That wasn’t an opinion, my hours were cut. As were many other people’s hour in my area.
Then you’re misinformed about the relationship between anecdotes and actual data, too.
Your anecdotal experience is not relevant to the country as a whole. Obamacare did not cause widespread cutting of hours as critics predicted. I have proof. You do not.
and if you bothered to read your own cite you would see that it affected .5% of the labor force consisting of young people with a HS degree and older people. That comes out to 650,000 people. Not mentioned in that study was the problem older people have getting hired because of higher insurance costs to businesses.
No, you don’t have proof. Your own cite tried to downplay .5% of the workforce.
There’s a reason both houses flipped and it’s not because Democrats suddenly fell in love with the Republican party.
Yeah he’s the one with a reading problem…
What part of post 44 did you not understand?
Your math for starters. 2 sub groups do not account for the entirety of the workforce. The total workforce from 2013-2015 was always between 140,000,000 and 150,000,000. Do you think people with no more than HS educations and people 60-64 make up over 85% of the workforce?
Also how about the line you pulled the .5% from that specifically said the .5% reduction could not be attributed to Obama Care?
I specified who was affected and the number it represented. Again, what part of that did you not understand? You think a shift of .5% of the workforce is a joke?
There is literally no other reason to reduce someone’s hours and hire more people other than to save money. None. The money saved is the removal of insurance coverage.
I think it hardly supports any claim of widespread cutting of hours because of Obamacare.
If you take .5% of a group of people and that works out to be 650,000 people, you would have had to have started with a group of 130,000,000 people. You specified who was affected, ‘young people with a HS Degree and older people’ The cite specified ‘people with no more than a high school degree, and workers between the age of 60 and 64’
130,000,000 people would make up over 85% of the workforce in the given time frame. I don’t think in either case those groups make up 85% of the workforce, maybe you can shock me with a cite to the contrary.
Please explain how you came to conclude that .5% of ‘young people with a HS Degree and older people’ can possibly come out to 650,000 people. This is where I am confused.
I don’t think a shift of .5% of the workforce is a joke, but the fact is during that specific period the total workforce shift from part time to full time increased. It was only those specific groups that saw a net shift from full time to part time.
You can check out these charts here Pay attention to the last chart. The largest spike in part time employment as percentage of the workforce happened before Obama care was even voted on.
The data also shows since the implementation of Obama care part time percentage of employment has been going down, which is in contrast to your earlier claim.
I think Fear Itself summed this up nicely
Since you think anecdotal evidence is equivalent to data; My anecdote is when I was management for a major retailer, before most people even knew who Obama was, we were actively cutting full time employees and replacing them with part timers. This was increasing our total pay roll cost. No money was being saved by doing this. The reason for doing so is the company had predicted that an increased sales associate to customer ratio would increase sales. Since our peak sales hours usually fell into 4 hour blocks it was much easier to use part timers to cover only peak periods. Were as if we used all full timers, they could cover a peak periods but they would also end up being there during slow periods which hurt our ratios.
It turned out not to increase sales enough to matter, my personal opinion is because the part timers weren’t as good as the full timers, so they couldn’t actually boast sales as predicted. The company later went back to a larger full time to part time ratio.
Only if you don’t think 650,000 people don’t count.
Do some number crunching on the high-deductible thing - if you’re single, it might be more costly, but if you’re insuring a family, it might be cheaper overall. Seriously.
I did the math for our situation - and because the out-of-pocket limit is no more for 4 people (me, my husband, and our two kids) than it would be for two people, and my daughter and I both have a number of ongoing expenses, etc., we figured that we’d do better in the long run to go with the high-deductible plan because we’d hit the cap relatively early in the year.
The first few months were pretty painful - 5,400 deductible for the family, and we didn’t have the health-spending account money set aside yet, so it was truly out of pocket.
Anyway - those plans are great if you are either very healthy, or have a lot of expenses. Not so great for the average “1-2 scrips a month, no major conditions” scenario.
I hear ya on the HMO though.
You multiply .5% times the work force.
Well that makes no sense either. The most current number for people in the workforce I can find from the BLS is 146,305,000. 146,305,000 x .5% = 731,525.
Where are you getting your number of people in the workforce from? It hasn’t been 130,000,000 for almost 20 years.
Why are you multiplying the entire workforce by .5% When you said it was ‘young people with a HS Degree and older people’ that saw a .5% decrease in employment?
Shouldn’t you be multiplying the number of ‘young people with a HS Degree and older people’ by .5 percent?
I’ll remain confused I guess. Maybe it’s my HS education that’s failing me here. Do you have a single cite to support your 650,000 number? Maybe I can work from there.
:rolleyes: You’re arguing that I under valued the number? Really? The .5% number pulled from the study (as if it’s an exact number) just sailed over your head and instead of acknowledging the people it represents who were harmed by the loss of work hours you want to discuss an exact number.
No you are extremely over valuing your number as I’ve pointed out 3 or 4 times now but you seem to have no interest in addressing that.
Pointing out your math makes no sense under any circumstances, is just a fun sidenote.
I don’t expect you’ll ever respond honestly and acknowledge the fact you are wrong . It’s kinda like that double punch thread you provided hours of entertainment in. Just keep digging or go away.