Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (49767)	7/31/2013 12:37:12 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

lol! you'r e on a roll tonight! ya gotta love it jpm rigging markets isn't good enough, but if they can rig 'em better, they will save us!

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (49767)	7/31/2013 12:57:33 AM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Robert Transki Letter We Found Out What's In It Per Nancy Pelosi, we had to pass ObamaCare so we could find out what's in it. Well, they passed it, and three years later we can finally say definitively what is in it: a ban on full-time employment for low-income workers. Not a formal ban, to be sure. But the employer mandate—which has only been delayed, not removed—functions as a tax imposed on employers for hiring anyone to work more than 29 hours a week. On high-income workers, this tax is negligible. If you are worth $200,000 a year to your employer, chances are he already provides you with generous health benefits, and if new regulations in ObamaCare add a few thousand dollars to the cost, it is only one or two percentage points of your salary. It is easy for you or your employers to absorb. Who this really hits is the low-income worker in a low-productivity job. If you're working the Fryolator at the local fast food joint and your job is only worth $20,000 a year to your employer, and then ObamaCare imposes an additional cost of $2,000 or more, the increase in payroll is simply unsustainable. Your employer either has to lay you off or cut you down to 29 hours a week to keep you from being counted as "full time." Hence the announcement that Trig's, a Wisconsin supermarket chain, has cut the hours of hundreds of its part-time workers in order to avoid being run out of business by ObamaCare. White Castle has announced that all new workers it hires will be part time, under the 29-hour a week limit. And: "A recent survey from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that half of the small businesses responding said they will reduce hours or add more part-timers in response to the law." Another restaurant chain franchisee describes how he got out of the business rather than deal with the new costs. The brutality of this policy is hard to overstate. Low-wage workers are the ones who are in greatest need of full-time employment, since they are already barely making enough to get by. And such a big incentive against full-time employment is clearly a huge blow to upward mobility for the poor. For those starting at the bottom, the very first step up the economic ladder is to go from part-time employee to full-time employee. ObamaCare has just cut off that rung. And here's the kicker: even the people who are implementing ObamaCare are responding to its incentives against full-time work. When California's state government started up a call center to answer the public's questions about the implementation of ObamaCare, it turned out that half of the jobs would be part time and would not offer health insurance. "'What's really ironic is working for a call center and trying to help people get health care, but we can't afford it ourselves,' said the worker, who asked for anonymity out of fear of losing the job." Oh, there are many levels of irony in that report from the heartless, dog-eat-dog world of government-run health insurance.