Aa
Jobs
Part-Time Jobs Surge To All-Time High; Full-Time Jobs Plunge By 240,000...
www.drudgereport.com
I see this as bad news, I suspect others will say, well at least it's jobs. Thoughts?
www.drudgereport.com
I see this as bad news, I suspect others will say, well at least it's jobs. Thoughts?
Exactly. With McCain it was all about him being a war monger, a President that would support the wealthy and let the poor starve, etc. With Obama it was the death panel (or something like that) with medical and that he would turn the US into a Socialist country, etc. It really was something to see, especially if you didn't have an emotional stake in it.
Absolutely fear has something to do with it. Look at every Presidential campaign from this country, especially during the last 2 decades. The candidates always take turns trying to scare people, and then the people run around scaring people. "If you vote for that guy, there will be murder camps" etc.
Sometimes it sure seems to be a bigger plan at work. I watch from the "outside" given that I am not American. One of the things that is often discussed in Canada is that it often seems like your politicians, working through media, rule by fear. You all know I'm not very into conspiracies, but maybe fear is the way they think they can get ahead? They talk about all the horrible things that will happen if you change your medical system, if you don't go hunt down all the terrorists (seems like everytime I go through your airports your on high alert) and the list goes on. I know I'm not alone in often thinking they want to keep you scared. Not that there isn't valid reason to worry about some things, but all the time?
I was thinking the other day about if the whole thing is planned. For 2 elections the best the Democrats could come up with was Gore then Kerry. Then the next 2 elections, the best the Republicans could come up with was McCain then Romney. Kind of makes you wonder.
Interesting conversation. I too think the two party system has shown us that it does not any longer work. I also have issues with how and who puts up a candidate for us to choose from. How many of us of late have said that we vote for the lesser evil in this country and feel there is no real choice? I think overall we are seeing our country morph into something else and lets just hope what we morph into is better for all of us than the current system. Until then we are stuck until we stand up and say no more, period.
I've said before here on CE that there really isn't a whole bunch of difference in what we want as an end product, its just a beef as to how we go about getting there.
In the past (here and elsewhere) I've heard it said that rich republican were to blame for everything. And that is fine if that is anyone's opinion. But the truth of the matter is, there are an abundance of rich democrats who handle business the same was as rich republicans.
I've heard both sides complain about "cleaning up government" and have seen both sides do little towards that.
(Conspiracy theory....) I think the system is built to be bigger than the people, that is why there are so many similarities and why there are so many people who vote party line regardless of how they really feel.
In the past (here and elsewhere) I've heard it said that rich republican were to blame for everything. And that is fine if that is anyone's opinion. But the truth of the matter is, there are an abundance of rich democrats who handle business the same was as rich republicans.
I've heard both sides complain about "cleaning up government" and have seen both sides do little towards that.
(Conspiracy theory....) I think the system is built to be bigger than the people, that is why there are so many similarities and why there are so many people who vote party line regardless of how they really feel.
You know, maybe one of the things that needs to change is the 2 party system? Maybe part of the issue is that your two parties have kind of become extreme - either left or right. I've thought a lot over my years on here how I identify myself politically, and I think like most people, I am pretty centerist. I agree with some liberal policies and some conservative policies. We have several parties, and I can tell you that the ones that are extreme either way really don't have much chance here. The two parties that usually take turns running the show tend to be more in the middle. So maybe that's part of the distrust and the issues? Most average Americans are probably quite middle ground where your gov't doesn't seem to be. I just am not a big fan of extremist anything I guess.
I'm okay with that as long as the government doesn't keep trying to convince the nation that they give a damned about the middle class or the poor. (They don't....) ------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope I am wrong (pls forgive me Mrs.P and Teko) but sometimes I feel there is very little difference in terms of action between the right and left in Gov't. They say they stand for different things but there hasn't been much action to demonstrate those differences.
Sometimes I think it is because of the ay Congress has a stranglehold on the White House and other times I really wonder if Obama is much more to the right and using these guys as a cover for policies he actually supports.
I know that sounds cynical maybe even paranoid. I am just thinking about it, I am not convinced and I do hope I am wrong.
I too, have very little trust in Gov't right now and I suspect until we get them out of Big businesses pockets we won't really have our country back with a functioning government.
I hope I am wrong (pls forgive me Mrs.P and Teko) but sometimes I feel there is very little difference in terms of action between the right and left in Gov't. They say they stand for different things but there hasn't been much action to demonstrate those differences.
Sometimes I think it is because of the ay Congress has a stranglehold on the White House and other times I really wonder if Obama is much more to the right and using these guys as a cover for policies he actually supports.
I know that sounds cynical maybe even paranoid. I am just thinking about it, I am not convinced and I do hope I am wrong.
I too, have very little trust in Gov't right now and I suspect until we get them out of Big businesses pockets we won't really have our country back with a functioning government.
Would I be willing to have the government control health care? That is a real good question. To answer that, I am very scared about government handling the health care issue. As a whole, Ive got very little confidence that they can do a good job handling health care. (They don't do such a whiz bang job with government issues... now give them health care? If the government can start to handle government, it would give me some faith that they could do something with health care. Unfortunately, not until then.) (They lie to us about everything else... why would they shoot straight about health care.)
I honestly feel bad that I don't have this great amount of trust in the government. I don't think they are out to ruin either you or me, but I don't see them kicking down any doors for me when I have been in need.... I've had to rely on myself in times of need. I'm okay with that as long as the government doesn't keep trying to convince the nation that they give a damned about the middle class or the poor. (They don't....)
I honestly feel bad that I don't have this great amount of trust in the government. I don't think they are out to ruin either you or me, but I don't see them kicking down any doors for me when I have been in need.... I've had to rely on myself in times of need. I'm okay with that as long as the government doesn't keep trying to convince the nation that they give a damned about the middle class or the poor. (They don't....)
As for this being a party line thing? Say whatever you want on that.... There are plenty of democrats out there that are employers and feel the same way that republicans do-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely true. I am learning so much as this all starts becoming real.
My son the liberal said to me today, "This ranting by liberals about greedy business offends me.We are not the enemy, I am not rich and I care profoundly about my staff, but no one will be working if we have to cover everyone. Go after the ones who are really ripping off this society, the pharma and the Insurance companies"
"Employment not connected to our health plans? What a wonderful and novel idea for this country, anyway." I can see, understand and appreciate that notion... nor should it be connected with a union. Health care should not be based on an employment/union basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I agree brice, but would you be willing to have the gov't control healthcare like they do in Canada? Just curious.
Good post,btw
The job situation is not directly related to the ACA in my opinion. The fragile state of the economy is at least half way responsible. Things are getting better, but they are far from great. More part time jobs says to me that employers are becoming a bit more satisfied or secure with the economy but are not willing to commit to hiring a gaggle of full time employees. If the economy turns for the worse, perhaps it is easier on somone's (employers) conscious to let a few part timers go rather than let a couple of full timers go.
Business's are in business to make money. Look at it however you will, but I don't know one business man, nor have I ever met a business man who wants to "break even". If that's greed, we need to look into and consider communism. Making money is the driving force behind going into business.
As for the health care thing and how it ties into the conversation, I can completely understand a business person being apprehensive. As with rivll's son, the bottom line is the difference. If rivll's son's boss quits making money, why on earth would he stay in business?
There are a lot of ways to address the bottom line, and unfortunately firing people is the first to happen. Its far easier to fire some people and "loosen the belt" (so to speak) than it is to keep everyone on board and try to reformulate the business plan. Clean house then reformulate makes more sense to a lot of employers. Being in middle management most of my working life, I've had to let people go or cut hours in order to protect the bottom line... just to keep people employed.
As for this being a party line thing? Say whatever you want on that.... There are plenty of democrats out there that are employers and feel the same way that republicans do. If they are in business, they are looking after their bottom line just as any business person does. If they aren't and are in the business of philanthropy, why aren't those people steeping forward by the hundreds, saying that their bottom line doesn't matter and that they want to provide jobs and insurance for the masses? It's not feasible to do that....
I see the need for better health care in this nation, but I don't think it starts with the employer having to foot the bill. Affordability is the key and like rivll's son, I wonder why we haven't look at and tried to address the COST of health care. Pharmaceutical companies and their copy rights...sheesh... (I have to take a pill a day and it was NOT offered in generic form until recently. The generic is a FRACTION of the cost. The generic saves us at least 75%. Hospitals themselves.... any 3 hospitals in a region are very likely to charge 3 different rates for the same medical procedure.
Even when the ACA kicks in full blast, there are a lot of people here locally that are going to use the ER as their primary care physician. We are largely a transient population and at least 50% of our work force is here for a year or less.... some of those people are here illegally.
Just my opinion, I feel as if it would be best to work on the cost of health care. Trim the fat.... Work on less fraud and less price gouging. Make medical school more affordable, malpractice insurance more reasonable, make malpractice suits reasonable.... All of that affects the cost of insurance.
Unions? I ain't going there today... There are far more people who work outside of the unions than do from within. There has to be a reason behind that.
"Employment not connected to our health plans? What a wonderful and novel idea for this country, anyway." I can see, understand and appreciate that notion... nor should it be connected with a union. Health care should not be based on an employment/union basis.
Business's are in business to make money. Look at it however you will, but I don't know one business man, nor have I ever met a business man who wants to "break even". If that's greed, we need to look into and consider communism. Making money is the driving force behind going into business.
As for the health care thing and how it ties into the conversation, I can completely understand a business person being apprehensive. As with rivll's son, the bottom line is the difference. If rivll's son's boss quits making money, why on earth would he stay in business?
There are a lot of ways to address the bottom line, and unfortunately firing people is the first to happen. Its far easier to fire some people and "loosen the belt" (so to speak) than it is to keep everyone on board and try to reformulate the business plan. Clean house then reformulate makes more sense to a lot of employers. Being in middle management most of my working life, I've had to let people go or cut hours in order to protect the bottom line... just to keep people employed.
As for this being a party line thing? Say whatever you want on that.... There are plenty of democrats out there that are employers and feel the same way that republicans do. If they are in business, they are looking after their bottom line just as any business person does. If they aren't and are in the business of philanthropy, why aren't those people steeping forward by the hundreds, saying that their bottom line doesn't matter and that they want to provide jobs and insurance for the masses? It's not feasible to do that....
I see the need for better health care in this nation, but I don't think it starts with the employer having to foot the bill. Affordability is the key and like rivll's son, I wonder why we haven't look at and tried to address the COST of health care. Pharmaceutical companies and their copy rights...sheesh... (I have to take a pill a day and it was NOT offered in generic form until recently. The generic is a FRACTION of the cost. The generic saves us at least 75%. Hospitals themselves.... any 3 hospitals in a region are very likely to charge 3 different rates for the same medical procedure.
Even when the ACA kicks in full blast, there are a lot of people here locally that are going to use the ER as their primary care physician. We are largely a transient population and at least 50% of our work force is here for a year or less.... some of those people are here illegally.
Just my opinion, I feel as if it would be best to work on the cost of health care. Trim the fat.... Work on less fraud and less price gouging. Make medical school more affordable, malpractice insurance more reasonable, make malpractice suits reasonable.... All of that affects the cost of insurance.
Unions? I ain't going there today... There are far more people who work outside of the unions than do from within. There has to be a reason behind that.
"Employment not connected to our health plans? What a wonderful and novel idea for this country, anyway." I can see, understand and appreciate that notion... nor should it be connected with a union. Health care should not be based on an employment/union basis.
Thanks Teko. I am learning.
You are right, this has been going on for quite awhile.
Employment not connected to our health plans? What a wonderful and novel idea for this country, anyway.
You are right, this has been going on for quite awhile.
Employment not connected to our health plans? What a wonderful and novel idea for this country, anyway.
I want to add that requiring a business with more than 50 employees to provide health coverage is not a good measurement of the company's ability to do so. Maybe it should be based on the profits made at the higher end.
The way this was set up being based on how many employees you have should have never been done that way, as the obvious reaction to that action would be to dump employees or give them part time. I also understand that this particular part of the law only effects about 2 percent of all small business operations, but they tend to leave that little goody out of the whole conversation. lol
I think as well that when we have a situation like this, it has always been the norm for the admin to go to congress where they all work together to find a solution to make things more streamline. However, with the party of no, is not going to happen as we know.
But for one to say that the jobs report is as a direct result of the ACA alone? That to me is very naive and certainly not at all true. Is my point.
The way this was set up being based on how many employees you have should have never been done that way, as the obvious reaction to that action would be to dump employees or give them part time. I also understand that this particular part of the law only effects about 2 percent of all small business operations, but they tend to leave that little goody out of the whole conversation. lol
I think as well that when we have a situation like this, it has always been the norm for the admin to go to congress where they all work together to find a solution to make things more streamline. However, with the party of no, is not going to happen as we know.
But for one to say that the jobs report is as a direct result of the ACA alone? That to me is very naive and certainly not at all true. Is my point.
Im saying the reason for the part time jobs issue has multiple contributers and not exclusive to the ACA. I saw this problem coming many moons ago when businesses started ousting unions, doing away with retirement benefits and getting out from under existing ones, when businesses starting sending their businesses overseas for cheaper labor but continuing to have an office here where they could get the benefits of being here tax wise. Everything is corrupt imo and in general it is another reminder of how the little guy always gets the short end of the stick. I was not referring to the ACA exclusively but did mention that this may be some of what is going on altho not sure why because that has been extended another year anyway. My personal opinion is and always has been that our employment should not be connected to our health insurance. That never did make any sense to me and will be the factor that sends us more and more to single payor.
I don't know how that last line got there...lol I am sleepy still and should have waited till I wake up fully to write this. Sorry for any incoherence.
I want to add that requiring a business with more than 50 employees to provide health coverage is not a good measurement of the company's ability to do so. Maybe it should be based on the profits made at the higher end.
I want to add that requiring a business with more than 50 employees to provide health coverage is not a good measurement of the company's ability to do so. Maybe it should be based on the profits made at the higher end.
I dont see this having as much to do with the ACA as I do more personal greed.I think there are many things at play here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just trying to learn something here. When you say personal greed do you mean the unwillingness of businesses to pay this insurance? In my son's case, it may be that the loss of profits to their businesses would not really bankrupt them. I just don't know. He is general manager and he does well but he owns no property and has very little capital. His boss (the owner) is a millionare but you know that doesn't mean what it did 20 years ago. There are businesses like Starbucks that are extremely successful (and who have always provided hx coverage) and then there are businesses on a much smaller scale. Should they all be held to the same standard?
I don't know, but if Walmart which is an extremely successful business refuses to pay health care, I see it as greedy. However if a new business or a moderately successful business is refusing to pay I think it may not be greed so much as it is survival.
I think (I really don't know and welcome thoughts) that the entire system is off and the only way to manage it is to follow a model like they have in Germany, Israel or Canada. Yes I know they may not be perfect solutions but the way this is going looks like it will be a disaster to our economy.
As far as more jobs being a good thing, I am not sure. What I see happening is that all these people working will have their hours cut and will need to find a second and third job to make ends meet. And they still won't have health coverage because all their employers will only have them working part-time.
Who is holding all the money in this country while everyone is scrambling to find enough hours to put food on their tables?
There are businesses like that and there is big business and that is where the profit and power is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just trying to learn something here. When you say personal greed do you mean the unwillingness of businesses to pay this insurance? In my son's case, it may be that the loss of profits to their businesses would not really bankrupt them. I just don't know. He is general manager and he does well but he owns no property and has very little capital. His boss (the owner) is a millionare but you know that doesn't mean what it did 20 years ago. There are businesses like Starbucks that are extremely successful (and who have always provided hx coverage) and then there are businesses on a much smaller scale. Should they all be held to the same standard?
I don't know, but if Walmart which is an extremely successful business refuses to pay health care, I see it as greedy. However if a new business or a moderately successful business is refusing to pay I think it may not be greed so much as it is survival.
I think (I really don't know and welcome thoughts) that the entire system is off and the only way to manage it is to follow a model like they have in Germany, Israel or Canada. Yes I know they may not be perfect solutions but the way this is going looks like it will be a disaster to our economy.
As far as more jobs being a good thing, I am not sure. What I see happening is that all these people working will have their hours cut and will need to find a second and third job to make ends meet. And they still won't have health coverage because all their employers will only have them working part-time.
Who is holding all the money in this country while everyone is scrambling to find enough hours to put food on their tables?
There are businesses like that and there is big business and that is where the profit and power is.
I dont see this having as much to do with the ACA as I do more personal greed.I think there are many things at play here. First of all we just went thru a horrendous recession where many jobs have been taken overseas in order to increase the business bottom line. Another would be the lack of cooperation from our political leaders to create some jobs, instead of refusing to bring jobs bills to the floor for a vote, I think doing away and busting unions has a part to play as well and yes, some use the ACA as an excuse too, but the bottom line is that employers are doing what they want because frankly they can. By doing so, not only do they not have to worry about benefits packages, but if you dont like it, there are plenty more standing in line to do the job and for less money.Does that not come under the guise of working in a "right to work" state? We are going backwards in time it appears to me and all our rights and privileges are being stripped out from under our noses.
And as far as the ACA, I have always felt and still do feel that tying employers with our healthcare is stupid. I feel we are seeing a transition into single payor as a result.
But the bottom line is, there were more jobs, not less, and this can only be seen as a good thing. More is always better than less.
And as far as the ACA, I have always felt and still do feel that tying employers with our healthcare is stupid. I feel we are seeing a transition into single payor as a result.
But the bottom line is, there were more jobs, not less, and this can only be seen as a good thing. More is always better than less.
Yup and a biz like mine would no longer operate ....
It cost 500 a month each for insurance per month.... X 50 equals us going out of biz... Obama did it all wrong. Needs to go after the insurance and phamesutical company's not employers
My son says each employee plan would cost $500.per month x 50 puts them out of business. One place is in Penn. station where the monthly rent is some thing like 25,000 per month. That is just part of the overhead.
He says that the new health plan should have been a restructuring of the insurance companies and big pharma not going after businesses.
In Canada apparently the Gov't handles health care (and they are *not* socialists!)
This was all Obama was allowed to put forth and it was originally Romney's plan.The GOP objections are not reasonable, they would have done the same, maybe worse for the working stiffs. So please guys I am not talking parties or Obama here..let us avoid that nonsense.
My question is how could we have come to the point where the right and the left seem the same not in rhetoric, but in decision making? These decisions are eroding our civil rights in the name of National security, (whose security?), creating a tiny upper class and a growing underclass.
When the serfs rebelled against their masters for an end to serfdom, were they considered immoral or heroic?
Is it not possible for people here to lay aside their prejudices against right or left and to look at what is happening in this country? Can we unite on the fact that something is very wrong, without it being related to the parties?
It cost 500 a month each for insurance per month.... X 50 equals us going out of biz... Obama did it all wrong. Needs to go after the insurance and phamesutical company's not employers
My son says each employee plan would cost $500.per month x 50 puts them out of business. One place is in Penn. station where the monthly rent is some thing like 25,000 per month. That is just part of the overhead.
He says that the new health plan should have been a restructuring of the insurance companies and big pharma not going after businesses.
In Canada apparently the Gov't handles health care (and they are *not* socialists!)
This was all Obama was allowed to put forth and it was originally Romney's plan.The GOP objections are not reasonable, they would have done the same, maybe worse for the working stiffs. So please guys I am not talking parties or Obama here..let us avoid that nonsense.
My question is how could we have come to the point where the right and the left seem the same not in rhetoric, but in decision making? These decisions are eroding our civil rights in the name of National security, (whose security?), creating a tiny upper class and a growing underclass.
When the serfs rebelled against their masters for an end to serfdom, were they considered immoral or heroic?
Is it not possible for people here to lay aside their prejudices against right or left and to look at what is happening in this country? Can we unite on the fact that something is very wrong, without it being related to the parties?
I agree with you Adgal and Desrt and I just had a very heated discussion with my son who is now running (manager not owner) four restaurants.
His younger brother works his bottom off for them and the younger bro's wife has a job where she works very hard just to afford a tiny place in Brooklyn. No extras, nothing. I do not know how they will manage P/T, not to mention the other employees many of them who have families to support.
He says the law will bankrupt them (he is a bigger liberal than me) and they have no choice but to cut everyone's hours.
I don't know the answer but I can assure you the GOP wouldn't be picking the starving workers off the streets either.
I am very angry about this, just how in the world are people supposed to live?
His younger brother works his bottom off for them and the younger bro's wife has a job where she works very hard just to afford a tiny place in Brooklyn. No extras, nothing. I do not know how they will manage P/T, not to mention the other employees many of them who have families to support.
He says the law will bankrupt them (he is a bigger liberal than me) and they have no choice but to cut everyone's hours.
I don't know the answer but I can assure you the GOP wouldn't be picking the starving workers off the streets either.
I am very angry about this, just how in the world are people supposed to live?
I read stories like this and wonder - what are your employment laws? I am asking that with sincerity, not with sarcasm. An employer would not get away with things like that here. Do you not have strong employment laws to protect employees from less then ethical employers? Because it does sound a tab bit unethical to me...sorry, but it does.
So denying people benefits now just in case it effects your bottom line later? Sorta like robbery now just in case might need some cash later.
That act does not start for another year.
Using the Affordable Care Act as an excuse to rip off workers by changing fulltime jobs to part time jobs so they won't have to pay benefits is the sorriest form of 'Boo Hoo I'm such a victim' mentality. Absolutely no difference between the business owner who does this and the creep who wants to claim 'poverty' made him rob that liquor store.
Man up, pay your employees decent wages *and* benefits and if your business isn't profitable, admit you svck at capitalism and go to work for someone who does know how to run an honest business.
Man up, pay your employees decent wages *and* benefits and if your business isn't profitable, admit you svck at capitalism and go to work for someone who does know how to run an honest business.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
