Ever since ObamaCare was passed into law, non-partisan economists have labelled it a job killer. In doing so, they point to the fact that employers can avoid any mandates and penalties by converting full time workers to part-time and by keeping the full-time staff under 49; a simple task if you are able to convert those employees to outside, contract labor. Other economists believe that struggling companies, unable to either provide insurance or pay the penalties, will have no other choice but to shutter their businesses. Others point to higher costs and new taxes associated with the law as potential drags on the economy with job losses to follow.
Those on the left have countered this by pointing back to the original Congressional Budget Office's analysis of ObamaCare which said that an insignificant amount of jobs (800,000) would be impacted: that being only one-half of one percent of the total workforce. Further, the proponents of the law have noted that the benefits to the overall economy would be greater than any small number of jobs being lost. Some even argued that it would actually create jobs.
Well, a funny thing happened on the way to rolling out ObamaCare last week. This time, in the 29th such delay, Obama told employers with 50-to-99 employees that their compliance with the law was delayed until January 1, 2016. Or, that's what most of the news media reported. What was little reported is that an employer has until that date to comply "as long as" that employer signs an affirmation, as part of each and every tax submission, that says that any changes they might have made in staffing were not a result of trying to avoid the mandates of ObamaCare. Otherwise, if they lied, they would be subject to both penalties and imprisonment for perjury under Federal law. Now, if that doesn't backhandedly scream proof of job-killing, I don't know what does!
Obviously, the delay and the associated "perjury" condition is intended to stop any further deterioration of the workforce in advance of the November elections. I'm quite sure that the President's economic advisers have told him things like, in the last year, 75% of the jobs being created were part-time. Or, that productivity has risen and unit labor costs have fallen to levels that haven't been seen since the last two recessions. Or, that the decline in retail sales is closely following the pattern that preceded the last great recession in late 2007.
Any way you shake it, the Presidents signature legislation is harming both the economy and jobs; and, this latest delay and that "affirmation" just proves it.
References:
Businesses must certify under penalty of perjury that job cuts aren’t Obamacare dodge: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/11/businesses-must-certify-under-penalty-perjury-job-/
CBO: Healthcare to Shrink Workforce by 800,000: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49273.html
Chart: Productivity and Unit Labor Costs: http://www.briefing.com/Common/Images/Content/PageContent/EcData/prodann.gif
Chart: Retail Sales: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/02/Retail%20Sales%20Control%20Group_0_0.jpg
75% Of Jobs Created This Year Were Part-Time: http://jobs.aol.com/videos/business-economy/75-of-jobs-created-this-year-were-part-time/517905414/
pb
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
Climate Alarmists Didn't Learn The Lessons of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and "Chicken Little
Recently, I read a news article in the National Journal that focused on the fact that some Senate Democrats are planning to pressure the Sunday news talk shows into having more coverage of global warming and/or climate change. This because the media god of all things extremely liberal, Media Matters, reported that only 8 minutes of Sunday talk time was dedicated to the subject in 2012. Of course, I had to laugh because those Democrats really don't want a "discussion" of "all" the facts regarding climate change -- both pro and con -- but, rather, they want more extreme, alarmist pablum being rammed down the throats of Americans.
Last Sunday, dutiful to the will of the Democrats, all three of the major network Sunday shows had climate change discussions. The most laughable of them was NBC's Meet the Press where Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, with a degree in home economics, was matched up with Bill Nye, the Science Guy, a mechanical engineer. Obviously, NBC was unable to scrape up a couple of experts in either meteorology or climatology to debate the issue. I'm also assuming that Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse must have turned down their invitations as well.
What Democrats don't seem to understand is that America has "tuned out" the subject, and, the "tune out" is simply the result of people not buying into the extreme and dire predictions that clearly aren't happening. It's as if the likes of Al Gore and other alarmists completely ignored the wisdom of the two children's fables: The Boy Who Cried Wolf and Chicken Little. This is why, the latest Pew Poll on priorities, placed global warming at the bottom; second only to dealing with global trade.
Then, of course, there was "ClimateGate" revealing that some critical data was being falsified in order to push the global warming theory. That again weakened trust among Americans regarding the reality of this so called crisis.
Lastly, the believability factor isn't helped when every time there is some severe weather event, some politician, not a scientist or climatologist, trips all over themselves to proclaim it a direct result of global warming. People understand that bad weather occurs all the time. More often that not, the event being hyped was not as severe as some similar event in the past. For example, when a deadly tornado hit Moore, Oklahoma in May of last year, Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island gave an impassioned speech blaming climate change. Yet, after the tornado season was all said and done, we learned that 2013 broke the all-time record for the fewest tornadoes.
References:
'Meet The Press' Shows Us Exactly How Not To Cover Climate Change: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/15/meet-the-press-climate-change_n_4794206.html
National Journal: Democrats Plan To Pressure TV Networks Into Covering Climate Change: http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114
Pew Research: Public Priorities: http://www.people-press.org/interactives/top-priorities/
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Oklahoma Tornado: Proof that politics and climate change are linked: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/21/moore-oklahoma-tornado-climate-change
2013 shatters the record for fewest U.S. tornadoes: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/27/2013-shatters-the-record-for-fewest-tornadoes-15-lower-than-previous-record/
Last Sunday, dutiful to the will of the Democrats, all three of the major network Sunday shows had climate change discussions. The most laughable of them was NBC's Meet the Press where Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, with a degree in home economics, was matched up with Bill Nye, the Science Guy, a mechanical engineer. Obviously, NBC was unable to scrape up a couple of experts in either meteorology or climatology to debate the issue. I'm also assuming that Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse must have turned down their invitations as well.
What Democrats don't seem to understand is that America has "tuned out" the subject, and, the "tune out" is simply the result of people not buying into the extreme and dire predictions that clearly aren't happening. It's as if the likes of Al Gore and other alarmists completely ignored the wisdom of the two children's fables: The Boy Who Cried Wolf and Chicken Little. This is why, the latest Pew Poll on priorities, placed global warming at the bottom; second only to dealing with global trade.
Then, of course, there was "ClimateGate" revealing that some critical data was being falsified in order to push the global warming theory. That again weakened trust among Americans regarding the reality of this so called crisis.
Lastly, the believability factor isn't helped when every time there is some severe weather event, some politician, not a scientist or climatologist, trips all over themselves to proclaim it a direct result of global warming. People understand that bad weather occurs all the time. More often that not, the event being hyped was not as severe as some similar event in the past. For example, when a deadly tornado hit Moore, Oklahoma in May of last year, Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island gave an impassioned speech blaming climate change. Yet, after the tornado season was all said and done, we learned that 2013 broke the all-time record for the fewest tornadoes.
References:
'Meet The Press' Shows Us Exactly How Not To Cover Climate Change: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/15/meet-the-press-climate-change_n_4794206.html
National Journal: Democrats Plan To Pressure TV Networks Into Covering Climate Change: http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114
Pew Research: Public Priorities: http://www.people-press.org/interactives/top-priorities/
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Oklahoma Tornado: Proof that politics and climate change are linked: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/21/moore-oklahoma-tornado-climate-change
2013 shatters the record for fewest U.S. tornadoes: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/27/2013-shatters-the-record-for-fewest-tornadoes-15-lower-than-previous-record/
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Why Obama's Executive Orders Are Lawless
When Barack Obama took the oath of office, he agreed, before God and our country, that he would "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." In doing so, he also agreed to Article Two, Clause Five of the Constitution which states that the President must "faithfully execute the laws of the land". The word "faithfully" in that statement is clearly defined by Webster's Dictionary as "strict or thorough performance of one's duty." Faithfully does not mean that the President can arbitrarily execute the laws of the land. Nor, does it say he can ignore those parts of the Constitution he doesn't like.
In our power-balanced system of government, only Congress has the right to create or amend laws; and, once signed into law they become the responsibility of that President and all future President's to "faithfully" execute and uphold them. If, however, the law is somehow unconstitutional, the courts can strike it down; but, not the President. Therein lies the problem with a number of executive orders issued by Obama. Especially those associated with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that he, himself, signed into law. If he didn't like the mandates of the ACA, including the dates of implementation, he should have vetoed it. That was his right under our Constitution. But, instead, by signing it into law, he agreed to "faithfully" execute it.
Some on the left, like Juan Williams, a writer for the Hill.com and a Fox News contributor, seem to think that the issue of lawlessness is, somehow, just a numbers game; arguing that George Bush and Bill Clinton issued twice as many executive orders than has Obama. I suppose, then, from this, we are to believe that both Clinton and Bush were twice as lawless as Obama. That argument is just a another canard; being served up for the benefit of the dumbest in our society who don't know any better. Both Clinton and Bush were cautious to issue executive orders that could not be construed as being unconstitutional. Clinton even waived off an opportunity to kill Bin Laden because he thought that it could be interpreted as an illegal or unconstitutional act.
In Obama's case, he revels in blatant, in-your-face violations of the Constitution. Neither Clinton nor Bush would have issued an executive order forcing "all" religious organizations to provide free contraception methods and abortive drugs to their employees; thus, violating the protection of religious rights and freedoms. Yet, in the case of President Obama, he is taking this lawlessness all the way to the Supreme Court, with many experts believing that the "contraception" order will be found unconstitutional.
We should have known from his earliest days in office that Obama would use his "pen" to violate the laws of the land for purely political reasons. In February of 2009, just days before he signed his $787 billion stimulus package into law, he issued an executive order entitled: "USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS". In effect, this was payback to the unions for their help in his election. Under that executive order, union work rules and union pay scales were mandated for all Federal construction projects; especially all those projects that were being outlined in the Stimulus Package. So, when it was eventually signed into law, the vast majority of all of those so-called shovel-ready jobs were invalidated by the President's previous executive order on union work rules and pay. Then, all those projects had to be rebid at higher costs with either union or union-like labor. That's the primary reason that the $787 billion Stimulus Package wound up costing the taxpayer $831 billion and why so many shovel-ready projects were cancelled or delayed. Then, in 2011, Obama looked back and quipped that "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected!" as if he had nothing to do with it.
In my opinion, Obama's continued use of executive orders just proves his ineptness in the "horse trading" skills that we have seen, and have come to expect, from our past presidents. This president simply cannot negotiate or compromise. There are no carrots in his quiver; only sticks.
References:
Executive Order: Use of Project Labor Agreements (PLA): http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderUseofProjectLaborAgreementsforFederalConstructionProjects
Obama Jokes About Shovel-ready Jobs: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/06/13/obama-jokes-jobs-council-shovel-ready-was-not-shovel-ready-we-expected
Hank Crumpton, Former CIA Officer: Clinton Wouldn't Authorize Osama Bin Laden Kill In 1999: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html
February 14th, Juan Williams to Martha MacCallum on Fox: "I can't even understand why Mr. Limbaugh's so upset, because when I look at the actual numbers, you see that President Obama has used an executive order to go around the Congress, I think it's less than half of the time of Bill Clinton, and just over half of the time of President George W. Bush. So it just doesn't make sense to me, I mean, unless you're trying to demonize President Obama and say he's lawless and he's a bad guy": http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/14/it_s_obama_s_lawlessness_that_matters_not_his_motivation
In our power-balanced system of government, only Congress has the right to create or amend laws; and, once signed into law they become the responsibility of that President and all future President's to "faithfully" execute and uphold them. If, however, the law is somehow unconstitutional, the courts can strike it down; but, not the President. Therein lies the problem with a number of executive orders issued by Obama. Especially those associated with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that he, himself, signed into law. If he didn't like the mandates of the ACA, including the dates of implementation, he should have vetoed it. That was his right under our Constitution. But, instead, by signing it into law, he agreed to "faithfully" execute it.
Some on the left, like Juan Williams, a writer for the Hill.com and a Fox News contributor, seem to think that the issue of lawlessness is, somehow, just a numbers game; arguing that George Bush and Bill Clinton issued twice as many executive orders than has Obama. I suppose, then, from this, we are to believe that both Clinton and Bush were twice as lawless as Obama. That argument is just a another canard; being served up for the benefit of the dumbest in our society who don't know any better. Both Clinton and Bush were cautious to issue executive orders that could not be construed as being unconstitutional. Clinton even waived off an opportunity to kill Bin Laden because he thought that it could be interpreted as an illegal or unconstitutional act.
In Obama's case, he revels in blatant, in-your-face violations of the Constitution. Neither Clinton nor Bush would have issued an executive order forcing "all" religious organizations to provide free contraception methods and abortive drugs to their employees; thus, violating the protection of religious rights and freedoms. Yet, in the case of President Obama, he is taking this lawlessness all the way to the Supreme Court, with many experts believing that the "contraception" order will be found unconstitutional.
We should have known from his earliest days in office that Obama would use his "pen" to violate the laws of the land for purely political reasons. In February of 2009, just days before he signed his $787 billion stimulus package into law, he issued an executive order entitled: "USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS". In effect, this was payback to the unions for their help in his election. Under that executive order, union work rules and union pay scales were mandated for all Federal construction projects; especially all those projects that were being outlined in the Stimulus Package. So, when it was eventually signed into law, the vast majority of all of those so-called shovel-ready jobs were invalidated by the President's previous executive order on union work rules and pay. Then, all those projects had to be rebid at higher costs with either union or union-like labor. That's the primary reason that the $787 billion Stimulus Package wound up costing the taxpayer $831 billion and why so many shovel-ready projects were cancelled or delayed. Then, in 2011, Obama looked back and quipped that "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected!" as if he had nothing to do with it.
In my opinion, Obama's continued use of executive orders just proves his ineptness in the "horse trading" skills that we have seen, and have come to expect, from our past presidents. This president simply cannot negotiate or compromise. There are no carrots in his quiver; only sticks.
References:
Executive Order: Use of Project Labor Agreements (PLA): http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderUseofProjectLaborAgreementsforFederalConstructionProjects
Obama Jokes About Shovel-ready Jobs: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/06/13/obama-jokes-jobs-council-shovel-ready-was-not-shovel-ready-we-expected
Hank Crumpton, Former CIA Officer: Clinton Wouldn't Authorize Osama Bin Laden Kill In 1999: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html
February 14th, Juan Williams to Martha MacCallum on Fox: "I can't even understand why Mr. Limbaugh's so upset, because when I look at the actual numbers, you see that President Obama has used an executive order to go around the Congress, I think it's less than half of the time of Bill Clinton, and just over half of the time of President George W. Bush. So it just doesn't make sense to me, I mean, unless you're trying to demonize President Obama and say he's lawless and he's a bad guy": http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/14/it_s_obama_s_lawlessness_that_matters_not_his_motivation
Friday, February 14, 2014
Did You Get Your 40% Increase In Pay When Obama Pen-Legislated A $10.10 Minimum Wage?
With a stroke of the pen, Obama gave any minimum wage worker involved with new government contracts a 40% increase. Did your wages go up 40%? Probably not, but one thing is true, that 40% increase "will" ultimately be passed on to everyone in the form of either higher costs or higher taxes. While the President seems to think he made a few thousand minimum wage earners less poor, he sure as hell made millions of other Americans poorer.
Especially hurt are all those on fixed incomes. Right now more than 38% of the 57 million people receiving Social Security checks are living solely off of that income; and, they are struggling. Obama didn't give them a 40% increase. They only saw a 1.5% increase this year. Since the President has been in office, social security checks have only risen an average of a little more than 1.1 % per year, while inflation was 50% higher than that. In his first two years, he actually gave no increases to social security recipients.
Lastly, there are 2 million workers in this country who don't even make minimum wage. That's a higher number than the 1.6 million who do. Where's their 40% increase? How does Obama propose they deal with any rising costs resulting from the minimum wage increase?
References:
New York Times: February 13, 2014: Obama Raises Minimum Wage for Contract Workers: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/us/politics/obama-raises-minimum-wage-for-contract-workers.html?_r=0
USA Today: Rising prices hammer seniors on fixed incomes: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2008-07-01-retiree-fixed-income_N.htm
U.S. News and World Report: Retirees Increasingly Depending on Social Security: http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2011/08/30/retirees-increasingly-depending-on-social-security
Social Security Administration: Month Statistical Snapshot: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
Social Security Administration: Cost-Of-Living Adjustments: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/cola/colaseries.html
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm
Especially hurt are all those on fixed incomes. Right now more than 38% of the 57 million people receiving Social Security checks are living solely off of that income; and, they are struggling. Obama didn't give them a 40% increase. They only saw a 1.5% increase this year. Since the President has been in office, social security checks have only risen an average of a little more than 1.1 % per year, while inflation was 50% higher than that. In his first two years, he actually gave no increases to social security recipients.
Lastly, there are 2 million workers in this country who don't even make minimum wage. That's a higher number than the 1.6 million who do. Where's their 40% increase? How does Obama propose they deal with any rising costs resulting from the minimum wage increase?
References:
New York Times: February 13, 2014: Obama Raises Minimum Wage for Contract Workers: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/us/politics/obama-raises-minimum-wage-for-contract-workers.html?_r=0
USA Today: Rising prices hammer seniors on fixed incomes: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2008-07-01-retiree-fixed-income_N.htm
U.S. News and World Report: Retirees Increasingly Depending on Social Security: http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2011/08/30/retirees-increasingly-depending-on-social-security
Social Security Administration: Month Statistical Snapshot: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
Social Security Administration: Cost-Of-Living Adjustments: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/cola/colaseries.html
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Sebelius: Delaying ObamaCare is Not an Option
In a PBS interview last November, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, said this:
Apparently, cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson's will now have to wait after all until the Democrats are able to skate through the 2014 elections without all the problems of ObamaCare hanging around their necks. Obviously, the President's delay of all the insurance-killing and job-killing aspects of his health care reform completely contradicts the expressed belief by the Democratic National Committee Chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that they will run on ObamaCare in 2014 and win.
One has to wonder. If it is so great for America, why should so much of it have to be delayed? After all, Sebellius told us that it wasn't an option.
References:
Kathleen Sebelius to Congress: Delay of health care law ‘not an option’: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs-july-dec13-healthcare_11-06/
Employer Mandate Delayed Again: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/obamacare-employer-mandate-delay-103338.html
Wasserman Schultz: Democrats Will Win in 2014 Running on Obamacare: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/wasserman-schultz-democrats-will-win-2014-running-obamacare
"Delaying the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t delay people’s cancer or diabetes or Parkinson. It doesn’t delay the higher cost all of us pay when uninsured Americans are left with no choice but to rely on emergency rooms for care. So, for millions of Americans, delay is not an option."Yet, just last weekend, another delay -- the 27th so far in less than a year -- was put in place. This time it again postpones the employer mandate for businesses with 50 to 100 employees until January 2016. Thui, conveniently avoids the onslaught of expected insurance cancellations that would have occurred during the run up to the 2014 elections as many employers might choose to pay the penalty versus providing insurance by the current January 1, 2015 deadline.
Apparently, cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson's will now have to wait after all until the Democrats are able to skate through the 2014 elections without all the problems of ObamaCare hanging around their necks. Obviously, the President's delay of all the insurance-killing and job-killing aspects of his health care reform completely contradicts the expressed belief by the Democratic National Committee Chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that they will run on ObamaCare in 2014 and win.
One has to wonder. If it is so great for America, why should so much of it have to be delayed? After all, Sebellius told us that it wasn't an option.
References:
Kathleen Sebelius to Congress: Delay of health care law ‘not an option’: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs-july-dec13-healthcare_11-06/
Employer Mandate Delayed Again: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/obamacare-employer-mandate-delay-103338.html
Wasserman Schultz: Democrats Will Win in 2014 Running on Obamacare: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/wasserman-schultz-democrats-will-win-2014-running-obamacare
Democratic
candidates will be able to run on ObamaCare as an advantage leading
into the 2014 election, - See more at:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/wasserman-schultz-democrats-will-win-2014-running-obamacare#sthash.6fH0XAgq.dpuf
Democratic
candidates will be able to run on ObamaCare as an advantage leading
into the 2014 election, - See more at:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/wasserman-schultz-democrats-will-win-2014-running-obamacare#sthash.6fH0XAgq.dpuf
Democratic
candidates will be able to run on ObamaCare as an advantage leading
into the 2014 election, - See more at:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/wasserman-schultz-democrats-will-win-2014-running-obamacare#sthash.6fH0XAgq.dpuf
Monday, February 10, 2014
Productivity Increases: Proof That ObamaCare Is Behind Weak Job's Reports?
Each quarter, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) measures worker efficiency in a report titled: "Productivity and Costs". Normally, increases in productivity are a good thing because it shows that the workforce is producing more goods on a lower per-person basis, thus reducing the costs of items being produced and making those items more competitive; especially against low-cost world markets.
But, when productivity increases at a faster rate than the reduction of labor costs, it might be a sign that the labor force is losing ground in terms of jobs and/or job turnovers or in lowered salaries. In fact, in 2013, in every quarter -- except for the second quarter -- labor costs fell to the extent that they are now contracting (below 0% growth). This, then, has resulted in, what I think, is a very disturbing chart:
Of particular note is the yellow line. This plot of "Unit Labor Costs" clearly shows that they have fallen to levels that haven't been seen since 2001 and 2008; when, in both those previous years, we were in the midst of a recession. However, unlike those two years, we are hardly in a recession with economic growth in the last two quarters at 4.1% and 3.2%, respectively.
I think the drop in labor costs are proof that ObamaCare may be impacting the workforce in a substantial way by converting high-paying, full-time jobs to part time; thus lowering unit costs. That's why the Huffington Post reported that 75% of jobs created this year were part time. It certainly is no coincidence that the drop unit costs occurred in the same year that ObamaCare was being implemented. At the same time, it may be the very reason as to why only 75,000 jobs were created in December and 113,000 in January. In any event, we are now seeing recession-like unit labor costs and the reason isn't characteristically a recession.
References:
BLS, February 6 report, 4th Quarter Productivity and Costs: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm
Briefing.com: Statistical Summary of the 4th Quarter Productivity Report: http://www.briefing.com/Investor/Calendars/Economic/Releases/prod.htm
GDP: Economic Growth: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
75% Of Jobs Created This Year Were Part-Time: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/part-time-job-creation_n_3788365.html
But, when productivity increases at a faster rate than the reduction of labor costs, it might be a sign that the labor force is losing ground in terms of jobs and/or job turnovers or in lowered salaries. In fact, in 2013, in every quarter -- except for the second quarter -- labor costs fell to the extent that they are now contracting (below 0% growth). This, then, has resulted in, what I think, is a very disturbing chart:
I think the drop in labor costs are proof that ObamaCare may be impacting the workforce in a substantial way by converting high-paying, full-time jobs to part time; thus lowering unit costs. That's why the Huffington Post reported that 75% of jobs created this year were part time. It certainly is no coincidence that the drop unit costs occurred in the same year that ObamaCare was being implemented. At the same time, it may be the very reason as to why only 75,000 jobs were created in December and 113,000 in January. In any event, we are now seeing recession-like unit labor costs and the reason isn't characteristically a recession.
References:
BLS, February 6 report, 4th Quarter Productivity and Costs: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm
Briefing.com: Statistical Summary of the 4th Quarter Productivity Report: http://www.briefing.com/Investor/Calendars/Economic/Releases/prod.htm
GDP: Economic Growth: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
75% Of Jobs Created This Year Were Part-Time: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/part-time-job-creation_n_3788365.html
Keith Ellison's Lie In Defending ObamaCare
Ever since the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a report that ObamaCare would result in 2.5 million people electing to work less hours because they then could avoid having to pay for their health insurance, the Democrats have been in "spin overtime" trying to put a positive light on this job-killing fact.
On last Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Representative Keith Ellison said that if ObamaCare cuts work hours it is a good thing. He went on to elaborate that fact in this quote:
The two countries that have the lowest hours worked in a week are Canada at 30.4 hours and, the United States at 33.6 hours. Every other country works longer hours than the U.S.
The problem with Ellison's lie is that it is starting to go viral among Democrats in their futile attempts to defend ObamaCare as "not" being a job killer. And, it's going viral because no one is contesting the lie. This morning, on Fox News, Democrat pundit and commentator, Kirsten Powers, basically said the same thing; arguing that Americans shouldn't have to work as hard as they do just so they can afford health care. Once again, the lie was repeated uncontested; and, if the lie continues to go unabated, most uninformed American's will start believing it.
Lastly, every generation of this country seems to think that they are worse off then their parents. The reason for this is that we have Democrats, like Ellison, who continually paint Americans as being victims. Because, as a Democrat, if you are able to victimize all or some Americans, you can sell more and more taxpayer funded social programs like ObamaCare. That was clear in Kirsten Power's commentary on Fox this morning where she implied that her parents were able to come home from work on a regular basis and, that, somehow, the workers of today are being beaten down by excessive hours of work. To that, I have just one graph:
Enough said!
On last Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Representative Keith Ellison said that if ObamaCare cuts work hours it is a good thing. He went on to elaborate that fact in this quote:
"People might be able to cook dinner rather than having to order out and get some take home. The fact is that if Americans have more choices to open up the business they’ve been wanting to start, this is a good thing. If you look at comparisons, country by country, Americans work way more than the average industrialized countries around the world. And we may want to work at our work life balance and this gives us something."Now, I don't know what left-wing, union website Mr. Ellison got his information from but, Americans don't work more than the those workers in other industrialized countries. In 2009, the United Nations published their data on the subject and that data is reflected in this pictorial:
 |
| Click on map to enlarge |
The problem with Ellison's lie is that it is starting to go viral among Democrats in their futile attempts to defend ObamaCare as "not" being a job killer. And, it's going viral because no one is contesting the lie. This morning, on Fox News, Democrat pundit and commentator, Kirsten Powers, basically said the same thing; arguing that Americans shouldn't have to work as hard as they do just so they can afford health care. Once again, the lie was repeated uncontested; and, if the lie continues to go unabated, most uninformed American's will start believing it.
Lastly, every generation of this country seems to think that they are worse off then their parents. The reason for this is that we have Democrats, like Ellison, who continually paint Americans as being victims. Because, as a Democrat, if you are able to victimize all or some Americans, you can sell more and more taxpayer funded social programs like ObamaCare. That was clear in Kirsten Power's commentary on Fox this morning where she implied that her parents were able to come home from work on a regular basis and, that, somehow, the workers of today are being beaten down by excessive hours of work. To that, I have just one graph:
 |
| Click to Zoom |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
