Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So come next year, the Obamacare plan changes the minimum weekly hours to qualify for health coverage from 32/wk to 28/wk. The thought there was that everyone working 30 hours a week would now qualify for coverage, thus companies would be forced to offer it and pay for it.

But here's the rub. Say you make $8/hr, which is the CA minimum and what damn near every part time employee out here makes. At 30 hours a week you make $960 before taxes in a 4 week month. Now for your company to insure you, that runs them on average $325(for my companies plan as an example) per month in premiums. So right off the bat Obamacare raises the cost of an employee by about 33%, as that employee now costs $1285/mo.

I can tell you right now that companies across the country are not going to eat a 33% increase in costs without making it up somewhere. In most cases this is exactly what will happen(my own company included, as much as I'd rather it didn't): All part time employees now get cut down to 26 hours per week, and the 4 hours per week get picked up by hiring another employee. For my small team of 7 people, that means that the same amount of hours worked equates to me hiring 1 extra person, in order to save $1300 in healthcare premiums(after the new guy gets paid), and my current team takes home 13% less money.

This is what companies will do, they will cut hours to save money on insurance premiums. The only person this benefits really is the 1 guy I have to hire since I have to cut hours. 7 people lose for the gain of 1.

One problem I see is that(for my own workers) most of them already have coverage from their spouses, but because the risk is there for them to qualify for company insurance, they are not allowed to work more hours(which both myself and they would prefer). There is no opt out option for them to say they don't want coverage at all, but want more hours consistently.

I don't see how this is a good thing. Wal Mart sure as gak isn't going to eat 33% increase in labor costs, they'll just hire 14% more people to save the difference and continue business as always.

 Aerethan wrote:
I don't see how this is a good thing. Wal Mart sure as gak isn't going to eat 33% increase in labor costs, they'll just hire 14% more people to save the difference and continue business as always.

Just speculation, but maybe that's an unintentional, but welcome, side effect - it means more Americans being hired so the figures for those out of work drop.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
I don't see how this is a good thing. Wal Mart sure as gak isn't going to eat 33% increase in labor costs, they'll just hire 14% more people to save the difference and continue business as always.

Just speculation, but maybe that's an unintentional, but welcome, side effect - it means more Americans being hired so the figures for those out of work drop.

At the cost of income for 7 people who already don't make very much? I could understand a 13% hit on people who make 100k a year, but when your annual income is $11,000 then it is no small thing to lose $1500 of it so that someone else can have a job.

It is the wrong way of going about creating jobs for low income workers. And creating more minimum wage jobs isn't really what we should be shooting for, given that $960/mo isn't really enough to live on if you live alone and have rent to pay.

You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't do anyone any good. All of a sudden your taking more money from the people providing the jobs. When their margin gets smaller, they have to pass it on, especially if their margin is already small.

You can't just wave a wand and make more money appear for businesses to give to people.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.

Wait what? What does this have to do with 1) the minimum wage; 2) WalMart; 3) California?

We're going to see more of this...

OHIO sees approx 88% rate increase in 2014.

Yep.

I'd like to think the morass was intentional, designed to force us into a state paid system. I fear its just incredible incompetence on the part of the drafters who drafted it, and the Congress that voted on it before they read it, and President who signed it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yep.

I'd like to think the morass was intentional, designed to force us into a state paid system. I fear its just incredible incompetence on the part of the drafters who drafted it, and the Congress that voted on it before they read it, and President who signed it.

Good news about this all is we know exactly who foisted this monstrocity onto us. 2014 is going to be an ugly year for some congresscritters.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.

I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.

I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.

Well... what's "reasonable"?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.

I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.

I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life. Lets go one step forward, and figure out what that "reasonable" life will cost.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yep.

I'd like to think the morass was intentional, designed to force us into a state paid system. I fear its just incredible incompetence on the part of the drafters who drafted it, and the Congress that voted on it before they read it, and President who signed it.

Good news about this all is we know exactly who foisted this monstrocity onto us. 2014 is going to be an ugly year for some congresscritters.

In the words of the immortal bard: Fire 'em all. Let God sort 'em out.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.

I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.

Except raising the minimum wage doesn't do that.

It increases costs for employers, including many wages that are not minimum wage but have automatic increases if the minimum is raised. These costs are then passed on to the customers, who are the same people that just had their wages raised, so in reality it changes the numbers and nothing else. The standard of living is not increased.

Standard of living can be raised one of two ways.

1) An individual person can have his wages increased. Something like a raise accompanying a promotion for example.

2) The price of consumer goods drops without a corresponding decrease in wages. This increases the purchasing power of those wages. Decreasing inflation can also do this.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.

I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.

No.
Thats not the point of minimum wage. You want a livable wage you have to have the skills perquisite to that. Just breathing and showing up shouldn't be enough.

besides, define reasonable. We have illegals crossing thousands of miles of desert for that minimum wage, and live on it just fine, sending money back to their families south.

Plus many skilled Union Jobs would be more expensive... as much of their hourly rates are contractually tied to what the state's minimum wage.

So, raising the minimum wage isn't the simple answer.

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.

I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.

I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life.

Why is he not? Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life? Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?
Beside, have you worked on a grill before? IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.

And what makes you valuable enough to keep around as a burger flipper? There are plenty of others that will work your job for the same pay. An unskilled teenager can do it and we've got those coming out of our ears.

Flipping burgers is not a job that is worth full benefits. Hard work or not, its unskilled labor that doesn't have a supply shortage.


When it becomes difficult to find people to flip burgers that is when the job will pay more. No sooner.

 whembly wrote:
Plus many skilled Union Jobs would be more expensive... as much of their hourly rates are contractually tied to what the state's minimum wage.

So, raising the minimum wage isn't the simple answer.

No... it is the simple answer. It's just the wrong answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And what makes you valuable enough to keep around as a burger flipper? There are plenty of others that will work your job for the same pay. An unskilled teenager can do it and we've got those coming out of our ears.

Flipping burgers is not a job that is worth full benefits. Hard work or not, its unskilled labor that doesn't have a supply shortage.


When it becomes difficult to find people to flip burgers that is when the job will pay more. No sooner.

What he said, it's the supply vs demand argument. There is no shortage of supply of unskilled labor, so it's going to be worth less.

Quite frankly, I scoff at the idea that unskilled laborer should be paid on an equivalent scale of what I make.

Why is he not?

jobsa aren't entitlements. They are consideration for services and goods produced.

Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life?

I didn't see anyone saying someone should get the death penalty for working minimum wage. Working at McDonalds..well thats a different story.

Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?

Getting there. The services he provides only warrant a certain level of agreed upon consideration.

Beside, have you worked on a grill before?

Yes I did. It is very hard work. It also doesn't pay way. One should look to move up in the world.

IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.

yes it is hard work. One should not do it very long.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.

I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.

I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life.

Why is he not? Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life? Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?
Beside, have you worked on a grill before? IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.

I spent 2 and a half years working fast food. Then I grew up and got a real job. I learned a real skill. I'm earning pay on the scale of it (really less then what I'm worth, but what can you do?)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Why is he not? Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life? Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?
Beside, have you worked on a grill before? IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.

Because labor value is not based upon how hard it is; it's based upon supply and demand. As the barrier to entry for flipping burgers is about the lowest one can get, it's one of the lowest paying jobs you can find. On the contrary, finding someone who can maintain a server room, provide 3rd level support for 60+ products, including customer facing contact when necessary, handle enough programming to be able to personally implement special project when necessary, and as about an hour ago, also be a project manager for a massive global company-wide application to be implemented over the next year, all at the same time, is not so easy.

And don't get me wrong, I have flipped burgers, cleaned out grease traps and fryers, and dealt with 5-10 (at times, possibly more) customer orders all by myself. I've also made pizzas, done personal computer repair, been a salesman, shoveled gak, and other jobs involving odd combinations of physical and metal labor. Most of those were miserable, intolerable jobs. For several years, I actually lived off of a combination of two minimum wage jobs, totaling 40 hours, so I have little pity for people who say they can't.

Amusingly, I consider the restaurant work to be some of most enjoyable. I got to work with my hands, producing meaningful output that contributed toward some actual purpose (as opposed to hollow powerpoint slides that cause more harm than good), and I kept all my thoughts and idea as my own during that period of time. I could go home and do anything.

Compare that with now, where I never know what I'm going to have to do every day I wake up, I'm too distracted by needing to multitask to really focus on what I need to do let alone what I want to think about, and the job follows me home when it needs to, I'd almost take back the burger-flipper job, as it seems like the easier one.

Do I wish you got paid more? Absolutely. Do I wish that I got paid more? Absolutely. Do I understand why neither of us do? Yes.

 whembly wrote:
We're going to see more of this...

OHIO sees approx 88% rate increase in 2014.

I wonder how this will affect me. I'm currently employed in Ohio by a company from California that is a child company of a NJ company... I believe it will impact my life as I remember that the Californian employees have cheaper dental coverage since it was available to them only in their state, but we have to have a different service/provider because we're not in California.

 daedalus wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Why is he not? Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life? Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?
Beside, have you worked on a grill before? IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.

Because labor value is not based upon how hard it is; it's based upon supply and demand. As the barrier to entry for flipping burgers is about the lowest one can get, it's one of the lowest paying jobs you can find. On the contrary, finding someone who can maintain a server room, provide 3rd level support for 60+ products, including customer facing contact when necessary, handle enough programming to be able to personally implement special project when necessary, and as about an hour ago, also be a project manager for a massive global company-wide application to be implemented over the next year, all at the same time, is not so easy.

And don't get me wrong, I have flipped burgers, cleaned out grease traps and fryers, and dealt with 5-10 (at times, possibly more) customer orders all by myself. I've also made pizzas, done personal computer repair, been a salesman, shoveled gak, and other jobs involving odd combinations of physical and metal labor. Most of those were miserable, intolerable jobs. For several years, I actually lived off of a combination of two minimum wage jobs, totaling 40 hours, so I have little pity for people who say they can't.

Amusingly, I consider the restaurant work to be some of most enjoyable. I got to work with my hands, producing meaningful output that contributed toward some actual purpose (as opposed to hollow powerpoint slides that cause more harm than good), and I kept all my thoughts and idea as my own during that period of time. I could go home and do anything.

Compare that with now, where I never know what I'm going to have to do every day I wake up, I'm too distracted by needing to multitask to really focus on what I need to do let alone what I want to think about, and the job follows me home when it needs to, I'd almost take back the burger-flipper job, as it seems like the easier one.

Do I wish you got paid more? Absolutely. Do I wish that I got paid more? Absolutely. Do I understand why neither of us do? Yes.

I do agree that jobs are based not on work but skillset, But the way the original comment was worded as if those who just flip burgers are not entitled to a resonable life just for their job. I do not think they should make bank, what im saying is that it should be enough to live on. Maybe then we wouldnt have to deal with having to subsidize people who dnt make enough because employer only pay them very little

For my company, I have the following:
Kaiser $419ish for just my 2 kids, another $379 if I added my wife, per month. Luckily my kids still have state benefits for another year so I don't have to eat that cost yet.
Vision: $15/mo for myself and the wife
Dental: $40/mo for me and the wife(kids have state benefits still for this as well)
Life Insurance $24/mo for me and the wife.

Now if I add my wife and both kids to my health coverage, that absorbs nearly 25% of my net income, which is no trivial issue.

If those rates go up, I won't be able to afford coverage and still put food on the table with one income.

Luckily me moving to Texas will offset rent enough that I can absorb some of the costs, but insurance as it stands is far too expensive for both companies and employees.

Taking hours away from employees will not in any way help the economy or low income families, but if hours are not cut, then prices on goods must rise to offset it, thus absorbing any added income the employees would have had from those hours.

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Plus many skilled Union Jobs would be more expensive... as much of their hourly rates are contractually tied to what the state's minimum wage.

So, raising the minimum wage isn't the simple answer.

No... it is the simple answer. It's just the wrong answer.

Right... just highlighting the fact that the supports thinks it's a simple fix.

 Aerethan wrote:
For my company, I have the following:
Kaiser $419ish for just my 2 kids, another $379 if I added my wife, per month. Luckily my kids still have state benefits for another year so I don't have to eat that cost yet.
Vision: $15/mo for myself and the wife
Dental: $40/mo for me and the wife(kids have state benefits still for this as well)
Life Insurance $24/mo for me and the wife.

Now if I add my wife and both kids to my health coverage, that absorbs nearly 25% of my net income, which is no trivial issue.

If those rates go up, I won't be able to afford coverage and still put food on the table with one income.

Luckily me moving to Texas will offset rent enough that I can absorb some of the costs, but insurance as it stands is far too expensive for both companies and employees.

Taking hours away from employees will not in any way help the economy or low income families, but if hours are not cut, then prices on goods must rise to offset it, thus absorbing any added income the employees would have had from those hours.

I've heard the cheapest Kali rates are going to be around $20,000 a year, which blew my mind.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 whembly wrote:
We're going to see more of this...

OHIO sees approx 88% rate increase in 2014.

I wonder how this will affect me. I'm currently employed in Ohio by a company from California that is a child company of a NJ company... I believe it will impact my life as I remember that the Californian employees have cheaper dental coverage since it was available to them only in their state, but we have to have a different service/provider because we're not in California.

Your company is still bound by Ohio's insurance regulation. Doesn't matter if the HQ is in a different state.

One of the reason why insurance is so needlessly expensive is that each and every states has their own requirement/regulations for these packages. They're also not ALLOWED to sell those plans they offer in your state to outside state clients...

Then... throw the ACA act on top of that... what do you get?

A fubar'ed environment.

One of the biggest problems with insurance is that it is barely regulated and run by people that think you are better off dead.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
One of the biggest problems with insurance is that it is barely regulated and run by people that think you are better off dead.

the ACA helps that how?