ObamaCare Kills Workweek By White House's Own Metric

Obamacare is great.... as long as you don't live in the USA. So much has turned out to be bogus regarding the law... further proof of how poorly written it was. It's a mess any anyone with half a brain see's this now.... to bad now is a little to late.

The metric put forward by the White House last year to prove that ObamaCare wasn't shrinking the workweek has sunk like a stone ever since and just crashed to a record low.

In June, the number of people regularly working just above 30 hours a week in their primary job fell to a record low relative to the ranks clocking just below ObamaCare's full-time threshold, Current Population Survey data show.

For every 100 people with usual work hours of 25 to 29 per week, there were a record low 55 people working a 31- to 34-hour workweek in June, down from 73 when ObamaCare was signed into law in March 2010. In 20-plus years of data, this gauge has been so low in only one other month: April 2000.

While much of the debate over ObamaCare's impact on work hours has focused on the number of part-time workers across the economy, that metric is of limited use. That's in part because the ObamaCare mandate is mostly an issue for employers with a primarily modest-wage workforce, so the law's impact on part-time work is easily obscured by the recovering labor market and longer work hours in nonlow-wage industries.

Another reason debate over the number of part-timers misses the point is the wide gap between full-time as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (a total of at least 35 hours per week in one or more jobs) and ObamaCare (at least 30 hours per week in a single job).

That's why the White House Council of Economic Advisers last year cited the lack of a "noticeable shift in employment just above or below the 30 hours per week threshold" to debunk claims that businesses were cutting work hours to limit liability under the law's employer mandate.

Yet nearly a year later, the shift in employment on either side of ObamaCare's full-time threshold is striking: Since December 2012, the number of people usually working 25 to 29 hours in their main job is up 713,000, or 21%, while the number clocking 31- to 34-hour weeks is down 161,000, or 6%.

The ratio in the accompanying chart above excludes roughly 5 million workers who are recorded as working exactly 30 hours because Census interviewers round each half-hour to the nearest hour. That makes it impossible to know how many more workers are clocking 29.5 hours, though anecdotal evidence suggests their ranks are rising.

While the CPS data are volatile and the margin of error rises when looking at a narrower slice of the workforce, the ratio of those working 31 to 34 hours vs. 25 to 29 hours is at a 14-year low when looked at on a three-month or six-month average basis.

The CPS data are telling a similar story as the more reliable industry-reported hours worked data. In private industries where pay averages up to $14.50 an hour for nonsupervisors, some 30 million rank-and-file workers are clocking an average of 27.4 hours per week. That's the shortest average workweek ever, excluding a few stormy months of this winter when weather-related absences spiked.

Since December 2012, these low-pay private industries have added, on net, 900,000 rank-and-file workers averaging just 19 hours per week.

Since the end of 2012, the average workweek among nonmanagers has shrunk 6.1% (nearly two hours) at general merchandise stores, 3.5% at home-center stores, 2.9% at home care providers to the elderly and disabled, 2.7% at retail bakeries and 1.4% at supermarkets.

While it's impossible to say how much responsibility ObamaCare bears for depressing work hours, it is telling that many of the anecdotal examples of firms blaming the law for their decisions to cut work hours fall into these low-wage industry groups. IBD has compiled a database listing 429 such anecdotes, with most of the documented examples coming from the public sector.

Employers with at least 100 full-time-equivalent workers will face fines next year based on work hours being measured in 2014. While the Obama administration delayed the employer mandate until the start of 2015 in July 2013, many employers had reason to restrict hours in advance of that delay.

Understanding the truth about the impact of the employer mandate is important, not least because the issue is closely linked to the debate over raising the minimum wage. The Congressional Budget Office has said the combination of a $10.10-per-hour minimum wage and ObamaCare's emplo... is likely to cause more job loss than a mandated wage hike by itself.

Employers who don't offer coverage will owe a nondeductible fine of $2,080 in 2015 for each full-time worker (beyond 30 workers). For a profitable firm facing a 39.2% combined state and federal tax rate, that's the equivalent of $3,420 in wages, or $1.65 an hour for a 40-hour-per-week, year-round worker.

Views: 160

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And when the business portion of Obama care fully  kicks in we will be seeing a huge downward spike in that chart. I can see that chart falling below the 50% mark. My adivce is don't relax and think the worse is over until Obama care is fully implemented because if people make it through without loosing their jobs, having their hours reduced or the insurance their company has provided canceled then they can consider themselves lucky.

Obviously the statistics were kept before Obamacare or Clinton Care back in the 1990s were discussed.  One can see the very real consequences of the 30 hour mark in Obamacare already making a dent in the statistics without much of the sticker shock yet kicking in, this is to be expected.  What is odd is the fluctuations in the past with this metric, and why they ever began compiling it in the first place. 

I am hopeful that there are even more damning metrics recently improvised that show what is going to be a migration of job weeks going to 30 or below which can be more closely tied to the Obamacare tax scheme.

Great post WIlly, and to think, someone out there in a position of high authority and esteem on the liberal side said, " just pass it, we can always read it later". THAT Person didn't understand her job, as proven by that very statement! Has ANY Senator/Congressperson ever admitted to reading and digesting the entire legal brief and passed LAW? Thanks again Dave, another nice update on reality in DC.

Thanks Aquaman. I posted the video of the disgusting twit who said , pass the bill to find out what's in it. Not one Republican voted for it.


© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service