What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Part-time Nation: Was the April jobs report really the Obamacare jobs report?

James Pethokoukis | May 3, 2013, 10:05 am


http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/romerbernsteinApril13-600x340.jpg

US job growth in April beat economist expectations as nonfarm payrolls rose 165,000, and the jobless rate fell to a four-year low of 7.5%. But the report contained worrisome signs that President Obama’s health care reform law is hurting full-time, high-wage employment.

While the American economy added 293,000 jobs last month, according to the separate household survey, the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons — “involuntary part-time workers” as the Labor Department calls them – increased by almost as much, by 278,000 to 7.9 million. These folks were working part time because a) their hours had been cut back or b) they were unable to find a full-time job. At the same time, the U-6 unemployment rate — a broader measure of joblessness that includes discouraged workers and part-timers who want a full-time gig – rose from 13.8% to 13.9%.

What’s more, there wasa 0.2 hour decline in the length of the average workweek. This led to 0.4 percentage point drop in the index of average weekly hours, “equaling the largest declines since the recovery began,” notes economist Dean Baker of Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Let’s see, more part timers and fewer hours worked. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin says what we’re all thinking: “This is not good news as it reflects the reliance on part-time work. … the decline in hours and rise of part-time work is troubling in light of anecdotal reports of the impact of the Affordable Care Act.”

Anecdotal reports like this one from the Los Angeles Times: “Consider the city of Long Beach. It is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time employees to fewer than 27 hours a week, on average. City officials say that without cutting payroll hours, new health benefits would cost up to $2 million more next year, and that extra expense would trigger layoffs and cutbacks in city services.”

Now, there is the possibility that government furloughs are affecting the length of the workweek. (Though at the same time, steady if unspectacular private-sector job growth shows the Fed may be continuing to effectively offset any negative sequestration impact.) Here is JPMorgan on the subject:


Government shed a trend-like 11,000 jobs last month, a number which bore little evidence of a meaningful sequestration impact. Similarly, it is hard to directly link the decline in the average workweek to furloughed government workers, as the workweek only measures private industry hours. It’s conceivable the decline in the workweek may be related to the Affordable Care Act, but a simpler explanation is that it had jumped two ticks in the prior two months, and through the month-to-month noise is just settling into a stable trend.

We’ll see. But the combo of data and anecdotes should at least raise red flags about how health care reform could be permanently altering the structure of the American labor market.

A few other points:

1. The labor force participation rate was dead in the water. If it were back to January 2009 levels, the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%. Demographics are playing a role here. But even taking that into account may put the real unemployment rate in the 9% to 10% range.

2. Only 53.9% of private industries added jobs last month, the second lowest of the labor market recovery, according to JPM.

3. Even with the unemployment rate at a misleadingly low 7.5%, it is way above where the Obama White House predicted it would be if Congress passed the 2009 stimulus, as the above chart shows. Back then, Team Obama thought 5% was the economy’s full-employment rate but recently has upped that number to 5.4%.

4. If the economy continues to add jobs at the 2013 pace of 196,000 a month, the labor market would return to pre-recession employment levels in seven years and ten months, according to the Hamilton Project’s “jobs gap” calculator.http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/050313jobsgap.jpg
 
And the result would be a collective yawn followed by more manufactured conservative outrage. Basically nothing would be different.

are you saying that AMERICANS left to DIE

is NOTHING more then RW OUTRAGE?
 
Why the Good Jobs Report Should Worry the Obama Administration


By Kevin A. Hassett



Last month, the chattering classes were sent into a tizzy by the negative surprise from the March jobs report. Economists had expected that job creation would be about double the 88,000 that was reported, because of the relative strength of other data. Our advice in this space then was to sit back and wait for revisions:


The report is not as bad as it looks. Upward revisions to previous months added a whopping 61,000 jobs, so the positive jobs news is closer to 150,000 for the first quarter as a whole. If one adds the fact that upward revisions are becoming the rule rather thant the exception, it is possible that March will end up looking as anticipated in the fullness of time.

Fast forward to today, and March was revised upward to 138,000, and the April number was 165,000, pretty close to double the initial estimate for March. Putting it all together, it seems clear that the bones of the data are pretty healthy. Initial claims for unemployment insurance are down to near their pre-crisis levels, layoffs are at a twelve-year low, auto sales have headed back to almost normal levels, and growth is inching up. There is even life in housing.

This means, of course, that the sequester is not crushing the economy. In addition to making the administration’s apocalyptic rhetoric look foolish, there was another bit of bad news for the Obama administration in the data. The work week dropped pretty sharply in April, from 34.6 hours per week to 34.4 hours per week. This may be the start of a trend that heads significantly south from here.

Anecdotally, employers are cutting back on workers’ hours, trying to get below the 30-hour threshold in anticipation of the arrival of Obamacare in its full glory, which will leave part-time workers unaffected. Buried in the industry detail, the two segments of the labor market most likely to be impacted by Obamacare, retail trade and leisure and hospitality, both posted noticeable work-week declines. This may be a blip, or it may be the start of a large shift that will significantly harm workers.

If it continues, we may well enter uncharted territory, where jobs are created but economic growth remains week, because so many existing workers are seeing their work week cut.
 
They were expendable! Politically incorrect white guys who were slaughtered in a most politically inconvenient event. That's what he and others are saying. Nothing is more important than keeping Hillary's path to the White House unobstructed by charges of incompetence, and free of investigations that might reveal it. The road to leviathan must not detoured by the "bumps and glitches" inherently present in the application of Obama administration policy.
So Ambassador Stevens should have been provided with a gas mask and a bottle of oxygen so he wouldn't have to die from smoke inhalation?
 
Every American is expendable. We don't like to use that word but that's the fact. Yes, Bengazi is just right wing rage with no purpose whatsoever.
 
Then why did they support it?


Circle K Shifts Workers to Part-Time, Blames Obamacare




WFB

Circle K Southeast joined a growing list of national companies shifting workers to part-time status this week, in order to avoid paying Obamacare’s mandatory benefits, CBS-WTOC reports.

The alternative is to pay a $2,000 fine per fulltime worker who is not covered, leading Circle K to become the latest in a long line of companies to slice employee hours to avoid increased costs.

Regal Entertainment Group, the largest U.S. theater chain, specifically blamed Obamacare in April when it shifted many of its employees to below the 30-hour threshold to offset Obamacare, as did AAA Parking. Numerous restaurants, hotels and retailers have done or are considering the same.

Long Beach, Calif., located in heavily Democratic Los Angeles County, is cutting back the hours of employees to avoid the penalty, as has the state of Virginia and the city of Dearborn, Mich.

In March, The New York Times noted an “unsettling trend” in the rise of part-time workers during the languishing economic recovery in the U.S.

Earlier this week, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean acknowledged patients will be damaged by the legislation, and longtime advocate Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said Obamacare could cause premiums to go through the roof Thursday before trying to walk back the remarks.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has also said citizens purchasing new insurance policies for themselves this fall could face rising premiums due to the Affordable Care Act.

Read more at http://iowntheworld.com/blog/#J022BMjdI4gXCbAv.99
 
Hey yo, SAVAGE

looks like the testimony of peeps will show there was help 1 hr away for Benghazi, ready to g


THEY WERE TOLD TO STAND BACK
 
reality is....IT IS A TRAIN WRECK, and by now EVERYONE sees it!

..

Obamacare is on the horizon, but will enough people sign up?
ReutersBy David Morgan
.


.
.
U.S. President Barack Obama smiles as he walks on the South Lawn of the White House upon his return to Washington from Costa Rica May 4, 2013.


Reuters/Reuters - U.S. President Barack Obama smiles as he walks on the South Lawn of the White House upon his return to Washington from Costa Rica May 4, 2013. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas


.
.

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Healthcare reform should be the signature Democratic achievement of President Barack Obama's presidency.

But with "Obamacare" five months from show time, Democrats are worried about whether enough Americans will sign up to make the sweeping healthcare overhaul a success - and what failure might mean for Congress heading into the 2016 presidential race.

Some of the law's main advocates fear that not enough of America's 49 million uninsured will know about health coverage offered in their own states. Even if they do, new insurance plans may not be attractive to young, healthy consumers needed to offset an expected influx of older and sicker patients.

Only a handful of states are beginning campaigns to promote the online health insurance marketplaces created by the law. Known as exchanges, the markets will offer private coverage at federally subsidized rates to individuals and families with low-to-moderate incomes, with enrollment set to begin October 1.

The federal government has kept quiet about its promotion plans, which are expected to begin in earnest over the summer.

While Obama and his administration say they are working nonstop on reform, analysts believe a poor performance could make the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a big enough campaign issue in 2014 to jeopardize Democratic control of the Senate - particularly if insurance costs rise sharply.

"There is reason to be very concerned about what's going to happen with young people. If their (insurance) premiums shoot up, I can tell you, that is going to wash into the United States Senate in a hurry," said Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat.

Some Democrats are frustrated about the lack of details surrounding administration plans to promote the exchanges.

Senator Max Baucus, a chief architect of the reform law, said federal outreach efforts deserve a failing grade so far and could be heading for a "huge train wreck." [ID:nL2N0DA1A1] He criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for the scant information her department has provided.

FUNDING EMBARGO

"Why in late April can't they show us any of what they've got planned? The rollout plan should already be in existence," an exasperated Democratic Senate aide said separately.

The law is expected to cover 15 million Americans next year through the exchanges and an expansion of Medicaid. The overall number is forecast to jump to 38 million by 2022.

Reform is facing challenges on several fronts. Big insurers appear wary of participating, raising questions about how competitive the exchanges will be. [ID:nL2N0DJ1MU] Businesses are mounting a new legal effort to stop the use of federal subsidies in exchanges run by Washington. [ID:nL2N0DJ1JJ] And most states have balked at the exchanges and the Medicaid expansion.

Meanwhile, the enrollment effort is under threat from months of delay, a congressional Republican embargo on new funding and worries about how affordable the new plans will be, according to analysts, lawmakers, congressional aides and former officials.

"I don't see how what they're planning to do is going to be adequate. The resources are too limited, the (law's) penalties are too weak and elite opposition in much of the country will undermine" enrollment, said Paul Starr, a Princeton professor and former health adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Add to that the challenge of reaching a public that is highly skeptical and often misinformed about the most complex social legislation since Medicare and Medicaid in the mid-1960s.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 77 percent of Americans know little or nothing about exchanges, while 40 percent erroneously think reforms create a government panel to make end-of-life decisions for people on Medicare.

An April survey of 1,003 people by HealthPocket, an online company that helps consumers find insurance, also found that the law's penalty for not buying coverage would not induce most 25-to-34-year-olds or 18-to-24-year-olds to purchase it.

GLITCHES AND BUMPS

Obama this week defended the pace of implementation, telling reporters that the government was working hard to "make sure that we're hitting all the deadlines and the benchmarks" even with the challenge of building the new online exchanges.

"That's still a big, complicated piece of business," Obama said, adding the task was made harder by a dedicated Republican opposition still determined to block the law's implementation.

"Even if we do everything perfectly, there'll still be, you know, glitches and bumps," he said.

The administration is building exchanges in 33 states that are unwilling or unable to do so on their own, and has limited funds for marketing. The remaining 17 states are building their own and have received sizable budgets for outreach.

Among states taking the lead, Vermont has launched radio advertising to raise public awareness. Colorado begins its public outreach this month, while California, Maryland and the District of Columbia will hold off until later in the year.

For the federal exchanges, HHS has a contract worth at least $8 million with public relations firm Weber Shandwick and $54 million to train and pay "navigators," or counselors who will help consumers choose a health plan. It also has a $28 million contract with General Dynamics to set up a call center and will make its Healthcare.gov website consumer-oriented.

The administration is seeking help from major U.S. insurance providers to market aggressively to consumers on the federally run exchanges and help convince healthy citizens between 26 to 45 to pay for insurance instead of a first-year penalty amounting to $95 per person or 1 percent of household income.

BLOWING UP

But reform advocates worry that the HHS budget is too small and the spigot for new funding from Congress is shut off by partisan politics. The "navigator" program allocates just $600,000 each for 13 states including Delaware, Iowa, Kansas and New Hampshire.

"There's a limited amount of money that should be increased. But that's subject to appropriations and Congress is not likely to appropriate additional money," said Ron Pollack of the advocacy group Families USA. "It's going to require a very robust effort in the private sector."

Analysts say reform could be as big an issue in next year's congressional midterm elections as it was in 2010, when dislike for the law among senior citizens helped install a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. This time, failed implementation could end Democratic hopes of recapturing the House and leave enough Senate Democrats vulnerable to give Republicans an edge in that chamber.

"We have to see how bad it is. This issue blowing up on Democrats would make the Republicans' job a lot easier," said Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report.

But Democrats believe implementation will also provide favorable coverage of deserving individuals and families finally being able to secure adequate and affordable health coverage after a long sojourn through the current marketplace.

There has been encouraging news for consumers. Vermont says 2014 premium rates will save money for residents. A family of four with an annual income of $75,000 would pay less than $600 per month for coverage with a federal subsidy, versus $900 for the cheapest small group plan available today.

(Additional reporting by Sharon Begley and Caroline Humer in New York; Editing by Michele Gershberg, Mary Milliken and Lisa Shumaker)
 
Why not raise it to $100 an hour then:confused:

Why ask stupid questions? Ultimately it's like asking why not lower taxes to .001% if lower taxes equals higher revenue or opposite lets raise it to 100%. There is a balance in all things. The current minimum wage is below what most people think that balance is and their evidence is that full time minimum wage requires government assistance to live. 47% of all Americans are on some kind of government assistence.

Unless you plan to argue that half of Americans are lazy and unwilling to work something's got to give. Either the pay needs to raise, or the stigma of welfare and how it's distributed needs to be altered. Most people would rather the former (though in practice they are roughly the same.
 
Looks like the IRS and the government are in trouble with this case against Obama care:


That suit is trying to say that the IRS can't give out tax credits, a provision of Obamacare that enjoys tremendous popularity even with Republicans.

Basically when the law was written it was assumed States would be all setting up their on exchanges that would use a free marketplace to drive down cost through open competition, and that sliding-scale subsidies would be given to those who are deserving. Then when States were freed up to not run exchanges and allow the Federal government to do so, there was no text in the law that said the Federal government could give the credits, it was still only technically written to be handled by the states.

The reason this lawsuit is weak is because either way the law still says that exchange credits are issued by the IRS. It's going to be clear to any court that the intent of the law was for credits to be handed by the IRS because that's what's in the IRS's code. The technicality is that it's no longer the states determining eligibility and then passing that information on to the IRS, it's the Federal exchanges determining eligibility. It's a stupid, desperate lawsuit that's going nowhere and wasting taxpayer dollars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top