Nevada restaurant owners on Obamacare: ‘We can't pay for this'
150 replies, posted
I love how in any article, Las Vegas= Nevada.
Everybody I know would rather have that shithole in cali, they could sure use it.
[QUOTE=Foda;38618120]read the law. 50 full-time employees. 50 people who work more than 30hrs a week.[/QUOTE]
Because some law written by a blithering idiots that have never in their life run a successful business themselves, automatically deems that a business with 50 employees has the financial means to pay tens of thousands dollars in overhead in medical coverage, makes total sense.
They also seem to have forgotten that "full time employment" has been defined for the last 50+ years as 40 hour work weeks, not 30. Which is rather ironic because liberals/socialists were the ones to define the standard 40 hour week in the first place.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;38618344]They knew companies would try to do this, and as a result the way which the law will function was set up to prevent this. It's not the number of employees you have working full time, it's based on the number of hours you have overall.[/QUOTE]
I think you're a tad confused here.
The law doesn't force the employer to give every employee 30 hours a week, the employer can schedule an employee however they want, and that's how employers are going to get around the law.
If the employer has over 50 employees, they're just going to hire more employees and limit the number of hours that each employee can work to less than 30. They'll probably go further down to between 20-25 hours to give some headroom so the employee will never get to 30 hours. With more employees, they can cover the lost hours that the existing employees will no longer be able to work.
[QUOTE=bohb;38618386]
They also seem to have forgotten that "full time employment" has been defined for the last 50+ years as 40 hour work weeks, not 30. Which is rather ironic because liberals/socialists were the ones to define the standard 40 hour week in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Or you could realize that the 30 hour mark is being put in place because as you mentioned, many will try to cut hours. It has nothing to do with the definition of full-time employment.
bohb's right, it use to be that 30 hours was still part time. if 30 is fulltime now, we only need to work 6 hours a day. Of course, as a result this means we loose 10 hours worth of pay a week.
[QUOTE=bohb;38618386]Because some law written by a blithering idiots that have never in their life run a successful business themselves, automatically deems that a business with 50 employees has the financial means to pay tens of thousands dollars in overhead in medical coverage, makes total sense.
They also seem to have forgotten that "full time employment" has been defined for the last 50+ years as 40 hour work weeks, not 30. Which is rather ironic because liberals/socialists were the ones to define the standard 40 hour week in the first place.
I think you're a tad confused here.
The law doesn't force the employer to give every employee 30 hours a week, the employer can schedule an employee however they want, and that's how employers are going to get around the law.
If the employer has over 50 employees, they're just going to hire more employees and limit the number of hours that each employee can work to less than 30. They'll probably go further down to between 20-25 hours to give some headroom so the employee will never get to 30 hours. With more employees, they can cover the lost hours that the existing employees will no longer be able to work.[/QUOTE]
Got any statistics to back up that hilarious generalization you made first thing in this post?
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;38618526]Or you could realize that the 30 hour mark is being put in place because as you mentioned, many will try to cut hours. It has nothing to do with the definition of full-time employment.[/QUOTE]
Reducing the definition of full time to 30 hours isn't going to stop employers from cutting hours or cutting staff.
[QUOTE=Glaber;38618571]bohb's right, it use to be that 30 hours was still part time. if 30 is fulltime now, we only need to work 6 hours a day. Of course, as a result this means we loose 10 hours worth of pay a week.[/QUOTE]
Which could also decrease productivity, but that's not the point. Just because one law treats 30 hours as a full-time work day doesn't mean that employers will be forced to reduce hours from 40 to 30. This is a protection they're putting in place so that employers can't just cut hours to avoid the mandate. Otherwise the 40 hour employees would become insurance-less 39 hour employees. By setting it to 30 hours they protect the employee from being screwed over.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;38617519]i've taken a handful of business management and personal finance courses and without your addition a few posts down, i wouldn't have been able to understand what the acronyms were regardless
just chill and explain it next time, there really isn't a point to going "lawl this is basic as shit, here's a point blank definition that still means nothing"[/QUOTE]
well color me surprised, I thought they would have covered that
my mistake.
And this is why the government should pay for the fucking healthcare
[QUOTE=Tigster;38618607]Got any statistics to back up that hilarious generalization you made first thing in this post?[/QUOTE]
Yes, glad you asked.
That business that runs the country, the government.
The government (on a national level) is primarily run by the far left, and we can all see what a great job they're doing. Getting the nation farther into debt by endlessly spending money, and putting it into even more debt by crippling its sources of revenue (taxes) by further levying unsustainable taxes on the people that pay them.
Waaah, I have to raise prices and give up a little profit...
What it really boils down to is shitloads of people getting dumped into the heavily subsidized plans that will come into being in 2014. Much like food stamps for Walmart employees, what we'll get is a continuing of the trend of businesses not providing a decent living and benefits to their employees, and the government being left to pick up the slack.
[QUOTE=bohb;38618704]Yes, glad you asked.
That business that runs the country, the government.
The government (on a national level) is primarily run by the far left, and we can all see what a great job they're doing. Getting the nation farther into debt by endlessly spending money, and putting it into even more debt by crippling its sources of revenue (taxes) by further levying unsustainable taxes on the people that pay them.[/QUOTE]
The government is not run by the far left, do you even know what the far left fucking is?
[QUOTE=bohb;38618704]Yes, glad you asked.
That business that runs the country, the government.
The government (on a national level) is primarily run by the far left, and we can all see what a great job they're doing. Getting the nation farther into debt by endlessly spending money, and putting it into even more debt by crippling its sources of revenue (taxes) by further levying unsustainable taxes on the people that pay them.[/QUOTE]
[quote] blithering idiots that have never in their life run a successful business themselves[/quote]
Was referring to this, where you spoke based on some apparent knowledge of the professional history of everyone you generalized to push your point. I want to make sure you're not making a blatantly wrong generalization before taking any sort of case you built on it seriously.
[QUOTE=bohb;38618704]Getting the nation farther into debt by endlessly spending money, and putting it into even more debt by crippling its sources of revenue (taxes) by further levying unsustainable taxes on the people that pay them.[/QUOTE]
Things That Reagan Did
[QUOTE=bohb;38618613]Reducing the definition of full time to 30 hours isn't going to stop employers from cutting hours or cutting staff.[/QUOTE]
It stops both. The prior has been answered already. The later is simple, no reasonable business will cut staff. A reduction of 10 hours for all employees would require a ridiculous number of new hires. How many? At a minimum of 50 full time employees for the mandate to take effect, this would require employers to hire on an addition 17 employees, an approximate 33% increase in workers. Given the costs incurred as a result of maintaining facilities, training, etc. it wouldn't make sense to cut the number of workers.
[QUOTE=thisispain;38618736]Things That Reagan Did[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah I remember all the great things he did, like how he caused mass unemployment and nearly economically collapsed entire states. God damn far leftists like Reagan always ruining glorious America!
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;38618636]Which could also decrease productivity, but that's not the point. Just because one law treats 30 hours as a full-time work day doesn't mean that employers will be forced to reduce hours from 40 to 30. This is a protection they're putting in place so that employers can't just cut hours to avoid the mandate. Otherwise the 40 hour employees would become insurance-less 39 hour employees. By setting it to 30 hours they protect the employee from being screwed over.[/QUOTE]
You sure have a lot of faith in that law, but it's sadly misplaced.
At the end of the day, the business is going to do whatever it must to survive. And if this means cutting full time employees to less than 30 hours a week, even at the cost of productivity, it will. As I said before, businesses don't exist for employee benefits, they exist to make money.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38618699]And this is why the government should pay for the fucking healthcare[/QUOTE]
No, this is why the government needs to piss off. Government healthcare isn't free, you pay for it in far higher taxation.
Myself and fellow Europeans weep when we see people like bohp
[QUOTE=bohb;38618769]
No, this is why the government needs to piss off. Government healthcare isn't free, you pay for it in far higher taxation.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but it also means that those who cant pay because their wages are shit or cant find a job arent just left to die on a street corner.
[QUOTE=bohb;38618704]...levying unsustainable taxes on the people that pay them.[/QUOTE]
I certainly hope you don't mean to speak of the top few percent of earners who in some cases pay no taxes altogether.
[QUOTE=bohb;38618704]Yes, glad you asked.
That business that runs the country, the government.
The government (on a national level) is primarily run by the far left, and we can all see what a great job they're doing. Getting the nation farther into debt by endlessly spending money, and putting it into even more debt by crippling its sources of revenue (taxes) by further levying unsustainable taxes on the people that pay them.[/QUOTE]
Far left. are you even serious
[QUOTE=bohb;38618769]You sure have a lot of faith in that law, but it's sadly misplaced.
At the end of the day, the business is going to do whatever it must to survive. And if this means cutting full time employees to less than 30 hours a week, even at the cost of productivity, it will. As I said before, businesses don't exist for employee benefits, they exist to make money.
[/QUOTE]
A business which exists to make money will not reduce productivity if they can simply raise their prices by 3%. (A cost which no doubt will be supplemented by the presence of customers who aren't in debt for not being able to pay for their healthcare.)
[QUOTE=thisispain;38618736]Things That Reagan Did[/QUOTE]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Laffer-Curve.svg/745px-Laffer-Curve.svg.png[/img]
do we need a key for this graph?
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;38618763]It stops both. The prior has been answered already. The later is simple, no reasonable business will cut staff. A reduction of 10 hours for all employees would require a ridiculous number of new hires. How many? At a minimum of 50 full time employees for the mandate to take effect, this would require employers to hire on an addition 17 employees, an approximate 33% increase in workers. Given the costs incurred as a result of maintaining facilities, training, etc. it wouldn't make sense to cut the number of workers.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't stop anything.
Businesses most affected by this crap are public hospitality (restaurants, movie theaters, retailers, etc.) it doesn't take a genius to do any of these things and you aren't going to have to spend much in training, especially since there's already a large number of people that know how to do these things.
Places like this are used to hiring in volume and won't have any issue having more people on staff all the time.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;38618636]Which could also decrease productivity, but that's not the point. Just because one law treats 30 hours as a full-time work day doesn't mean that employers will be forced to reduce hours from 40 to 30. This is a protection they're putting in place so that employers can't just cut hours to avoid the mandate. Otherwise the 40 hour employees would become insurance-less 39 hour employees. By setting it to 30 hours they protect the employee from being screwed over.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it doesn't protect them. reason being is that instead of having 39 hours, Businesses can reduce them to 29, or more realistically, 20 and they could still cut staff regardless.
by reducing the minimum hours for full time, you wind up reducing the maximum number of hours for part time.
[QUOTE=Glaber;38617399]Now that I think about it, I might have back in high school, but it was more personal finances than business finances.
either way that doesn't explain what MC, ATC, D, AR, or MR are.
and besides, most good charts include a way to read them.[/QUOTE]
In case this never got answered
MC is marginal Cost
ATC is average total cost
D is demand
AR is average revenue
MR is marginal revenue
[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;38618788]Myself and fellow Europeans weep when we see people like bohp[/QUOTE]
You weep because you know I'm right.
Because Europe is a much better place with socialized healthcare, unionized labor and crippling taxes right?
Wait, then why are a half dozen members of the EU about to default? riots? And Europeans constantly bitching about high taxes and not being able to afford anything.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38618790]Yeah, but it also means that those who cant pay because their wages are shit or cant find a job arent just left to die on a street corner.[/QUOTE]
Nice generalization there.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;38618819]Far left. are you even serious[/QUOTE]
Have you ever worked in government institutions before? You aren't going to find an even distribution of the political spectrum there.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;38618841]A business which exists to make money will not reduce productivity if they can simply raise their prices by 3%. (A cost which no doubt will be supplemented by the presence of customers who aren't in debt for not being able to pay for their healthcare.)[/QUOTE]
[U]All[/U] businesses exist to make money. And I'm guessing you're using your magic 8 ball to pull that 3% figure out of your derriere, the same with the assumption that customers are willing to pay more for your product just because they feel sorry for your additional incurred costs.
If every single restaurant in developed countries can pay a decent wage to their employees (tipping is a north american thing, waiters aren't dependent on tips) as well as insurance and benefits, then american restaurants should be able to do it too. But noooo, taking care of their employees cuts into their profit.
[QUOTE=monkey11;38619036]In case this never got answered
MC is marginal Cost
ATC is average total cost
D is demand
AR is average revenue
MR is marginal revenue[/QUOTE]
It got answered.
[QUOTE=bohb;38619147]You weep because you know I'm right.
Because Europe is a much better place with socialized healthcare, unionized labor and crippling taxes right?
Wait, then why are a half dozen members of the EU about to default? riots? And Europeans constantly bitching about high taxes and not being able to afford anything.
[/QUOTE]
uh
listen
you might want to hold off on saying random shit like that if you haven't lived in europe
i've lived in both places
europe is definitely better for the working class.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.