Tag Archives: regulation

Obama’s Health “Insurance” Hiring Disincentives

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the Obama Job Sharing Plan.  As a result of the looming rules of President Barack Obama’s Obamacare,

a local McDonalds has hired employees to operate the cash register or flip burgers for 20 hours a week and then the workers head to the nearby Burger King or Wendy’s to log another 20 hours. Other employees take the opposite shifts.

That’s because 30 hours counts as a full-time employee, and low-margin industries can’t afford the added costs of Obamacare insurance for full-timers.  Holding the employees further under that threshold—to 20 hours, for instance—gives those part-timers room to get another part-time job and so to have a full week’s worth of work and income.  Just with no employer-provided health insurance.  (Whether this is good or bad is a separate post; I’ll just say here that the “good” of it is far from established.) This is not atypical.

[Obamacare] requires firms with 50 or more “full-time equivalent workers” to offer health plans to employees who work more than 30 hours a week.  (The law says “equivalent” because two 15 hour a week workers equal one full-time worker.)  Employers that pass the 50-employee threshold and don’t offer insurance face a $2,000 penalty for each uncovered worker beyond 30 employees.  So by hiring the 50th worker, the firm pays a penalty on the previous 20 as well.  [Emphasis added]

That’s a $40,000 penalty for hiring the 50th worker.  The WSJ lays it out starkly:

If a company with 50 employees hires a new worker for $12 an hour for 29 hours a week, there is no health insurance requirement.  But suppose that worker moves to 30 hours a week.  This triggers the $2,000 federal penalty.  So to get 50 more hours of work a year from that employee, the extra cost to the employer rises to about $52 an hour—the $12 salary and the Obamacare tax of what works out to be $40 an hour.

That encourages hiring, all right.

There are other implications.

Businesses that hire young and lower-skilled workers are also starting to put a ceiling on the work week of below 30 hours. These firms are…”29ers.”  Part-time workers don’t have to be offered insurance under Obamacare.

These young and low-skilled workers are at the point of their careers where they’re starting to accumulate the work experience and habits that can lead to better jobs at higher pay.  Only they’re not accumulating them at the rate they otherwise could.  Which puts them well behind the job competition power curve compared to those who’ve managed that jump.

So much for upward mobility in the Obama régime.

Also with the Obama Job Sharing Plan, health insurance accessibility, for good or ill, is actively reduced.

More Government Interference

Posted on by
1

…and more overreach by one branch of government.  James Bovard had this in a recent Wall Street Journal piece.

In 1989, the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] sued Carolina Freight Carrier Corp of Hollywood, FL, for refusing to hire as a truck driver a Hispanic man who had multiple arrests and had served 18 months in prison for larceny.  The EEOC argued that the only legitimate qualification for the job was the ability to operate a tractor trailer.

US District Judge Jose Alejandro Gonzalez Jr, in ruling against the agency, said: “EEOC’s position that minorities should be held to lower standards is an insult to millions of honest Hispanics. Obviously a rule refusing honest employment to convicted applicants is going to have a disparate impact upon thieves.”

Despite this crystalline ruling of long standing, the EEOC is persisting.

Last April, the agency unveiled its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions,” declaring that “criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.”

Thus,

If a background check discloses a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a company to do an…”individualized assessment” that will somehow prove that it has a “business necessity” not to hire the ex-offender (or that his offense disqualifies him for a specific job).  Former EEOC General Counsel Donald Livingston, in testimony in December to the US Commission on Civil Rights, warned that employers could be considered guilty of “race discrimination if they choose law abiding applicants over applicants with criminal convictions” unless they conduct a comprehensive analysis of the ex-offender’s recent life history.

Just one more example of this administration’s disregard for the other two branches of our Federal government.  And of our individual liberties.

A Foreign Tax on American Investors in America

Posted on by
Reply

The European Commission earlier this month proposed a new financial-transaction tax for 11 participating states, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Slovenia, Portugal, Greece, Slovakia, and Estonia.  These produce roughly two-thirds of the EU’s economy.

It’s an enormous tax, too, in a market where spreads are on the order of pennies, even fractions of pennies: 0.1% for trades in bonds and shares, and 0.01% for derivatives transactions, and it would apply to both buyers and sellers

as long as either of them is based in one of the participating states, or if the financial instrument being traded was issued in any of these countries.

As damaging as this tax is, they’re not done.  The tax is intended to suppress trading:

[The European Commission’s] own impact assessment estimates that the number and volume of trades in shares and bonds could drop by around 15%, while derivatives transactions may drop by as much as 75%.

Never mind that this activity—especially its volume—contributes to the liquidity of the instruments and so contributes to holding down their price to buyers.  Which facilitates more general investing in companies—their source of funds for R&D, plant expansion, even hiring.

But wait, there’s more: they’re claiming the right to tax folks outside their jurisdiction—we Americans, investing here in the US, for example, as a result of those domiciliary and passing-through aspects.

This tax will hurt us: Paul Jiganti, Managing Director of Market Structure and Routing Strategy at TD Ameritrade Holding Corp, estimates that

a typical [American] customer who pays $9.99 to buy 1,000 shares priced around $35 apiece could see that charge rise sevenfold, to around $70 on the trade.

Which will have the EU’s desired outcome.  Jiganti was caught by surprise by all of this:

To be honest, I thought that cooler heads would prevail.  I thought the US government would take care of it before it really became an issue.

For all of Treasury’s sharp words about the tax, though, don’t expect any real action.  President Barack Obama, Treasury’s boss, has never met a tax he didn’t like.  He’s not going to oppose this one in any meaningful way.

China’s Economic Course

Posted on by
Reply

In a nation that’s facing a demographic implosion (a birth rate of around 1.5 against a rate of roughly 2.1 required to maintain current population levels, and an aging population (expected by 2050 (the current generation plus their children) to have four workers in the age band 50-64 for every three aged 15-29, and for every 100 people aged 20-64, 45 over 65), that chronically lives on the edge of famine, and that has a population increasingly aware of what could be compared to what is, the PRC government is not treating its poor or its farmers (22% of whom will be over 65 as early as 2030—the current generation) very well.  And so it’s not treating its society or its economy with any foresight.

For instance:

In December 2010, when [Fu Liang]  says a campaign of harassment drove him off the small plot where he ran a fish farm, the local government paid Mr Fu just nine yuan ($1.45) a square meter for it.

The plot was quickly resold for 640 yuan [$103.11] per square meter to a developer, a national database of land transactions shows.  The developer has built villas that sell for 6,900 yuan [$1,111.67] a square meter.

A markup of a factor of nearly 10 at each stage.  Fu’s 9 yuan meter of fish farm was worth far more than he was paid.  In another sense, it was priceless, since he didn’t want to sell.

Mr Fu now is unemployed, one among tens of thousands of former farmers who inhabit the impoverished fringes of Chengdu, a city in southwestern China.  He has no heart to start another business.  “What’s the point if the government can just destroy it?” he says.

With no sense of irony, the PRC’s new president, Xi Jinping, claims to want strengthen that demographically unstable society and its unstable economy—through property (land) ownership.  After all, as Fu pointed out,

precarious land rights mean little incentive to invest in improving agricultural output, and no asset that can be sold to fund a move to the city.  Low compensation for the millions ousted from their land—coupled with ineligibility for social benefits because they aren’t registered as urban residents—means for many a life of poverty on the edges of the cities.

And no incentive to bring additional children—boys only, mind, in a mandated one child environment, with the bias’ own long-run population sustainability implications—into the world.  And the one-child policy was put in place explicitly to achieve the population reduction about to occur sharply.

Fat chance for any serious change:

“Push forward scientific development and advance social harmony,” proclaims a banner draped across one construction site, parroting a catch phrase of Xi’s predecessor, Hu Jintao.  Mr Fu, surveying a noodle bowl of highway overpasses, said, “A few years ago, this was all farmland.”

Because farmland—the means of feeding the population—stands in the way of progress.  Xi will have a great deal of trouble reversing that, especially with the money to be made converting farmland to urban land.

A Waste of Legislative Energy

Posted on by
Reply

…and a potential First Amendment violation.  Especially in a conservative environment, this is surprising.

The North Carolina House is set to vote on a bill that would

amend the state’s indecent exposure law to expand the legal definition of “private parts” to explicitly include “the nipple, or any portion of the areola, or the female breast.”

And if such exposure were to be deemed

for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire

the evil miscreant could convicted of a felony and locked away in a North Carolina jail for six months.  “More mundane exposures” (whatever those are) could be guilty of a misdemeanor—and still locked up, now for 30 days.

Of course, it’s hard to discriminate such exposures from political speech, but that apparently doesn’t concern those good legislators.  And a woman’s breast is, perforce, an obscene thing, to be kept hidden away—and state legislators are far better judges of such morality than are the rubes of the villages, towns, and cities who’ve already made their choice on this matter.

Which brings me to the state’s…rationale…for this exercise.

Co-sponsor Rep Rayne Brown, R-Davidson, told members of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that her bill was triggered by topless rallies promoting women’s equity that were held during the last two years in Asheville.

Oop—there’s that tacky free speech thing.

No matter; she added in all seriousness,

There’s some confusion about the law.  I think our state deserves clarity on this issue.

Never mind that there is no confusion.  The police of a town know their town’s ordinances.  They have no need of knowing the differences with another town’s ordinances; they have no jurisdiction over there.

Nor is there any confusion on the part of the state police.  They have no jurisdiction inside the town limits unless they’re enforcing a state law.  Oh, wait—let’s make a state law, and give them jurisdiction.