 - Evaluate the amount of money you're making working full time in wages and the cost of health insurance working full time.

Step 2 - Evaluate how much less you would make if you moved from full time to part time.

Step 3 - Evaluate how much less you would have to pay for heath insurance if you were now a part time working making less money.

Step 4 - Notice that by going part time, you can actually take home around the same amount of money due to qualifying for aid and a lower health insurance rate.

Step 5 - Tell your manager that you want to go to part time.

If the employer has need of part time workers, then Obamacare ends up facilitating choice - a person can decide to work part time and fill a need of his employer without losing access to health care (what difference does it make if the employer lets A become part time and hires B for the full time position, as opposed to keeping A as a full time employee and hiring B part time?)

If the employer has no need for part time employees, it'll tell you to either continue working full time or take a hike.

Do you think either of those two is objectionable?

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

If the employer has need of part time workers, then Obamacare ends up facilitating choice - a person can decide to work part time and fill a need of his employer without losing access to health care (what difference does it make if the employer lets A become part time and hires B for the full time position, as opposed to keeping A as a full time employee and hiring B part time?)

If the employer has no need for part time employees, it'll tell you to either continue working full time or take a hike.

Do you think either of those two is objectionable?

I have no issue with part time employment. I think it's an extremely valuable resource for employers and employees when the situation is right.

Where I have issue is when the math works out better for someone to stay at home rather than work, when they are fully capable of working full time. I have issue with programs that are structured in a way that rewards someone for working less. I have issue when government mandates and regulations interfere with the market and cause or make it more profitable for someone to not work.

To your question, if an employer is forced to work with a labor market that is modified due to government interference and in turn faces excessive costs, that's a problem.

[FMD]

Not so much rewards them for working less, but penalizes them for working more!

[nogods]

I have no issue with part time employment. I think it's an extremely valuable resource for employers and employees when the situation is right.

Where I have issue is when the math works out better for someone to stay at home rather than work, when they are fully capable of working full time. I have issue with programs that are structured in a way that rewards someone for working less. I have issue when government mandates and regulations interfere with the market and cause or make it more profitable for someone to not work.

To your question, if an employer is forced to work with a labor market that is modified due to government interference and in turn faces excessive costs, that's a problem.

Again, what is the difference if the employer allows A to go from full time to part time, and then hires B for the full time position versus A staying as full time and the employer hiring B part time?

The employee can't tell the employer "you must let me work part time". At best, the employee can say "let me work part time or I'll quit." To which the employer will respond, if it doesn't need a part time worker, "then quit."

You are assuming there is an employee shortage so sever that employees can dictate to employers their working hours. If that were true then there would be no minimum wage jobs, no jobs paying wages below the poverty line, no jobs without health insurance benefits, paid vacation, and employer funded retirement. Employees would just tell the employer what the employer would have to pay for their services and how much vacation they would take, and how much health insurance coverage they wanted.

[nogods]

Not so much rewards them for working less, but penalizes them for working more!

Nope. It takes loss of health care coverage out of the employment equation.

Just like medicare takes loss of health care out of the retirement decision.

And just like water treatment takes the decision to boil or purify with chlorine out of the drinking water decision.

[HipKat]

Step 1 - Evaluate the amount of money you're making working full time in wages and the cost of health insurance working full time.

Step 2 - Evaluate how much less you would make if you moved from full time to part time.

Step 3 - Evaluate how much less you would have to pay for heath insurance if you were now a part time working making less money.

Step 4 - Notice that by going part time, you can actually take home around the same amount of money due to qualifying for aid and a lower health insurance rate.

Step 5 - Tell your manager that you want to go to part time.

Again, I've never worked for a company that employs part time workers, except the grocery store I worked for, for a few months, but I'll wager most companies only offer full time work

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Again, I've never worked for a company that employs part time workers, except the grocery store I worked for, for a few months, but I'll wager most companies only offer full time work

About 20% of workers in the US are part time. To suggest that most companies do not tap into 20% of the labor market is silly. Consider that a company with 150 employees that has just 1 or 2 part time workers would not be a part of your 'most companies' conclusion.

[HipKat]

80% are full time. Which totally supports my stance that MOST companies only hire full time workers. I get that you're an arrogant old man that thinks he's never wrong, but your wrong

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

80% are full time. Which totally supports my stance that MOST companies only hire full time workers. I get that you're an arrogant old man that thinks he's never wrong, but your wrong

You're a fool.



First off, if 1 in 4 workers are part time, that's a signifiant amount of the work force. To suggest that most companies do not work with 20% of the workforce is silly. You have shown nothing to back up your claim that most companies do not hire full time workers.

Secondly, it's your stance of MOST companies ONLY work with full time workers is what makes you look stupid. Only = Always. As I said before, if a company has 150 employees and only 1 of them is part time, they do not ONLY work with full time workers. Now if you would have said most companies primarily employ full time workers, that's completely different.

Speaking in absolutes is a bad idea even when you have facts to support the perspective. Speaking in absolutes without any facts just makes you look like a retard.

[HipKat]

You're a fool.



First off, if 1 in 4 workers are part time, that's a signifiant amount of the work force. To suggest that most companies do not work with 20% of the workforce is silly. You have shown nothing to back up your claim that most companies do not hire full time workers.

Secondly, it's your stance of MOST companies ONLY work with full time workers is what makes you look stupid. Only = Always. As I said before, if a company has 150 employees and only 1 of them is part time, they do not ONLY work with full time workers. Now if you would have said most companies primarily employ full time workers, that's completely different.

Speaking in absolutes is a bad idea even when you have facts to support the perspective. Speaking in absolutes without any facts just makes you look like a retard.

20% is one in Five workers. Pretty much all I needed to read to be reminded of who I'm even talking to. And BTW, no, most companies work with 80% of the work force. Not 20%. It's simple 1st grade math. 80 is more than 20.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

20% is one in Five workers. Pretty much all I needed to read to be reminded of who I'm even talking to. And BTW, no, most companies work with 80% of the work force. Not 20%. It's simple 1st grade math. 80 is more than 20.

You're right. I said 1 in 4 when it's 1 in 5. Woops.

How about this. List me just a few of the types of companies that would only, as in always, work with just full time workers. Remember...you decided to speak with absolutes. So if you say a landscaping company, you're saying that there are no landscaping companies that work with part time work. If you say a law office, you're saying that zero law offices use part time workers.

I'll hang up and listen now.

[steven]

When my ex was a manager at Wallmart lots of people would not work the 40 or over because it would make them ineligible for some welfare benefits. The same is true for most retail establishments.

I remember when I was volunteering for a community group and we had a recently divorced mom that couldn't afford her bills. At the end of the day she was advised to get rid of her house because once she did she would would be eligible for a lot of goverment programs she wasn't eligible for as a homeowner.

Agreat read on this kind of thing:


Star Parker

Uncle Sam's Plantation

A vast sea of perhaps well intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960's, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down fifty percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending-it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single parent homes and out of wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Guess whose getting moved on the plantation now?