{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
publicado originalmente en:Secular Sevens
4/16/2014 6:34:16 AM
17
Well, the post was positive. Still doesn't explain why I have to cut all of my employees to part time in order to avoid an outrageous penalty to my company because we can't afford the outrageous prices to insure our employees. Now they have income that has been almost halved and lean on the government even more just to keep their housing and food. The Affordable part of the AHA is erroneous.
English
-
Editado por Seggi: 4/16/2014 6:54:22 AMIf you are actually an affected employer you would know that, firstly, the employer mandate only comes into effect from 2015 and, secondly, that it only affects employers with 100 or more full-time equivalent employees (with employers of 50-99 full time employees being affected from 2016 onwards).
-
Our company had us start at the beginning of LAST year. I wish I knew why, but we were not the only ones. And the date it takes effect is of little consequence to the fact that it's making people who make or are slightly above minimum wage drop further into poverty. Sure, some will be OK by continuing education or seeking a 2nd source of income but not everyone will be able to do so. I'll admit that the economic impact is slightly lost on me, but I'm not looking at a report written by a salaried government employee. I'm looking at a worker and telling him I can't schedule him over 29 hours a week. I can't answer his why's or how's or help him in any way. And that affordable insurance he's required to have takes roughly the same amount to pay as he just lost due to the same bill. So what's the end game? I have to deal with this at the most base level. When can I look up and be relieved that this law is working and it's making our country a better place? When the upper class have to start paying double at restaurants? Triple?
-
Tell me: is your company's overall demand for labour in decline because of the employer mandate?
-
Steady. My labour hours and percent are the same as before. Unless you mean demand for labor as an economic term, then that would be an increase as we need more people to fill in for lost shift coverage. Help me out here, I'm an ASM at a restaurant, not an Economics Major.
-
I mean the amount of hours worked by employees for your company, but from what you've said it seems that it's mostly unchanged by the employer mandate. If the effect is that demand for labour remains the same but is more spread out but that a certain number of firms also provide greater compensation for their employees' labour in the form of employer-based health insurance, that seems like a positive move to me.
-
And I hope it turns out to be positive, I truly do. But the issue I have is for the individuals. They're covered medically, but bringing home $600 dollars a month. I'm just using min wage here. Cost of living in my area averages 500 month in rent. That's insane. For those that can't supplement the government is their fallback. That can't be good. It's late and I'm muddled but I can't see the silver lining for these people. Hell, I'm struggling financially and I don't personally deal with the negative effects on my paycheck. It looks bleak, is my point. And I truly believe this negative aspect will far outweigh the positive.
-
600 USD/month is well under the poverty rate, even for a sole household occupant. Those people should be covered by Medicaid.
-
Exactly. It's where the whole mandate loses me on the AHCA. Actually it's the insurance and penalty costs. Too damn high for us to pay. Also, shouldn't people who are covered be able to get over 30 hours without a penalty to the company?
-
You're still missing the point that this hasn't decreased your overall demand for labour.
-
That's the point. It hasn't decreased but in order to avoid massive penalties or premiums his company has had to hire 2 people to do what one person used to do.
-
To the effect of one person being employed less the same amount that another person is employed more. That kind of distribution might be less convenient, but it's not affecting actual demand for labour, or negatively affecting compensation for that labour.
-
Yeah just go get another job, right? It's all about the group and not the individual, right, -blam!-ing lol.
-
This might surprise you, but a group is a collection of individuals. I know, try not to faint.
-
Yep, and what's best for the group is not what's best for the individual. Equal poverty for all FTW!
-
While technically a job is being created, the efficiency is being lost. It now takes twice as many hands to get something done than it did before.
-
No, it doesn't. That's not how units of labour are measured.
-
But reality says it does. I understand your points, Seggi, but soon these "individuals" who are making even less now will turn into a "group" of very poor, possibly homeless, and extremely pissed off people.
