- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,439
- 24,106
- 2,290
Fewer hours worked means more hours to persue personal interests.
In reality, it means lower incomes and financial hardship...unless the workers find additional part time jobs.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fewer hours worked means more hours to persue personal interests.
Fewer hours worked means more hours to persue personal interests.
In reality, it means lower incomes and financial hardship...unless the workers find additional part time jobs.
Companies converting full time workers to part time suggests they were over staffed to begin with.
Companies converting full time workers to part time suggests they were over staffed to begin with.
Where do you think I got the 8.2 million from????You are such a hack moron. Try reading the BLS report and supporting tables for comprehension.BigotBarf, no wonder it is a meaningless stat designed to deceive the Misinformation Voter.
Only 8.2 million of the 144 million or 5.69% are working part time who want to work full time.
But that number isn't very scary, so the deliberate deceivers include the people who only want to work part time, and people who don't want to work at all, like stay at home spouses, students over 16 years old, the disabled and retirees and then you have a bigger scarier but totally meaningless number that the gullible will swallow whole.![]()
Companies converting full time workers to part time suggests they were over staffed to begin with.
With all due respect, Mr Clean? You're doing intellectual contortions to try to explain away the very obvious effects of ObamaCare on unemployment numbers.
Companies are reacting to the looming ObamaCare regulations by turning full time positions into part time positions so that they don't have to absorb the costs of having to pay for full time employee's health care. It has NOTHING to do with staffing levels! To even try and make that claim is ridiculous.
The truth is...if the people who wrote the ACA had thought it through before they rushed it through, they would have recognized the problem this was going to create. It's what happens when people with little to no experience with running a business attempt to pass legislation that will effect businesses.
The remedy to this would be two fold.
A return to Unions. A change in the tax code that would punish for outsourcing.
Neither solution is something you guys would ever support.
The remedy to this would be two fold.
A return to Unions. A change in the tax code that would punish for outsourcing.
Neither solution is something you guys would ever support.
Neither are dems, btw.
Nowhere in their rhetoric is changing the tax code even close.
Fewer hours worked means more hours to persue personal interests.
Companies converting full time workers to part time suggests they were over staffed to begin with.
The remedy to this would be two fold.
A return to Unions. A change in the tax code that would punish for outsourcing.
Neither solution is something you guys would ever support.
Neither are dems, btw.
Nowhere in their rhetoric is changing the tax code even close.
Depends on Dems you are talking about.
You lost any credibility you might have had.
Dude, please.
A non jewish person using the moniker "Rabbi" and you talk about credibility?
![]()
Yeah, you have none. You live in LaLaLand where reality is whatever you think it is. You think Obamacare has no effect on companies' plans to hire, even though probably every CEO thinks that is a major consideration.
You think Zimmerman is guilty only because you wailed on some guy like Trayvon did so identify with him.
You got canned from your job sweeping floors for a brokerage house because you pissed in the trash cans so you blame outsourcing.
There's no end of crazy.
Neither are dems, btw.
Nowhere in their rhetoric is changing the tax code even close.
Depends on Dems you are talking about.
legislative branch.
I would not oppose unionization if it is universal - meaning all the professions, not just some. and with severe restrictions on aristocrat status of union barons
And I sorta agree about the Unionization thing. But with an emphasis on keeping the mob..out.
Fewer hours worked means more hours to persue personal interests.
And I sorta agree about the Unionization thing. But with an emphasis on keeping the mob..out.
yes, the present mob as well.
Plus I would ban the donorship of union money for the political influence. Well, and all the lobbying, too.
But that is above dem-rep thing and it won't be done
And I sorta agree about the Unionization thing. But with an emphasis on keeping the mob..out.
yes, the present mob as well.
Plus I would ban the donorship of union money for the political influence. Well, and all the lobbying, too.
But that is above dem-rep thing and it won't be done
Fine, then ban all corperate and business donorship. Empty K-Street. Otherwise, shut up.
Neither are dems, btw.
Nowhere in their rhetoric is changing the tax code even close.
Depends on Dems you are talking about.
legislative branch.
I would not oppose unionization if it is universal - meaning all the professions, not just some. and with severe restrictions on aristocrat status of union barons