Judy, you'll have to ask the Congressional Budget Office how they calculate *job Loss*, it's their wording. Perhaps a full time job , 40 hours a week, being cut to less than 30, is considered a lost job, from full time to part time. Also, businesses paring back so as to avoid regulation could be considered job loss. Example, a business has 60 full time employees. So they take 12 jobs and create 24 part time jobs to avoid the penalty, keeping them at 48 full time jobs and 24 part time jobs under 30 hrs. a week. Technically, that business wouldn't have to provide insurance for anybody at that point and could do so to be competitive or even under- cut a larger business that can't do that. However, my original point was two fold, there will be jobs lost and the spin is that it's not so bad because families will have more time together since some will be working less,whether they can afford it or not. Not the sign of a robust economy.
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 6:33 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" <authfri...@yahoo.com> wrote: Mike, there isn't going to be any "job loss." If someone quits their job, the job doesn't go away, It'll just go to somebody else. I wouldn't count on employers hiring many more people with the uncertainty of the ACA. The CBOhas estimated about 2.5 million job loss and will probably leave an estimated 31 million uninsured. A new 29-30 hr work week.This, being tauted as the new, desirable normal. Single mothers will *finally* be able to quit a job without fear of losing their healthcarefor their children, more people being *freed* of those undesirable jobs and able to stay home and cook meals at home and raise their children. Ah yes, they'll have government subsidized healthcarebut no jobs, More welfarestate, more debt, more borrowing, more *quantitativeeasing*, more government dependency, more regulation, less freedom. I didn't like the TM movement because somebody was always telling me what I *should or shouldn't do*. Now the federal government is becoming the same way, LOL! BTW I don't see the economy getting any better otherwise why would a political party that created this mess be screaming about *income inequality*? On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:15 PM, "jr_esq@..." <jr_esq@...> wrote: Mike, The increase of jobs is also dependent on the Federal Reserve Board's Quantitative Easing (QE) policy. If the interest rates remain low, there's a good chance that the employers will borrow more money to increase their sales. As such, they also will hire more people to provide services to their customers. If the economy gets better, the Fed should reduce its purchases of government bonds to prevent the rise of inflation. So far, the balancing act appears to be working.
