Discussion for article #238363
I hope it is not lost on Hillary that government policies concerning benefits, particularly ObamaCare, encourage employers to hire part-time people. We need to change the rules to penalize companies that game benefits. We also need to increase the minimum wage.
“They don’t need a lecture. They need a raise,”
Amen. More and LOUDER, please.
7 Likes
Good one, Hillary. A powerful counter-soundbite. (Although if you couldn’t hit this one, you’d better sit down.)
More of these; and fewer dumb gaffes, please.
1 Like
TPM gave this one low priority…guess it does stir the readers…
Too bad facts say otherwise.
3 Likes
We’re with you on that, Hill.
Bush had been discussing the prevalence in the number of part-time workers and the need for Americans to find more full-time employment.
No, he was absolutely not “discussing that”. That is not what he said at all. That’s just the excuse his handlers came up with when people began paying attention to what he said in a speech. “Discussion” typically involves more than one person - it bugs the heck out of me the way that phrase is almost always misused.
“I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can’t have one without the other,” Clinton said.
Not true of course, as we’ve been demonstrating since before her husband was president - or didn’t she notice? You’re going to have to be a lot more strident than that about income inequity Ms. Clinton. Your Wall Street backers will be OK with that, right?
It’s really sad to see that the AP has followed the rest of “the media” right down the toilet memory hole.
The “part time” canard is a little silly and has been disproven time and time again. While there are some industries where having two people work 20 hours each instead of one working 40 hours makes little enough of a difference that the federal benefits mandate makes sense, they are rather rare industries. In professional circles, the fixed cost-per-employee, well aside from any federally-mandated benefits, are significant enough that replacing one worker with two lower-paid workers doesn’t make economic sense.
IMHO, if the “benefits requirements incentivizes part-time employment offers” canard actually had any substance to it, the answer would be to expand those benefits-requiremnts programs to capture part-time workers with slightly-reduced benefits requirements. Alternatively, nationalize the benefits programs instead of involving employers at all but you then need to worry about transition period effects.
In any case, as demonstrated by lestatdelc, if the ACA has incentivized part time job growth, that effect is so minor that it doesn’t show up in the actual data. So, I think that the effect isn’t worth legislating out, and certainly isn’t worth demagoguing about.
1 Like
Funny, my daughter was just hired part time by a national company that doesn’t like paying benefits. I am sure your fancy chart has eluded them. Maybe somebody should tell them there is nothing to be gained. She is going to have to buy insurance on the ACA exchange.
I like your two solutions to the “non-existent” problem that my daughter has encountered. Maybe you should tell Walmart that they are wrong to hire 30 hour a week workers. They can make them full time and it won’t cost them a dime.
There appears to be a whole segment of the economy ignored by the cool kids at the top like you.
Obviously my daughter is straw to a cool kid like you. Retail is riddled with companies that don’t like to pay benefits so they hire people to part-time work. You can take your chart and shove it up your straw ass.
I just looked this is TPM. Given all the smug self assured ignorance it suddenly feels like Red State.
Nope. But your anecdote does nothing to make the argument valid, which the data simply doesn’t support.
Gee, really? And that has been the case since… always. Nothing about the ACA or public policy made that situation in retail.
Oh dearz. So we are supposed to get upset about the ACA and public policy because your daughter got a shit job in retail?
Um… ok.
And?
When I was in my youth and working retail I had zero health insurance and none was offered by the national retail chain(s) I had jobs with. That was decades ago. So should we blame the ACA and public policy for that back in the 80s…?
You are supposed to give a shit not because of my daughter, but because there are millions like her who can’t make a living wage at shit jobs in retail. Those people are American’s too. Have you ever looked at how the fucking mandate works. It’s application is based on FTEs but the mandate is applied only to the full time workers in New York or Arkansas. All the retail workers, the people who wait on you and me, are part time and they have to go to the exchange for insurance. I am not ragging on the ACA, but there were unintended consequences to the language and discouraging full-time employment was one of them.
My daughter is 26 single with a son. She is trying like hell to get ahead. You can bad mouth her all you want because I can’t get my hands on your miserable privileged ass, but I am telling you one of these days her generation is going to show up with pitchforks.
All for raising the min. wage and tying it to the CPI.
I am for all that too, but I want her to have health insurance.
Not bad mouthing her or anyone else stuck in shit jobs in retail. Been there, done that.
So is that a threat?
So I am “privileged”?
Good to know.