CORPORATE GREED AND UNION GREEDDEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANSDESTROYING THE BEST OF AMERICA ONE DAY AT A TIME
This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against ME! ~ Bender
Why Burger King Doesn't Like Obamacare - BusinessweekPresident Obama’s health-care law will force businesses to buy insurance for their employees or get slapped with a fine. But one category of employers will be spared that expense: businesses with fewer than 50 workers. Many of the roughly 4.5 million businesses that employ fewer than 50 workers are familiar restaurant franchises: Burger King (BKW), McDonalds (MCD), Subway.
But I will argue as to whether or not the increased burden on business will result in less demand for workers. If they need people, they need people. If it's the law that they pay for healthcare insurance, then they will begin paying their people less if it's a problem for them. Or they will switch to as many part-time workers as they can (under 30 hours).
I'm willing to say that we don't know what effect this is going to have on our economy. We can guess. We can postulate. But the only way we're going to know for sure is when it's actually implemented.
Thank you, Quazi!
I use the VA clinic in Surprise, AZ for annual physical and lab work as it is done so efficiently....but for all else, I have medicare A and B, Tricare for supplemental, and retired military status for D.
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
If employers are going to start laying off people because they can't afford the health insurance, then that's good news for me because I already have coverage so the employer won't need to provide any. That makes me a more appealing applicant, and maybe moves me off the short list for lay-offs. It could also mean I can get a slightly higher wage....at least until some woman or minority complains, even-though the employer has to buy their insurance while he does not have to buy mine.
Last edited by Jerry; 11-11-12 at 06:40 PM.
This was not the only cause of the crisis, but it was the biggest part of it. Though the federal government did play a role, YES, the banks are primarily responsible for the crisis, and we decided to bail their rich asses out.
I believe you were misinformed.
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger
I don't even mind people being critical of the US from abroad. I just think they need to realize the huge military we pay for saves them the need to have one of their own of that size and scale, which in turn, allows them to be able to afford more social spending. I would mind US leftist a lot less if they actually tried to be effective at the state and local levels instead of buying their power in DC. There shouldn't be a mile of difference between environmentalists and conservationists but there is because conservation require boots on the ground outside the beltway and environmentalists do not protect much of anything except themselves.
taxed/ pay a fee/ send more money to the government however you want to describe it" while dumping their employees coverage alltogether.
Given that the tax/fee is significantly less than the cost of insurance, and given that those dumped on the exchanges will be getting Free Money (because there is such a thing as a free lunch) from daddy government to purchase health insurance, Employers who hire large numbers of low-wage employees, but who still try to give them healthcare coverage, will be particularly constrained and forced to dump their people. Especially given that one of Obamacare's more insidious moves is to legally limit the kind of low-cost coverage options such as high-deductible accounts tied to HSA's. That's why 1 in 10 employers are already planning on phasing out their health insurance (before the thing has even gone into effect).
If McDonalds is not effected by Obamacare, then why do they need a waiver?And second, I'm not sure you're correct about individual franchises. Can you counter this link?
Why Burger King Doesn't Like Obamacare - Businessweek
Ah, I think I see. The individual Franchiser has to have more than 50 employees - so if you figure the average Papa John's has 25 employees, someone who owns two Papa John's is effected whereas someone who only owns 1 is not.
Which, given that lots of owners own more than one, means this is still pretty bad for the Franchise restaurant business.
That last paragraph there directly ties into our next conversation which is......Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81 percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028 for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a year. Employees pay $995.
Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales. As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000."
Providing no insurance would result in a federal fine of $158,000, $29,000 more than he now spends but the lowest cost possible under the Obamacare law. So he now views that as his cap and he'll either cut worker hours or replace them with machines to get his costs down or dump them on the public health exchange and pay the fine. "Every business has a way to eliminate jobs," he said, "but that's not good for them or me."...
This is sadly not correct. Labor exists on a supply/demand curve, just like everything else. When you increase the cost, you decrease the demand.But I will argue as to whether or not the increased burden on business will result in less demand for workers. If they need people, they need people.
Remember back in 2007 when they raised the minimum wage? Do you remember how all of those self-checkout machines started showing up a couple of months later?
Due to labor cost increases, the machines were now cheaper than people. You may also notice that fewer of the remaining lines were open - resulting in longer lines for us customers and even fewer jobs for low education low experience employees. The first workers to get hurt by these kinds of things are almost always the most vulnerable among us.
Or they will find ways to minimize the now-more-expensive labor in favor of less expensive options. Companies that can move labor overseas will now face death in the marketplace if they don't do so faster than their competition. The girl taking your call-in-order at Papa John's doesn't have to be at the Papa Johns, any more than the guy helping you with tech support has to be at Microsoft HQ.If it's the law that they pay for healthcare insurance, then they will begin paying their people less if it's a problem for them. Or they will switch to as many part-time workers as they can (under 30 hours).
That is correct. It is always possible that everything we thought we had learned about economics in the last 3 centuries is wrong.I'm willing to say that we don't know what effect this is going to have on our economy. We can guess. We can postulate. But the only way we're going to know for sure is when it's actually implemented.
Last edited by cpwill; 11-11-12 at 06:50 PM.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
U.S. companies compete with other nations who do not burden their companies with employee healthcare. That seems to me an advantage.
*again, putting on my asbestos under wear for asking what might be a naive question*
EDIT: I didn't ask this question before. This is a thread with nearly identical title to another.
Last edited by Gina; 11-11-12 at 07:03 PM.
Moderator's Warning: The various baiting and flaming going on in this thread need to end, now. Either get on topic concerning the CEO's statement or further action will be coming
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.