It was already happening. Thanks to our corrupt media, it was not drummed into many what has been happening the last year with the so-called jobs recovery. A large chunk of the recently added new jobs have been part-time jobs. This is due to ObamaCare being (astoundingly upheld by the Supreme Court in one of the more baffling decisions handed down in years) upheld and the reaction to that decision. Also, many part-time workers who had been working 30-35 hours per week, have had their hours cut back to 25 hours per week. So, in the U.S. wages, income earned, and hours worked have been pretty stagnant. But the headlines scream "100,000+ jobs added". Also, if you look at the numbers of the past several years the picture emerges of what has happened in the United States: Millions of Americans that had full time employment before the crash, many of whom had decades of experience with above average wages and benefits, are still out of work or are underemployed/part-time. A large portion of the jobs created under Obama have been part-time jobs with below average wages and few benefits. The "recovery" has been a disaster for a significant portion of Americans, and many more will feel the pain of this jobs restructuring as many companies were holding out for the election results.
you guys seem to think that the move to 31.5 hour workweeks is a new invention...or that the crash was obamas fault.... look, he has failed to kickstart this country, but he certainly didnt tear it down from something good, he is trying to make shit into shitade
He did not. He wanted to "Transform" this country. He in no way was interested in bringing jobs back the way they were. You know what "Transform" means, right? And, I already said, the 30-35 hour workers have been and will continue to be changed to 25 per weed max workers. That is a NEW change. And thanks to Obama.
It's an interesting thought experiment, I think. The temptation to defect would be too high... if seven of eight companies in an industry did that, the eighth would be making money hand-over-first, and if one of eight did it, that business would go belly-up in no time. The risks of no significant defections would be too high, even if information was shared perfectly between decision-makers. Ed O.
This just comes down to how different people are in this country now. You can define it however you want, but the role and size of government is something that is hard to reconcile between the major voting blocs. I, personally, am very worried about the trajectory we are on and I, personally, don't see how so many people can no be freaked out about where we seem to be heading with our debt and our productivity and the expectations of our populace. I hope that maxiep's in the vast minority of educated and trained and productive members of society and that most continue to do what they do best in spite of governmental obstacles. I worry, though, that he is not. Ed O.
most people talk a big game, and do not actually follow suit. Like when states threaten to secede, it's all hot air. this is no different.
not at all, as I have pointed out to others there is a historic trend, lookat sears, payless, riteaid etc all did the same thing what I am saying is that lots of small, family owned business many with long term employees that were making half ass wages, well the owners are being forced to modify their business models because they can not continue with the added burden. oboma care is not some super cool and groovy "free" health care, no matter how much pixie dust you sprinkle on it, health care costs will go up, people that can not afford health care will be taxed for it
You're lying. Obama first promised it would lower overall healthcare spending. Then he promised it would be deficit neutral. Then he promised it would only cost $900B. Now the cost is estimated at $1.8T. Pull your head out.
more happy thoughts http://video.foxnews.com/v/19598836...eries-for-uninsured/?playlist_id=903226511001
those companies (hell MOST companies) have always tried to skirt right under the level of employment that requires benefits but obama sucks and i didnt vote for him, so yall barking up the wrong tree
The Obama Doctrine; “to fundamentally transform America” By Robert Amoroso Every administration since the founding of this great nation, have defined themselves, either through a preconceived ideology or through an event driven moment in our history that changes the course of a presidency. Such was the case with President Bush and the aftermath of 9/11. Within moments of the attack his presidency and America, were changed forever by events he couldn’t control. Fast forward to today, and one can see certain parallels with this administration and with that of the former, however unlike the Bush Administration, President Obama saw an opportunity to infuse his preconceived radical ideology to “"Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America", and the insightful comments by his Chief- of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel, in that “You Never Want a Serious Crises to go to Waste”. Within these two separate yet distinct comments lies the foundation of the Obama Doctrine, in that upon taking office Obama was faced with an immediate crisis…the potential financial collapse of our economy. However, rather then being a caretaker to a fragile economy, and simply shoring up the financial institutions, Obama and company have done just the opposite. They have used the financial crises as a guise to transform America, as he envisions it, into a hybrid form of European Socialism, through the redistribution of wealth, massive government entitlements, and government intervention and control of private industries. His obsession to spend an additional two trillion dollars and transform healthcare into another massive government controlled entitlement, at this critical moment in our nation’s financial history, speaks volumes of this president’s commitment to drive America deeper into debt, for a skewed ideology “to fundamentally transform America”. Astoundingly, we’ve gone from 7.7% unemployment rate, to a high of 10%, since President Obama has been in office, with no relief in sight. One would think that using the same tried and true economic principles of previous administrations, to stimulate an economy (irregardless of party), would have been the preferred strategy...remember the words from Rahm Emanuel…“You Never Want a Serious Crises to go to Waste”. However, my sense is that Obama and company hadn’t foreseen the rising populace backlash, by ordinary citizens, who have finally awakened, to the cesspool of corruption and ineptness that now grips Washington. The billions of dollars in bailouts, and the trillions of dollars confiscated as a “slush fund” for sweetheart deals, and outright bribery, can no longer be kept behind closed doors. This administration promised “transparency” and “change” what we got is a clever slight-of-hand from an inexperienced, inept, likeable and clever Chicago politician, who surrounds himself with radical ideologues and questionable characters. However, if he continues on this reckless spending and borrowing orgy he will eventually bankrupt this nation, and perhaps that’s been the plan all along…to overwhelm the system, as was outlined in 1966 by Cloward and Piven. Their strategy was to bring about a crisis in the welfare system that would require radical reforms, and to hasten the fall of capitalism, by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation "establishing a guaranteed national income.
Very reasoned and experienced business people on one side of this debate, and pooh throwing baboons on the other. What a fun read.
