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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (733524)	8/19/2013 1:35:22 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1578157

Obamacare Strikes, Forever 21 Cuts Employees' Hours ......................................................................... by Maggie O'Neill policymic.com The predictions and fears of the Affordable Care Act’s adversaries have begun to materialize, specifically fears that the law will encourage employers to demote their employees to part-time positions in order to evade federal health care requirements. Popular clothing company Forever 21 is the first of what might be many companies to limit its non-management workers’ hours to 29.5 a week, just below the 30-hour minimum that the ACA deems full-time work. Explaining that the company “recently audited its staffing levels, staffing needs, and payroll in conjunction with reviewing its overall operating budget,” Associate Director of Human Resources Carla Macias informed employees that effective August 31, they will no longer be full-time employees of Forever 21. READ: " The Studies Are In, and Obamacare is Failing Miserably" It is a move that will likely harm the reputation of the company, will absolutely harm the economic circumstances of its employees, and will function as a tangible example of the Affordable Care Act’s consequences and shortcomings. Although the ethical nature of Forever 21’s decision is debatable, it is both rational and understandable. A company that boasts regularly low prices and frequent, sensational sales, Forever 21's competitive success is largely dependent upon its ability to maintain low manufacturing and operational costs. The ACA is an undeniable burden on this principle, and Forever 21’s management has the prerogative to take any legal measures necessary to avoid raising the costs of its products. It is a decision that will pose moderate public-relations consequences for the company and it is an unfortunate result for its employees, but it is a pragmatic choice for any profit-driven company to make. Forever 21 will subsequently be just one of many others to take such an action if the ACA isn’t revised or repealed. READ MORE: " The One Chart That Shows Why Even Unions Are Abandoning Obamacare" The private sector relies on minimizing costs and maximizing earnings. And those who compete within the economy must achieve those standards within the confines of rules established by the government. New rules from the ACA have been set, and Forever 21 has acted accordingly and eventually so too will its competitors and others in different sectors. It is probable that in a perfect world, Forever 21’s management would love to continue employing full-time workers, provide them with substantial health care benefits, and maintain low prices for its customers. But in a nation with uniquely high health care costs, an issue that the Affordable Care Act fails to address, this is a regrettably unrealistic business model. As long as health care costs remain as high as they are in the United States, many American companies will not be able to fund their employees' health insurance and provide their consumers with quality, cheap products. And as is inevitable in a capitalist economy, companies compelled to reduce costs will find a way to do so, even if their employees are disadvantaged in the process.

To: combjelly who wrote (733524)	8/19/2013 1:35:23 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Recommended By joseffy PKRBKR Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578157

Your statement is indefensible. Our sun is a variable star But is nowhere near variable enough to account for the climate changes in the geological record

To: combjelly who wrote (733524)	8/20/2013 11:59:13 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 1578157

Hi combjelly; Re: "Our sun is a variable star. But is nowhere near variable enough to account for the climate changes in the geological record." Assuming the sun is "nowhere near variable enough", then the catastrophic global warming people have to explain the climate changes in the geological record. So far they've failed to do that. Their models only accurately cover the most recent century at most (and that's with far more parameters and arbitrary equation choices than Fermi famously said was sufficient to make an elephant wag it's tail. See scribd.com if you're unfamiliar with this famous physics aphorism.) If they ever do get the modeling right we'll know it. They'll tell us what next year's weather is going to be like this year. As it is, they failed miserably in predicting the 15-year pause in global air temperatures and now are coming up with palpably thin excuses along the line of what any grade school kid has had to come up with, "honestly teacher, I wrote the paper you asked for but it got eaten up by the deep ocean." And are you entirely sure that the sun isn't very variable? The reason CO2 increases the earth's temperature is that it raises the altitude that gets warmed by the earth's infrared radiation. That makes the CO2 blanket thicker. So the temperature of the high altitude atmosphere is important for the effect of CO2 on the earth's temperature. And what happens at those high altitudes when the sun goes through its cycles? One of the the nice things about living on earth is that most of the sun's UV energy is absorbed at high altitude by ozone. And you might think that if the sun's UV changed significantly, it might change the temperature of the earth's upper atmosphere and that might have an effect on the CO2 warming. So how much does the sun's UV output change as a result of the sun being a variable star? Why don't you go look that one up, LOL. -- Carl