All of the really nasty, expensive aspects of Obamacare that were illegally delayed by Obama for political reasons until after the mid-term elections now go into effect. This, along with the delusional actions of voters and politicians in many states to increase the minimum wage, will crush small businesses and result in full-time workers losing their jobs. Americans are about to realize there are no free lunches, and passing ridiculous legislation has consequences. Bend over for your mandatory never ending Obamacare rectal exam.
These 19 States Just Hiked The Minimum Wage: Here Come The “Unintended Consequences”
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/02/2015 09:18 -0500
Starting on January 1, 2015, a one year-delayed component of Obamacare kicks in: according to the health care law, businesses that employ at least 100 full-time workers — or full-time equivalents, including part-time workers — must offer health benefits to at least 70% of those working at least 30 hours a week by Thursday, or pay a penalty. This will expand to by next year, when companies will have to provide insurance to 95% of their workers, and firms with 50 to 99 employees must offer coverage as well. As a result, and as even the USA Today reports, “many businesses in low-wage industries have hired more part-time workers and cut the hours of full-timers recently to soften the impact of new health law requirements that take effect Thursday.”
More details:
Businesses in low-wage sectors, such as restaurants, retail and warehousing, are feeling bigger effects because health insurance represents an outsize share of their total employee costs, says Rob Wilson, head of Employco, a human resources outsourcing firm. Many of those with just fewer than 100 staffers have hired more part-timers in recent months, while those with at least 100 are reducing the hours of existing employees, he says.
Michelle Neblett, senior director of labor and workforce policy for the National Restaurant Association, says many restaurants are being more cautious about boosting the workweek of part-timers to 30 hours or more, doling out such increases to reward top performers.
Those strategies have not had a noticeable impact on the labor market. Monthly job growth has averaged 240,000 this year, up from 194,000 in 2013. And full-time employment has increased at about twice the rate of part-time payrolls, Labor Department figures show.
Still, the number of part-time workers who say they’d prefer full-time jobs has remained stubbornly high. That can at least partly be traced to the inclination of the restaurant, retail and hotel industries to hire more part-time workers to sidestep the ACA mandate, Royal Bank of Scotland wrote in a recent report.
Of course, the reason why the BLS has not yet revealed the reality of the shifting US labor force, and why there is virtually no real wage growth across the US since the Lehman bankruptcy, is that the BLS simply backs into statistically goal-seeked results, using seasonal and statistical (birth/death) adjustments to smooth a trendline to beat a monthly bogey used by algos to bid stocks higher. Meanwhile, the reality at the micro level, is that increasingly more Americans are seeing their work status transformed from full-time to part-time status, earning less in the process, having no healthcare and retirement benefits and virtually no job security.
As a result, starting this year, some 19 states just increased their minimum wage threshold, with 3 more states due to follow later in 2015. This takes place at the state level because for numerous reasons, there simply wan’t enough of a consensus to pass this at the Federal level. The Daily Signal has the details:
In three states—Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota—voters approved ballot measures in November to increase the minimum wage, effective Jan. 1, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Alaska voters passed an initiative raising the minimum wage in the state to begin Jan. 1. But the pay increase isn’t effective until 90 days after the election results are certified, Feb. 24.
Meanwhile, legislatures in seven states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia—approved laws boosting the minimum wage. Those laws go into effect today.
Though Delaware and Minnesota’s state lawmakers voted to raise the minimum wage, those increases won’t begin until June and August, respectively. The District of Columbia will see a minimum wage hike beginning July 1. New York raised its minimum wage to $8.75 an hour beginning yesterday and will see another increase to $9 an hour beginning Dec. 31, 2015.
Nine other states will see increases in their minimum wages today as state laws mandate automatic increases to make up for rising prices. Those states are: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon and Washington.
Among states raising the minimum wage, Washington state will boast the highest at $9.47 an hour–but only until July 1, when the District of Columbia will have the highest in the nation at $10.50 an hour.
These are the states in question:
So in the grand scheme of this this should be net neutral: more part-time jobs offset by higher wages, not too bad right? Wrong.
For one thing, For according to a recent UCSD study, for three years, researchers followed low-income workers residing in states that saw wage hikes and those that did not. The study found that minimum wage hikes had negative impacts on employment, income and income growth. In other words, the probability of part-, and full-time workers to get fired rises even more as a result of an artificial push to the wage/labor supply-demand curve.
In fact, while one can applaud the attempt to boost standards of living, one can be certain that the only thing the media will be focusing on in 2015 will be the “unintended consequences” of this action:
“Minimum wage supporters have good intentions, but those good intentions cannot repeal the law of unintended consequences,” James Sherk, an expert in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. He added: “Minimum-wage increases reduce the total earnings of low-wage workers — the higher pay for some workers gets completely offset by the nonexistent pay of those no longer employed.”
In its study, UCSD researchers found that after minimum-wage increases, the national employment-to-population ratio decreased by 0.7 percent points between December 2006 and December 2012.
In addition, the study found that minimum-wage increases hindered low-skilled workers’ ability to rise to lower-middle -lass earnings.
And then there are rising prices. As shown previously, just the adverse impact to the bottom line already led to increases in consumer prices across various restaurants in the US.
That’s just the beginning. As small and medium-businesses struggle across America to make ends meet, it is the big businesses that have all the economies of scale and all the leverage. And, as a result, prepare for this:
Which is just the intended result: after all, the one thing missing from the “recovery” is inflation. Well, prepare to welcome unintended consequences number one of central planning. The only problem, declining wages aren’t going anywhere. And that’s for those who are lucky enough to hold jobs. Also, don’t forget that the only shining spot in the US wage field – shale jobs – is finished, and going forward not only will the shale patch not generate rising wages, but will in fact lead to the largest surge in layoffs seen in years.
Which is precisely what propaganda is for. And after all, Americans who can no longer afford to buy, or even rent a home can always live in their car, and now, thanks to plunging gas prices, heat themselves while sleeping in someone’s driveway. Because as the media loves reminding us each and every day, sub $2 gas is a “tax cut” for improverished American consumers everywhere.
Now if only those same consumers had full-time jobs and/or anything resembling stable (forget rising) wages, they would even spend more just as Keynesian theory suggests, if only in theory.
Control of the consolidated mainstream media is the lynchpin in Obamacare damage control. Instead of exposing this monstrosity, they will ignore it as the cause for employment destruction in this country and will instead peddle out all usual lines. Can’t make ends meet? It’s “capitalism,” “greedy employers,” or “lack of hiring regulations.” Like an enabler pushing more booze on a hangover victim, the whorespondents will jump at the opportunity to advocate for more regulation as a solution to the part time problem.
Everyone under 30, is truly screwed. A bachelor’s degree no longer qualifies you for junior management, and overqualifies you for entry level jobs. If you hold out for a real job you face bankruptcy plus explaining a “work gap” on your resume. If you fold and take a part time menial job you are typecast as a burger flipper to any future employers. You’ll still be at the back of the bus as preference will go to illegals with sporting their new out of state driver’s licenses and work permits. You will have to learn to speak Spanish or be fired for not accommodating company diversity policies. Faced with this humiliating prospect for a 29 hour a week job that merely slows the rate of your indebtedness it’s hard not to blame the millennials for sitting in the basement with the XBox.
If it weren’t for the job losses, I’d really like to see most of these fast food joints go out of business. As a kid I doubt that my family went out to eat (anywhere) more often than once a month and I doubt that it was even that frequent. So many people today, mostly millennials I’d bet, eat out twice a day or more.
My father lives in Boise and says that the building of retail space and restaurants continues unabated. He says that just driving around town it appears as though the restaurants are standing room only during peak hours. He can’t figure out where the money is coming from unless it is from former Californians bailing out of CA.
5 bucks for two iced teas?
And 6.49 for a fucking hot dog?
.
I will not be going to Gators or Taco Hell for that matter
The insurance lobby basically wrote the ACA. Shocker that the big insurance companies want to rape other businesses while also getting subsidized by big groperment.
Who would have thought that when you increase wages, prices go up, and when prices go up, people buy less of the product. That cannot be correct, now, could it?
These shitstain left-wing politicians have managed to convince the fucking sheeple that when you increase the cost of something – wages – that people will not use less of it, and that it will actually be a good thing as those poor workers will now have the money to buy more stuff, and that even f the price of goods goes up as a result, hey – the rich can afford it!
We are in a death spiral.
Big government “educates” millions, graduating functional illiterates, who then vote for corrupt politicians in exchange for someone else’s stuff. Rinse and repeat.
This works until it doesn’t. That day is coming, and then the Free Shit Army is going to go bonkers. It won’t be pretty, but it will be interesting.
Now, how about if we raise the minimum to $12 instead of $15, No, wait, Let the eat cake!
PlanetRetail is reporting on a leaked Walmart internal memo about how they plan to deal with these wage increases:
“According to the memo, Walmart plans to mitigate the cost of the increase by trimming the premium paid workers in higher skilled positions, such as deli associates and department supervisors, over those in lower grade jobs, such as cashiers, cart pushers and maintenance, whose three separate pay grades will be collapsed into one base rate.”
As ObamaCare enters its Power, fifth year, there are still major components of the law to be worked out for the first time.
Both the individual mandate and the employer mandate – which are considered vital pillars of the president’s landmark healthcare law – will confront new challenges in 2015. Doctors and hospitals will also face new penalties for failing to comply with federal rules such as those requiring the use of e-records.
The stakes are high in 2015. The administration will be hoping that ObamaCare regains ground after a muddy patch over the last few weeks that included controversies around the administration’s famously blunt former adviser Jonathan Gruber, an inflated enrollment tally and a new legal threat to the law’s subsidies.
Employer mandate goes into effect
After years of delays, businesses with at least 100 employees will be forced to offer insurance for the first time in 2015.
Business groups have lobbied hard against the controversial rule, which they have called a major headache that will force layoffs and less hours for workers.
The twice-delayed penalty has also been tweaked over the last two years to require less paperwork for employers. Medium-sized companies, with staffs of between 50 and 100, will have until 2016 to offer coverage.
The GOP-led House has voted numerous times to delay – and ultimately repeal – the employer mandate. The Senate’s incoming Republican leadership has also floated the same approach as part of its battle plan in 2015.
Fines levied for individual mandate
Most Americans have been required to have health insurance since January 2014, but the financial penalties for those who ignored the mandate will only go into effect during tax season this spring.
Each person without insurance will pay $95 or 1 percent of their income, whichever is higher.
The mandate is a crucial part of ObamaCare, meant to push people of all ages and health conditions to seek coverage – and balance the influx of older and sicker people who were expected to flood the marketplaces with younger, healthier counterparts.
Implementing the new fines next year will require full attention from the Internal Revenue Service. It will likely be a major challenge for the already cash-strapped agency that is dealing with sharp budget cuts and new responsibilities such as the employer mandate.
Primary care doctors face pay cut
Family doctors who treat Medicaid patients will see steep drops in payments from the federal government that could make it tougher for millions of low-income people to find care.
Reimbursements from Medicaid will shrink an average of 43 percent starting in January, when the federal government’s temporary raise for primary care doctors is set to expire.
The federal government had raised its reimbursement rates to entice more doctors to accept Medicaid patients under ObamaCare. Patients with Medicaid have been historically known to cost healthcare providers far more than they are repaid for the treatment, causing some doctors to turn away patients.
Medicaid has added 10 million people to its rolls under ObamaCare, reaching a total of 63 million enrollees this year. While Congress decided not to make the hikes permanent, at least 15 states will keep at least a portion of the new payment rates to help Medicaid patients.
Medicare doctors fined for not using e-records
More than 270,000 doctors and 200 hospitals nationwide will see funding cuts from Medicare next year for failing to meet new government requirements for electronic medical records.
The Obama administration has sought to encourage “meaningful use” of e-records and e-prescribing systems to make healthcare providers more efficient and cut down on communication errors that can harm patients.
But the effort has come under fire from some providers who say patients are harmed by the cuts to their reimbursement rates. The cuts will increase to 3 percent within three years.
Electronic medical records have been increasingly adopted by healthcare providers across the country, though the steep investment costs – about $165,000 for an average five-person practice in the first year – continue to be a burden.
CHIP funding set to expire
A 27-year program that has helped millions of children gain insurance is set to end next year without new steps from Congress.
Under ObamaCare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, is reauthorized until 2019 but only funded through September of next year.
The program provides coverage to about 8 million children annually and has been praised by lawmakers of both parties.
Still, members of Congress have failed to take steps to fund the program despite urgent pleas from governors who say they need to know immediately whether the program will end.
While some of the children currently enrolled could now find other options under ObamaCare, the program’s coverage tends to be more generous with deductibles and copays, as well as wider doctor networks, than cheaper plans on the exchanges.
The next Obamacare controversy is right around the corner.
Obamacare enrollees who received subsidies to help pay for coverage will soon have to reconcile how much they actually earned in 2014 with how much they estimated when they applied many, many months ago.
This will likely lead to some very unhappy Americans. Those who underestimated their income either will receive smaller tax refunds or will owe the IRS money.
That’s because subsidies are actually tax credits and are based on annual income, but folks got their 2014 subsidy before knowing exactly what they’d make in 2014. So you’ll have to reconcile the two with the IRS during the upcoming tax filing season.
It won’t be surprising if many enrollees guessed wrong. The sign up period began in October 2013 and many people did not know what they’d earn in 2014. Some went off what they earned in 2012.
Also, it was up to consumers to report major changes in their circumstances, such as landing a new job or getting married, so their subsidy amounts could be recalculated.
We’re not talking chump change. Those who applied through the federal exchange received an average monthly subsidy of $264, according to the most recent figures reported by the Obama administration. They only had to pay $82 a month, on average, for coverage, Roughly 85% of total enrollees received help with insurance premiums. The administration last month said 2014 enrollment was 6.7 million.
Those who underestimated their earnings could owe thousands of dollars, though there is a $2,500 cap for those who remain eligible for subsidies. The threshold for eligibility is based on income – $45,900 for an individual and $94,200 for a family in 2014.
Of course, those who overestimated their 2014 income may get a healthier-than-expected refund. And some will see no change.
Related: Supreme Court to review another Obamacare legal challenge
Here’s what happens next:
Obamacare enrollees should receive Form 1095-A from their exchange by Jan 31. It lists who in the household had policies and how much they received in monthly subsidies.
Taxpayers will then use that documentation to fill out Form 8962, which asks details on insurance, subsidies and income. If they were not covered for the entire year, they have to break down the subsidy payments by month.
“It will be very difficult for those individuals who received premium tax credits to prepare their taxes on their own and get this straight,” said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.
Also concerning is whether the Form 1095-As will contain accurate information and whether the exchanges will send them by the end of January, said Jost, who writes about Obamacare for the Health Affairs blog.
Exchange officials interviewed do not expect there to be problems with their record keeping. The federal exchange is currently testing its process to confirm premium and subsidy amounts with insurers to make sure can generate accurate tax forms.
“Consumers will receive their 1095-A from the [exchange] in the mail and it will be posted to their online healthcare.gov account during tax filing season,” said Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees the federal exchange. If there are errors, they can go to healthcare.gov/taxes to get a corrected form.
Covered California, the largest state-based exchange, expects to mail its forms on Jan. 20, said Dana Howard, the exchange’s deputy director of communications.
Consumers who have trouble filling out their returns shouldn’t expect to get timely help from the IRS. The agency had its budget cut, and its commissioner recently said it may only be able to answer just over half the phone calls received.
“Phone calls won’t be answered even as poorly as they were last year,” said Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
Why Jeb, if elected, will not repeal ACA
I’m going to pay the tax and go my way.I want have health insurance but I don’t have it now .Lost my coverage last summer.
bb
How are you going to pay for your lithium and sex change hormones?
LOL Admin. Don’t confuse the truck stop pantie tramp.
Admin , ,I’m not sure . I guess I’m going to beg mom for some money.
Lost my coverage last summer. -bb
Don ‘t think that will work beebs…the last time you borrowed from her you got a tramp-stamp on your backside.
I am sorry all, and ashamed, I signed up.
2 years after they cancelled me, and the scepter of IRS fines I caved.
Sorry for funding the total monstrosity.
Stupid people with no idea…
I think John Cleese expresses it well:
Supreme Court: Mark Levin Submits Amicus Brief In ObamaCare Subsidy Battle
FacebookTwitter Share Email
By Katie Pavlich, Townhall
Conservative radio host and Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin has submitted an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in King v. Burwell, the Obamacare legal case that will be heard by the Supreme Court on March 5, 2015. The case addresses whether “the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Essentially, the case looks at whether federal subsidies are legal and available to people living in states that did not set up their own Obamacare exchanges.
“This is a case about first principles. The Executive Branch has not only exceeded the boundaries of the legislative power, but has done so in an effort to circumvent the principles of representative government to avoid securing the consent of the governed,” the brief states. “The Constitution separates the powers of government to protect the liberty of the American people and prevent the tyranny of a self-aggrandizing government. Attempts by the Executive Branch to assume the legislative function deprives the People of an open debate conducted by their politically accountable representatives and is antithetical to the Constitution’s design.”